The Gap Between The Poor And The Rich

America 's annexation of the Philippines was not a necessary decision. Supporters of the annexation believed it would benefit America economically. However, Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan stated in a speech, "It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them" (Document D). Trade with the Philippines could have been accomplished without occupying them. In addition, pro-imperialists exhibited a patronizing attitude toward the Filipinos; for instance, Albert J. Beveridge described the Philippines as "ours to save" (Document B). Many

In 1879 Henry George wrote an article titled “Progress and Poverty”. In this article he discussed the ongoing industry and he stated that “the wealthy class is becoming more wealthy; but the poorer class is becoming more dependent.

While they were only getting richer with their corrupt methods, the poorer classes were getting poorer because of the money they spent on the capitalists’ goods. In “The Robber Barons of Today, 1889”, the robber barons are seen with their “knightly” attire while the poor pay “tribute” to them. (Doc D) It represents the poor paying the “amazing” capitalists and being subservient for the goods they need. Also, in Henry George’s Progress and Poverty, 1879, it said that the gulf between the classes is getting wider and wider. Because of the industrial tycoons taking the poor’s money, they are getting richer. They are also providing fewer jobs since the industries usually have one major company for a particular manufacturing, and so “the poorer class is becoming more dependent” on the capitalists to provide jobs and goods. (Doc A) The robber barons took the poor’s money to become wealthier and to feed their greed while worsening the gap between the social

In the gilded ages dating back to the nineteenth century both Andrew Carnegie and Henry George were known as very influential men of their time both striving towards the common goal of deflating poverty in hopes to diminish it as a whole. Though both Andrew and Henry shared a similar feat they had very different approaches and ideas of methodizing the overall goal. Carnegie was a shrewes businessman who viewed it to be acceptable for very rich and very poor people to co-exist as long as the rich provided that their surpluses aspired the community with parks or libraries for example to better themselves known as the "lasting good," and

He discusses all that is wrong with the wealthy individuals and how they are spoiled. He makes his argument by revealing how wealth is disposed of, “There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can all be left to the families of the descendants; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administrated during their lives by its possessors” (3). The author is Andrew Carnegie and intended audience is the general public but more specifically are those of wealth and make them conscious of how surplus wealth is disposed of. This is a primary source and reveals that even though this was how the world was a decade ago, it is quite similar and not much has

were advocates against the annexation, many believed it was the right decision. Many individuals believed that taking the Philippines would help and better the country. For example, in Document C, William McKinley states that allowing the country to be independent would be wrong because the Philippines is unfit to self-govern and it could lead them anarchy like Spain. McKinley also states that there is no where else for the Philippines to go, he says that America cannot give them back to Spain because it would be shameful and that the country cannot be given to France or Germany because it would disgraceful. Therefore, America has no other choice but annex the Philippine Islands and save it from ruin. The individuals who fought for the annexation depended their arguments on what they perceived as the right thing to

As civilization has evolved, economic inequality has existed since the feudal era and has made its place in modern society. It is a dilemma that examines the gap between the low wealth of the middle-class worker and the profitable earnings of the monopolizing upper-class business owner. It is a socio- economic issue that can best explored through the lens of the conflict theory; thoroughly explaining as to how the wealth gap came to exist and the consequences of such an economic state on the interaction between the middle-class worker and the wealthy businessman.

Another victory through the Treaty of Paris was the possession of the Philippines. Though the Filipino independence leader Emilio Aguinaldo had aided in the defeat of Spain in 1898, USA refused independence to the Islands and a vicious three year war ensued. A civil government was created after the capture of Aguinaldo under William Taft and this showed a drastic change in American foreign policy. They could no longer justify interference with the excuse of the islands being within its sphere of influence but McKinley argued that America had the role to “uplift and civilize and christianize [Filipinos] as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died." McKinley was either unaware or simply chose not to inform the people that, except for some Muslim tribesmen in the south, the Filipinos were Roman Catholics, and, therefore, already Christians. In reality, the annexation of the Philippines was the centerpiece of the "large policy" pushed by the imperialist cabal to enlist the United States in the ranks of the great powers.

