|
When it was published, and for decades afterward, it was academically accepted and impacted many Americans' understanding of their own history. I can't fault Beard for reaching the conclusions he did with what little evidence he had at the time (or as some might argue, what evidence he did not intentionally neglect), but historical scholarship since the 1950s has disproved Beard's thesis as presented in this book.Beard tells us that the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution talked big when it came to America's founding values, but were really in it for themselves economically, framing our system of government in a way that would both enlarge and ensure their own economic hegemony over their fellow citizens. Yet, comprehensive review of historical documents, both by Forrest McDonald in We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution (which attacks the economic prong of Beard's hypothesis), and by Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (which convincingly demonstrates the sincerity of the beliefs in liberty our forefathers held), has revealed Beard's economic interpretation to be not anywhere remotely near historical truth.This is not to say that Beard's book is entirely without worth, however. It also played a notable role in energizing and sustaining the Progressive movement into the New Deal era, with Beard's thesis lasting until better scholarship emerged in the 1950s. In that sense, then, it is valuable to any comprehensive understanding of early twentieth-century and depression-era politics.
It also explains as to why the Corporation was later proclaimed by the courts to exist as a person and enjoy the protections of the Constitution. He merely puts into its true historic prespective and removes the Founders from the elysian fields of mythology.
Cultural and societal myths tend to grow over the ages and the myth of the Founders is no exception. To better grasp the true history of our country, please read this book.
Beard does not attack nor condemn the Constitution or those that drafted it. Beard studied the founders and used their own writings in developing his theory.
Along with the 'Federalist Papers' and the 'Anti-Federalist Papers' Beard has captured the true nature of the making of the Constitution. Please read this book and you might want to also consider reading it along with C Wright Mills 'The Power Elites' and Suzanne Keller's 'Beyond the Ruling Class.' All three books put into perspective why the current economic chaos of 2008-09, as well as all past economic crisis, resulted in the bank and corporate bailouts while unemployment, foreclosures and depletion of retirement and pensions still flounder.
Charles Beard was no myth nor a crank historian, as some would want you to believe.
Not surprisingly, the former tended to support the efforts of the Constitutional Convention, the latter to oppose it. At first I was inclined to agree with these reviewers: reading one biographical sketch after another starts to become tedious pretty quickly. At least one reviewer has complained about what dry reading this book makes, especially the chapter entitled "The Economic Interests of the Members of the Convention," which consists of seventy or so pages (roughly a quarter of the volume) of biographical sketches--some in thumbnail form, others (such as that, understandably so, on Hamilton) a few pages long--of the men who took part, as the title makes clear, in the Constitutional Convention. We witness, then, the north vs. But then I started looking at it differently. What this chapter was doing, I soon realized, was fleshing out the characters behind the drama of constitution-making in a way that traditional history books rarely do, and in particular specifying the financial situation of each conventioneer along two main lines: those from the north, whose wealth tended to derive from stocks and bonds (which depended on a strong national government to bear financial fruit), and those from the south, whose wealth tended to derive from inherited wealth, primarily large tracts of land maintained through slave labor (and whose holdings were potentially threatened by a strong national government). south lines being drawn up many decades before they took their more conspicuous form in the decade or so before the Civil War. Thus, what at first seems, as the other reviewers claim, to make for rather dry reading, turns out to provide a fascinating glimpse into the profound self-interest (although, as subsequent scholars have argued, this doesn't necessarily preclude authentic patriotic motives as well) of those in whose personal interest it was either to support or to oppose the efforts of the Constitutional Convention.
Other historians have refuted this idea claiming it to be secondary in the goals of the framers, however Beard asserts this as their primary intention in creating the Constitution.Not only was the Constitution created to protect their interests but Beard argues that it was a direct assault on the lower and middle classes and "not one member represented in his immediate personal economic interests the small farming or mechanic classes" (149). Those interests were protected by a document produced by an elite group that was organized undemocratically, excluding those not holding those interests. His original 1913 argument is that the forming of the United States Constitution was an effort by the newly formed, affluent American social class to establish a government that would protect their interests and raise the value of the government's obligations in their possessions. Glancing through most American history textbooks, many students would read stories of the Founding Fathers having been intellectuals, statesmen, and individuals striving for justice in protection of their fellow Americans. Social issues are intertwined with those of economics during this time period, but information is presented strictly in an economic sense. "The correspondence shows the exact character of the evils which the Constitution was intended to remedy; the records of the proceedings in the Philadelphia Convention reveal the successive steps in the building of the framework of the government under the pressure of economic interests; the pamphlets and newspapers disclose the ideas of the contestants over the ratification; and The Federalist presents the political science of the new system as conceived by three of the profoundest thinkers of the period, Hamilton, Madison and Jay" (152-53).In his summation of An Economic Interpretation, Beard voices what he has intended to say throughout, the largest of which that the Constitution was designed to protect the wealthy, bond and stock holders, and manufacturing, trade and shipping interests.
