Sunday, March 8, 2009
Points of View: The Constitution
It is not hard to see the major flaw in Beard's argument about the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution was created undemocratically, in an undemocratic society, and that it was created only for personalty interests, i.e. money, public securities, manufactures, and commerce. However, Beard has little to none evidence to support this thesis. The evidence he does have is second hand and most likely picked to specifically support his case. It seemed as though Beard drew his thesis from bitter feelings of the upper elitist class. It was easy for Beard to connect the problems of the current US back to the selfishness of the framers of the Constitution. It is ridiculous of Beard to say that only the elitist upper class was in favor of the Constitution, and all other American's were opposed to the document that would only benefit that upper class. It was also ridiculous of Beard to conclude that the framers wanted to only benefit themselves and ignore the rest of American. Many times, yes, framers made decisions that would benefit them, but that also meant these decisions enhanced the situations for people in other classes as well. Evidence shows that the constitution was not only a product of the upper class, but of the farming middle class as well. Beard stated that men with personalty interest greatly outnumbered men with realty at the convention, but Brown shows that to be simply not true. Beard argues that many farmers with realty interests did not vote, however, because they were disenfranchised. Browns counters, saying that, in reality, men with realty could very well vote, they were just uninterested. Also, Beard's idea that property was the main concern of the framers was partially incorrect. Property was not the only concern. Both property and the people's rights concerned the framers, and not just for themselves, but for all of America. It is safe to say that, while Beard has a strong argument, it is an opinion and is founded on an "act of faith", as Brown puts it. Beards thesis does not convince me and cannot be called a historical analysis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a very well constructed response, Tori. Well written, well reasoned, and well argued. I'm impressed with the level of understanding you have brought to this assignment. Nice work. It seems to me the real source of contention is just how wide spread property ownership was at the time. If it was as broadly distributed as Brown claims than Beard really has no leg to stand on. The only thing I would say in Beard's defense is that the Constitution itself is wary of democracy as a whole. The voice of the people is muted and filtered and that's exactly what the founders intended. They were suspicious of the "mob" and unsure about their ability to make good decisions regarding the nation. Think of Alexander Hamilton's view of the people! The structure of the government created by the Constitution does suggest to an extent that the Founders were seeking to limit to an extent the level of involvement enabled by the Articles of Confederation. Get used to asking the question: who benefits and who does not and why about any and all government decisions. It's a great analytical tool!
ReplyDelete