In 1787 there was a large tension between the elites and the underdogs over debt and tax relief. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia worked to remedy this tension; however, they did so at the expense of the underdog, the indebted, suffering farmer, and for the benefit of the wealthy, who gained from the underdogs’ suffering. How did the delegates manage to design a constitution so biased towards the elite and how exactly did the document benefit the wealthy? Section I examines the interests of the indebted farmers and the wealth. Section II explains how the delegates came to design a constitution that benefited the upper class. Section III Provides examples from the Constitution that show its bias towards the elite and the outcome that was in their benefit. I. The Interests of the Public at the Time of The Convention ` At the time of the convention, farmers were the debtor class and were prone to revolt. Farmers, who lived all across the United States, sought debt relief and tax relief (Beard, 28). The weight of the debt at the time was crushing small American farmers who were being forced to pay their debts by selling their property for less than its value (Holton, 90). These debtors sought relief in many legal forms. For example, they asked for the “abolition of imprisonment, paper money, laws delaying the collection of debts, propositions requiring debtors to accept land in lieu of specie at a valuation fixed by a board of arbitration” (Beard, 28). However, they also sought relief through revolt (ex. Shays’ Rebellion) (Beard 28). Their desires contrast those of the creditors, stockholders, manufacturers, and shippers of their time (Beard, 29). These elites were of a “group of interests… that of p... ... middle of paper ... ...ons that both allude to the conflicts between the elites and underdogs and clearly benefit the elite, and finally that the delegates were mostly elites themselves – they clearly show that the Constitution was designed to benefit the elite at the expense of the underdog. Works Cited "The Federalist Papers." Founding Fathers. Accessed February 23, 2014. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/. Publius. "The Federalist No. 10." The Constitutional Society. October 21, 2013. Accessed February 24, 2014. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.html. Beard, Charles Austin. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1998. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed February 23, 2014 Holton, Woody. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.
Howard Zinn agrees with the notion that the United States Constitution was created largely with the economic interests of the upper classes. He cites early 20th century historian Charles Beard’s book, “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution,” to bolster his point that the Constitution was drafted in such a way to predominantly benefit the upper class. In his book, Beard claimed that the wealthy must either control government directly or influence its laws to protect their interests (150). That claim makes sense when looking at the constituency gathered in Philadelphia in 1787; a large majority of the 55 men present were wealthy and owned capital of some sort.
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
Many factors affect the strength of a nation’s government, but one in particular created the foundation for a country hundreds of years afterwards. The Constitutional Convention occurred in Philadelphia during the hot, humid summer of 1787, at a Philadelphian state house. Delegates from twelve of thirteen states all convened to create the Constitution that would become the supreme law of the nation, and would let power fall in the hands of the people. The author of Miracle at Philadelphia, Catherine Drinker Bowen, narrates the trials and contributions of delegates from the developing states that eventually built a bustling nation of liberty and freedom. Those four months spent in one room calmly debating how to improve the government is arguably the most important moment in American history.
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
The essay under critical analysis is entitled, “Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus That Propelled Pennsylvania to Independence and Democracy,” written by Gary B. Nash. This analytical essay consumes the fourth chapter of the book Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation, edited by Alfred F. Young, Gary B. Nash, and Ray Raphael. His essay, along with the twenty-one other accounts in the book depicting lesser-known individuals, whose contributions in securing independence from Great Britain and creating a new government in America rival that of the nation’s more notorious and beloved founders, such as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Dr. Nash focuses his efforts on Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus of the 1770’s and 80’s and the lasting influences of the 1776 constitution it created within American politics as well as several nations around the world. Within his analysis and interpretation of Pennsylvanian politics during the American Revolution, Dr. Nash utilizes a pro-whiggish, radically sympathetic stance to assert the Radical Caucus’ remarkable ability to gain support from and bestow power upon the common working man, take political power from conservatives within Pennsylvania’s public offices, and revolutionize democratic thought through their landmark reformations of the state’s constitution. Respecting the fact that Dr. Nash’s position on this subject required extensive research through first hand accounts, pamphlets, newspapers and the analysis of countless preserved records, indicates that the account he has given is very credible. Complying with his presentation of facts and the significance of the topic within early American history has prevented a well-rounded counter-argument ...
3. Beard, Charles A. "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 27 -- 33).
...wer] need a people that imagines itself in ways that make leadership by those aspirants appropriate” (6). It is apparent that the elite class of men would not represent all classes of men in an appropriate matter. The Federalists’ solution to this was to only have the elites be able to elect representative; the Anti-Federalists saw the need to point out that this representation would not be for the common good of the country and its citizens. The works of the Anti-Federalists shows that they were interested in the idea of having all types of men be represented in government.
Ernst, Joseph Albert. Money and politics in America, 1755–1775; a study in the Currency act of
Foner, Eric. "Chapter 9." Give Me Liberty!: An American History. Brief Third ed. Vol. One. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. N. pag. Print.
Wealth and Democracy. By Kevin Phillips. (New York: Broadway Books, c. 2002. Pp. vii, 422. ISBN 0-7679-0533-4.)
Reid, John Phillip. Constitutional History of the American Revolution / the Authority to Tax. Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin, 1987. 33. Print.
Since the advent of human government, one of the principle fears held by the constituents of the government has always been to prevent any form of tyranny or abuse within it. Tyranny can be loosely described as one person or a group of people having total power in a government leading to the subjugation and oppression of people’s rights. Many new nations wish to eliminate any aspect of their government that may eventually lead to tyranny. The United States was no different in this respect; the framers of the Constitution longed to have no signs of tyranny in their government because they had gone to war with Britain for that very reason. In 1787, a group of fifty-five delegates came from throughout the states to meet in Philadelphia to discuss the problems with the current government. The existing Articles of Confederation posed a monumental problem for these individuals; they recognized that the central government was almost entirely powerless under these articles. Besides this, another problem was that the government lacked a court system or a chief executive. The central government did not possess the power to tax the states either. These problems warranted change which prompted these men to get together. This new constitution they were to create was supposed to guard the people against all kinds of tyranny whether it be of a few, the many or majority, or even a single individual. This seemed virtually insurmountable a task to accomplish but was ultimately achieved. The Constitution guards against tyranny by having a central and state government that cannot overrule or have more power over the other, establishing the separation of powers to keep anyone from abusing it, and having a sys...
James Madison, "Federalist #10," in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: New American Library, 1961), pp 77-84
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.