In addition, the Constitutional Convention was never submitted to a popular vote nor was it submitted for popular ratification (239).Beard's ideas are well supported and documented with extensive research of primary documents such as correspondence, treasury documents, newspapers and a careful analyzation of the Constitution.
The Constitution has no mention of a Bill of Rights (later ratified on Dec 1791) and was opposed "almost uniformly.
During ratification, three-fourths of qualified voters had been denied because of technicalities and the societal divisions made it that much easier for it to be adopted as law.
"These framers are represented as untainted by economic or financial interests, founding a government on abstract speculations of political philosophy." However, Charles Beard's account offers very different ideas and conclusions on, what he feels, the true intention of those who are credited for the creation of the United States and it's Constitution.Likely one of the most important works on early American history, Beard makes several points in An Economic Interpretation.
Post convention and ratification, those interests were seen as protected from the outcome and to uphold private property rights first and of the people at large, secondly.
from the agricultural regions and from the areas in which debtors had been formulating paper money and other depreciatory schemes" (291).
Beard does receive some criticism in that "the controversy was based in large measure on state pride, state patriotism, state jealousies and state dislike of a nationalism which would devour the state" rather than placing the mistrust in economics.
Therefore, "We the People," is extremely inaccurate according to Beard, as "the People" is a small minority driven by financial interests.Beard attempts to maintain an objective opinion and his ideas are based on documented facts and has strived to refrain from any judgement on moral issues.
It is unfeasible to sense that Beard is not passing judgement on the framers for their actions, but is hidden well within statistics and documentation and has restricted his hypothesis to the true reasons in the creation of our Constitution.
Beard just gathered the facts in an impartial manner. The men who wanted the new Constitution chose to have it ratified by state legislators rather than popular vote (Chapter IV). The idea of economics affecting politics is in Aristotle's writings and the Federalist paper No. 10. Charles A. Merchants and manufacturers wanted a protective tariff. Four powerful groups wanted a new government: the money powers, holders of public securities, manufacturers and shippers, and speculators in western lands (Chapter III). The Supreme Court was designed to check the Legislature (p.163).
The Constitution was created by lawyers and the wealthy (p.151). [Your local newspaper may report on zoning changes but not who benefits from them]. This is not a biased outlook (p.xlvx). James Madison wrote Federalist Number 10 to speak on how politics are based on economic interests.
His book was praised by Progressives and condemned by conservative Republicans. Investigating the economic interests of the supporters and opponents of the Federal Constitution will test Beard's theory (p.17). Different kinds of property creates different classes with different views (Chapter I). Alexander Hamilton organized the groups to support the new Constitution (p.101).
This book was first issued in 1913 during the Progressive Party era. The small farmers on the frontier rejected the Constitution (p.285). George Washington was the richest man in the US (p.144). The Constitution was a compromise by a committee. "The Federalist" shows an economic interpretation of the Constitution (Chapter VI). Large numbers were anxious for betterment (p.251).
Those who worked the soil were generally opposed to the Constitution, those who were merchants of bankers favored the Constitution. You can decide for yourself what part economics plays in "protective tariffs, foreign trade, transportation, industry, commerce, labor, agriculture, and the nature of the Constitution itself" (p.xlix). In the late 19th century historian talked about "state's rights" or "a strong central government". Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey was a notorious speculator (p.86). [Abraham Lincoln had similar concerns]. Chapter VII discusses the political doctrines of the convention members. Ignoring economic issues in history leads to confusion (p.lii).Law is primarily concerned with the ownership of property and the way it is passed from one person to another. Many would benefit from the Constitution (Chapter X).
[Names and dates are "barren"]. Theodore Roosevelt questioned the power of the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional and suggested the people should have the right to recall that decision (`Introduction to the 1935 Edition'). Chapter IX discusses the percentage who voted. It was a revolutionary plan (Chapter VIII), but would be ratified by popular votes for delegates to a state convention. Were they working under the guidance of abstract principles of political science. This latter group adopted a Constitution that served their interests (pp.324-325).The `Introduction' by Forrest McDonald notes that political events are incomprehensible unless they are considered in the context of their social and economic realities. Would they benefit under the new Constitution. Beard investigated the original sources and found the discussions over economic interests.
The arguments from that time discussed the economic conflicts (Chapter XI) due to Treaties, paper money, and contracts. Chapter II lists the difficulties in learning about the state and continental public securities and their owners, and other facts. Property qualifications limited the electorate.Chapter V discusses the economic interests of the convention members. Many who fought in the War of 1775 supported the Constitution (pp.276-278). More research since the 1940s has modified some of the views in this book.
|
