Historiography by Liam, 2016 - 2017
The first author I studied is Professor Charles Beard, an author frequently used in many of these topics. Beard promotes the notion that the Federal Constitution of the United States is not a framework intended to benefit the American, but rather a document ratified to directly benefit the framers and founders involved. Beard suggests that many of the founders who helped to fund and support the War for Independence were sour over their lack of repayment under the relatively weak Articles of Confederation. In an effort to promote their own interests these men sought a meeting to discuss changes that would help them to be repaid: the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. Many of these individuals were now government officials for their respective states and saw opportunity to be repaid or to make additional money by establishing a federal government that could collect taxes and monitor revenue. Beard also indicates that by allocating more power to a centralized government, these officials could better control and influence their own property interests, as many of these men were property-rich.
The second author, Professor Forrest McDonald, sharply disagrees with Beard. Arguing that through his research Beard was using this stance as an excuse to push progressive reform during his time in the early 20th century. McDonald strongly argues that the evidence strongly sides against Beard, giving examples of both Framers who had none of the interests Beard suggested, or had such interests, but voted against it. McDonald points to multiple false accusations by beard against various representatives, and blatant errors in his findings. I agree primarily with McDonald, although it is quite likely that certain Framers had their own interests in mind, the predominant attitude and actions taken by the Framers shows their dedication to the American people. These individuals worked meticulously on this document and in many cases clearly put the public interest above their own. Many of the examples McDonald provides backs this up and contradicts many of the arguments Beard provided. Beard simply had too many fallacies in his research for me to wholeheartedly support his argument. (My apology for the late post)
3 Comments
Olivia
10/16/2016 09:54:35 pm
After reading both views, the one seems more logical is McDonald’s. The main purpose of the Constitution was to make a better life for everyone living in America by granting freedom and rights to the people. Although there could have been a few founders that wanted the Constitution for selfish reasons, states like Virginia refused to vote on the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was included because of the people’s best interests. The Bill of Rights guaranteed certain rights to people in all circumstances, to help alleviate the fear of personal rights being compromised by the government. If the Constitution was really made to benefit the founders of the Constitution like Beard is saying, the Bill of Rights would have never been included to make the people feel that their rights are truly protected.
Reply
Rose
10/19/2016 08:13:16 pm
While the Framers of the United States Constitution did, in a way,use the Constitution to further their own interests, they did not do so in the way that Beard states. While Beard suggest the Framers used the Constitution to benefit themselves economically, the Framers used the Constitution to further their interests only by limiting the direct power of the common people through the Electoral College system for electing the president. However, that seems to be the extent that the Framers were self-serving when writing the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution limited the power of the states which would, in turn, limit the power of the states' government officials. Since Beard uses the fact that most of the Framers were state government officials to claim that they would gain more power, McDonald's interpretation seems more logical.
Reply
Robby
10/20/2016 09:34:06 pm
After analyzing both passages, I have come to the conclusion that both Charles Beard and Forrest McDonald have established compelling arguments for the motivation of Framers in the ratification of the Constitution. The Framers motive for ratifying the Constitution was to better organize the government since the first form, the Articles of Confederation, led to the deterioration of strength within the government. McDonald's argument is more logical, based on his use of evidence that the Framers main motivation for this ratification was their belief that the power of the common people should be limited, and in taking direct power away from colonists, they would have a more stable and reliable government. He provided compelling evidence to support the theory that the Framers did not use the ramification for their own welfare. I agree with Charles Beard to some extent, in that some Framers most likely wanted to utilize this ratification for economic purposes. However, as McDonald explained, this ratification actually limited the power of the Framers rather than give them more power because it took power away from states’, which in turn led to the power of state officials to be lessened. McDonald expresses a more compelling argument because the actions taken by the Framers prove that they were dedicated to the American people and their country rather than simply aiming to use the Constitution for personal gain.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWelcome to Liam's Blog. Liam is participating in an independent study of history this year part of which requires him to interpret historical arguments. Archives
April 2017
Categories |