.
Overall, a modern perspective of Vanderbilt would be not at all flattering despite his great wealth. But, if we step back and view things with a more objective and timeless perspective, Old Cornelius was maybe not all that bad. First, we must consider the times in which he lived. America was experiencing unbridled growth and the quest for wealth was just about everyone's ambition. The early Puritanical religious (pious) beginnings of our country were in the distant past and being replaced by the idea of Manifest Destiny and a general moving away from biblical teachings. Vanderbilt was just riding a wave, so to speak, of growth and developing material wealth. In the context of the early part of the 19th Century, his relentless and sometimes ruthless quest for wealth was not at all unique. It must also be viewed in the light of a world that accepted slavery and very cruel and inhumane treatment of Native Americans. Of course there were dissenting voices but they were in the minority and our presidents and congress accepted all of this as the norm at that time. It was the norm.
It's also a fact that Vanderbilt took care of his large family. His wife always lived in a mansion whether in Staten Island or in Greenwich Village. (Sophia hated the 4 story walkup building Cornelius built there but had no say as this was a time long before woman's rights). When he went on a grand tour of Europe in the Spring of 1853 at age sixty, along with a few acquaintances (mostly business related) he took his entire family. He could have left them all at home but didn't. It was observed that he respected and sought the advice of only one person, his mother Phebe. (Phebe was not up to the world tour). The characterization of Vanderbilt as abusive towards his wife and children may be a case of reading modern standards into history. And even with regard to his not giving to charity, it should be pointed out that many of his wealthy contemporaries who did give to the poor for example were motivated more by vanity than genuine altruism.