“No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” Abraham Lincoln. (Document A). The United States did just this in 1898, when they annexed the Philippines. The Filipino people had been fighting for their independence against Spain for many years before the US intervened. The rebels, led by Emilio Aguinaldo, were grateful for the assistance. The Filipino people thought that the US had come to help free them from Spain. Unfortunately for the Filipino people, they were incorrect. On February 6, 1899, the United States of America annexed the Philippines, much to the disgust of the rebels in the Philippines and many people in America (including Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, and former President Grover Cleveland.) The reasoning behind this was partially for economic prosperity, thinking that the Philippines held the “secret route” to riches by being a trading partner and a jumping

Accurately established by many historians, the capitalists who shaped post-Civil War industrial America were regarded as corrupt “robber barons”. In a society in which there was a severe imbalance in the dynamics of the economy, these selfish individuals viewed this as an opportunity to advance in their financial status. Thus, they acquired fortunes for themselves while purposely overseeing the struggles of the people around them. Presented in Document A, “as liveried carriage appear; so do barefooted children”, proved to be a true description of life during the 19th century. In hopes of rebuilding America, the capitalists’ hunger for wealth only widened the gap between the rich and poor.

There are different opinions towards inequality, some people are accepting of it while others dislike the whole idea of inequality. Is it okay to let the wealthy have more control than the poor? Should their ideas matter more than the non-wealthy? And most importantly should the poor be okay with this, if not what must they do? In “Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, both Carnegie and Marx expose their thoughts behind inequality and its traits. They both focus and touch upon the poor (proletarians) and the rich (bourgeoisie). They bring up the pros and cons about inequality, capitalism, and communism. Inequality was in Carnegie 's view. In his opinion progress required the processes of competition. Making capitalism an engine of progress. Carnegie believed that there is good to inequality while Marx begs to differ. Marx had his own view on capitalism, he believed that it would eventually result disastrous. Marx believed communism was the best solution to keep both the proletarians and bourgeoisie in an equal place. Both of these socialists have much to say about capitalism and communism and also for economic inequality. They both share different points of view, neither wrong or right. Their opinions are based towards their life experiences and this essay will be noting the differences between they share on inequality, the means of production, and capitalism.

Andre Carnegie was a poor immigrant who came to the United States in a quest for the realization of the American Dream. A self-started entrepreneur who through hard work and by taking advantage of the right opportunities was able to develop an enormous wealth, signifying with it, the definite possibility of social mobility. In his essay “Wealth” of 1989 Carnegie refers to the importance of the distribution of wealth and how such fortune was there to be used by the rich for the benefit and well-being of all individuals of society. Throughout this essay I will be explaining the arguments for the redistribution of wealth made by Carnegie, while analyzing as well the factors that may have motivated him to write his famous essay “Wealth.”

In his article “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues for the wealth to give back their wealth to the community by providing “public institutions of various kinds … [to] improve the general condition of the people” (Foner 30). Carnegie uses this article to promote his Gospel of Wealth idea and provide his interpretation of the changing America. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth stated that “those who accumulated money had an obligation to use it to promote the advancement of society” (Foner 28). Carnegie’s articles focuses on the themes of Capitalism and Inequality, which continue to shape society.

The bald red, white, and blue eagle of American Democracy is coming for you Phillipines, run while you can! Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States, was so infatuated with the idea of democracy, and he wanted every country to have a little taste of American freedom! After America's victory in the Spanish American War, George Dewey and his 11,000 American troops marched into manila and were unsure whether to liberate or occupy the filipino people. Thinking the they were here to help, the Filipino rebels trusted the Americans, but were soon betrayed as Dewey decided to occupy the land. The United States had three choices to determine what they wanted to do with the Philippines: Give it back to Spain, Give the filipino people their freedom, or to annex the whole country itself. With much debate ranging from artists, influential citizens, and government officials, the US ultimately decided it would annex! The United States should not have annexed the Philippines but rather should have given them their independence. While others may think the annexation of the Philippines would have benefited them, what the Philippines really needed was

Nonetheless, the third mode is which Carnegie beckons as the start of a great evolutional growth in the distribution of wealth amongst classes. Carnegie believes that the rich must supply the poor with not money directly to their pockets, which would coax temptations. Rather, the rich must supply the less fortunate with the means to grow as people, to heighten ambitions, and raise the level of class. This is done through, for example, the construction of a public library. Carnegie, in fact, tells a tale of Mr. Tilden. Mr. Tilden, a wealthy man, builds a large public library in New York City. This distributes more than a couple quarters could ever, the ability for any man to enhance his learning and opportunities for free.