Carnegie's Views on Philanthropy
Although during his business years, Carnegie earned the reputation at best of being a hard-nosed businessman, and at worst a Machiavellian ‘robber baron’, Carnegie did not see philanthropy as merely an option; instead, he felt that it was a moral obligation to repay the society in which he was able to earn his wealth. In The Empire of Business, Carnegie (1902) says of the wealthy man:
"A man’s first duty is to make a competence and be independent. But his whole duty does not end here. It is his duty to do something for his needy neighbors who are less favored than himself. It is his duty to contribute to the general good of the community in which he lives. He has been protected by its laws. Because he has been protected in his various enterprises he has been able to make money sufficient for his needs and those of his family. All beyond this belongs in justice to the protecting power which has fostered him and enabled him to win pecuniary success. To try to make the world in some way better than you found it, is to have a noble motive in life" (p. 99).
However, although he was a particularly philanthropic person, Carnegie did not wish to engage in indiscriminate charity; he believed strongly that such actions would have a ‘pauperizing effect’ on those receiving the donation (Van Slyck, 1995). Indeed, in his 1889 essay, The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie (2006) says, “It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy” (p. 334). As such, he felt that his grants should inspire a sense of ownership in the benefiting communities, and that those communities would to need to be responsible for his gift into the future. It was for this reason that Carnegie only paid to build library buildings – he did not stock them with books and he did not give money to maintain libraries once they were built. Nasaw (2006) reports that Carnegie’s secretary, James Bertram, wrote that Carnegie would “offer communities a building, on condition that they would fill it with books and tax themselves for its maintenance…His real purpose was not to found libraries, himself, but to force the communities to do so” (p. 606).
Although during his business years, Carnegie earned the reputation at best of being a hard-nosed businessman, and at worst a Machiavellian ‘robber baron’, Carnegie did not see philanthropy as merely an option; instead, he felt that it was a moral obligation to repay the society in which he was able to earn his wealth. In The Empire of Business, Carnegie (1902) says of the wealthy man:
"A man’s first duty is to make a competence and be independent. But his whole duty does not end here. It is his duty to do something for his needy neighbors who are less favored than himself. It is his duty to contribute to the general good of the community in which he lives. He has been protected by its laws. Because he has been protected in his various enterprises he has been able to make money sufficient for his needs and those of his family. All beyond this belongs in justice to the protecting power which has fostered him and enabled him to win pecuniary success. To try to make the world in some way better than you found it, is to have a noble motive in life" (p. 99).
However, although he was a particularly philanthropic person, Carnegie did not wish to engage in indiscriminate charity; he believed strongly that such actions would have a ‘pauperizing effect’ on those receiving the donation (Van Slyck, 1995). Indeed, in his 1889 essay, The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie (2006) says, “It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy” (p. 334). As such, he felt that his grants should inspire a sense of ownership in the benefiting communities, and that those communities would to need to be responsible for his gift into the future. It was for this reason that Carnegie only paid to build library buildings – he did not stock them with books and he did not give money to maintain libraries once they were built. Nasaw (2006) reports that Carnegie’s secretary, James Bertram, wrote that Carnegie would “offer communities a building, on condition that they would fill it with books and tax themselves for its maintenance…His real purpose was not to found libraries, himself, but to force the communities to do so” (p. 606).
Criticism of Carnegie's Philanthropy
While Carnegie’s philanthropy was generally well-regarded, it did have its detractors. One criticism was that in building libraries across the country, Carnegie was paying for immortality in the form of monuments to himself. This accusation was bolstered by the false belief that a stipulation of accepting a Carnegie library was giving him credit for it, often in the form of his name carved over the library door (Jones, 1997). The fact that Carnegie steadily refused to buy books for the libraries he built, feeling that it was a town’s responsibility to fill a library with what materials were needed for that community, also came under fire as ‘putting the cart before the horse’ (Krass) or again, that he was building empty monuments for himself instead of trying to further general education by supplying communities with reading materials (Bobinski, 1969). One of the most widely-held criticisms of Carnegie’s philanthropy is that the money being donated was ‘tainted’ through his questionable business practices and treatment of employees (Krass). Socialists and laborers were especially outspoken about this aspect of Carnegie’s donations. When Carnegie offered a grant to Detroit for a library, C. H. Johnson of the Street Railway Employees said, “Carnegie ought to have distributed his money among his employees as he was making it. No man can accumulate such wealth honorably. It may be legally honest, but it’s not morally honest” (Bobinski, p. 91). However, it is safe that judging by the number of requests that came in for library grants, most people were not bothered enough by the criticisms of Carnegie’s intentions and ‘tainted money’ to dissuade them from seeking a new public library for their community.
