Are Emerson's arguments about philanthropy credible?

In this essay, Emerson's overriding claim is that charity begins at home. Out of this comes the argument that it is wrong to give to just any charity, especially a tired, conventional charity; the second is that it is wrong to give to a charity represented by a person who himself has an uncharitable personality.
Emerson begins by condemning the "angry bigot" who comes to him asking for money for abolition of slavery in the far away island of Barbados. Why, Emerson asks, should I give to a miserable, angry person who is more concerned with people 1,000 miles away than with being kind and charitable to those around him? Emerson imagines advising such a man to show love to the infant (young child) and wood-cutter (poor person) nearby and to "be good-natured and modest" in his own community. Emerson is pointing it out as a false philanthropy to collect money for those far away while being indifferent to those nearby. While it may seem uncharitable or unkind not to give to such people raising money for causes, Emerson argues that:

Your goodness must have some edge to it, — else it is none.

In other words, you should not give just because it is the expected thing to do—you should not conform, but examine, your own soul and give where your heart is drawn.
Emerson then more broadly rejects the idea that it up to him to save all poor people through philanthropy:

Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong.

He goes on to say that he will give to those to whom he feels a spiritual affinity or kinship, but not others, adding that though he sometimes gives to conventional charities, it is "a wicked dollar."
Now that we have established Emerson's arguments, we can examine their credibility. Of course, Emerson is going out on a limb and stating his opinions in strong terms with the intent of shocking his audience and stimulating them to think. It is credible to want to know what charity you are giving to and to give out of a heart which really supports a cause rather than out of a sense of duty. Local giving is also very important. It does make sense to help the neighbor who is hungry before someone halfway around the globe, or to help the person who shares your sensibilities before some you despise.
We also would like it if the people doing charitable work were themselves kind people, generous to those around them. Sometimes, however, it's important to separate the cause from its representative. Some causes are worth giving to regardless of the personality of the person collecting the money for them. To condemn a good cause because the person representing it is imperfect is an ad hominem fallacy, a flawed form of logic.
Second, while local philanthropy is very important, wealth also tends to be concentrated in local areas or pockets. If we live in a wealthy or affluent area, the "needs" around us may not be all that pressing. It can very important for people to stretch beyond their own kind and give to communities that really don't have any resources or access to capital. It might, for instance, make far more sense to set up a school in an impoverished country than to give a million dollars so the lush private school next door can have an even fancier new gym, and this is true even if you feel more "spiritual affinity" with your rich school neighbors than the people a thousand miles away.
In sum, Emerson makes a strong point to provoke us to think about philanthropy, but thinking for ourselves also means pushing back against what he is saying.