While Carnegie’s philanthropy was generally well-regarded, it did have its detractors. One criticism was that in building libraries across the country, Carnegie was paying for immortality in the form of monuments to himself. This accusation was bolstered by the false belief that a stipulation of accepting a Carnegie library was giving him credit for it, often in the form of his name carved over the library door (Jones, 1997). The fact that Carnegie steadily refused to buy books for the libraries he built, feeling that it was a town’s responsibility to fill a library with what materials were needed for that community, also came under fire as ‘putting the cart before the horse’ (Krass) or again, that he was building empty monuments for himself instead of trying to further general education by supplying communities with reading materials (Bobinski, 1969). One of the most widely-held criticisms of Carnegie’s philanthropy is that the money being donated was ‘tainted’ through his questionable business practices and treatment of employees (Krass). Socialists and laborers were especially outspoken about this aspect of Carnegie’s donations. When Carnegie offered a grant to Detroit for a library, C. H. Johnson of the Street Railway Employees said, “Carnegie ought to have distributed his money among his employees as he was making it. No man can accumulate such wealth honorably. It may be legally honest, but it’s not morally honest” (Bobinski, p. 91). However, it is safe that judging by the number of requests that came in for library grants, most people were not bothered enough by the criticisms of Carnegie’s intentions and ‘tainted money’ to dissuade them from seeking a new public library for their community.
Carnegie and Libraries
Carnegie chose public libraries as one of the primary ways of spreading his fortune because he saw it, as Jeffrey (2009) said, as “a great equalizer, a place where those less fortunate had equal opportunity to educate themselves and to subsequently improve their position in society” (p. 28). Given how Carnegie (1902) states in the Empire of Business that a man’s ‘first duty’ is to be independent, it is logical that he would choose to support an institution that could help a man earn that independence through a free education.
Furthermore, Carnegie had an early introduction to the value of libraries. As a boy, Carnegie wrote a letter to the press asking that Colonel James Anderson’s small private library, which was open for ‘working boys’ to check out a book a week, also be available to employed young men who did not do manual labor, as messenger boys like Carnegie and others in similar positions were excluded from borrowing under the rules of the time (Carnegie, 2006). His letter was successful in persuading Anderson to open his library to additional employed young men, and the ability to able to visit this small library and check out a book a week clearly had a huge impact on young Carnegie. Judging by his later philanthropic activities, Carnegie took the value of free lending libraries with him throughout his life. In his autobiography, Carnegie says of this early exposure to Anderson’s library and the books it contained:
“…in this way the windows were opened in the walls of my dungeon through which the light of knowledge streamed in. Every day’s toil and even the long hours of night service were lightened by the book which I carried about with me and read in the intervals that could be snatched from duty. And the future was made bright by the thought that when Saturday came a new volume could be obtained.” (p. 44-45).
Carnegie chose public libraries as one of the primary ways of spreading his fortune because he saw it, as Jeffrey (2009) said, as “a great equalizer, a place where those less fortunate had equal opportunity to educate themselves and to subsequently improve their position in society” (p. 28). Given how Carnegie (1902) states in the Empire of Business that a man’s ‘first duty’ is to be independent, it is logical that he would choose to support an institution that could help a man earn that independence through a free education.
Furthermore, Carnegie had an early introduction to the value of libraries. As a boy, Carnegie wrote a letter to the press asking that Colonel James Anderson’s small private library, which was open for ‘working boys’ to check out a book a week, also be available to employed young men who did not do manual labor, as messenger boys like Carnegie and others in similar positions were excluded from borrowing under the rules of the time (Carnegie, 2006). His letter was successful in persuading Anderson to open his library to additional employed young men, and the ability to able to visit this small library and check out a book a week clearly had a huge impact on young Carnegie. Judging by his later philanthropic activities, Carnegie took the value of free lending libraries with him throughout his life. In his autobiography, Carnegie says of this early exposure to Anderson’s library and the books it contained:
“…in this way the windows were opened in the walls of my dungeon through which the light of knowledge streamed in. Every day’s toil and even the long hours of night service were lightened by the book which I carried about with me and read in the intervals that could be snatched from duty. And the future was made bright by the thought that when Saturday came a new volume could be obtained.” (p. 44-45).