Beard - Framing the Constitution
How does Beard's depiction of the Founding Fathers fit with the image you get from popular culture or your educational experiences before high school? What characteristics of the people at Philadelphia fit with your preconceptions and which ones do not? Which of the four theories of the American Political System best fits Beard's impression?
posted by Mr. K @ 7:46 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Cool i have never been the first to post- i feel so elated right now...which is making me depressed that posting a history blog makes me feel this good. Anyway, I found Beard's depiction of the framing of the consitution gravely contrasting my original mindset of the founding fathers. You always see them in their pettycoats, which really has nothing to do with anything, so I am going to end this sentence. I always thought that the statesmen were aiming for the people's best interest, but based on Beard's article, they had other things on their mind. The crashing economy, the dropping value of paper money, and the unhappy wealthy made the Founding Fathers change thier goals to meeting the needs of the landholders. Ironically, they were trying to prevent the tyranny of the majority as I learned last year. I never knew the motives of each man, but for the most part they were surprising. I thought that Jefferson's interest in the "freeholders" didnt seem to noble, especially when the large majority were poor. Also, I found it crazy that most of the men disagreed with policy, not laws of Britian-that kind of blew my prior education as well. However, I still find George Washinton to be an impressive leader and great first President, and this article did not change that. Finally, as far as the theories-the one that fits best would be "Elite and Class Theory," because the founding fathers, in their effort to protect the landed, really divided the economic classes to where the upper class "pulls the strings" of the government.
Well its sad to say but I'm not really surprised by the alternative motives for the framing of the constitution as presented by Beard. What's sadder is that NOTHING has changed except a few formalities over the years. Money talks and even in this year's election most voters are more concerned about the economy than any other lone standing issue. While the general perception of our founding fathers is that of a noble set of gentlemen sitting in a large room and coming out with the most important government document ever maybe a myth or even legend there is still something to be said about what they really did accomplish. I think macdaddy shirley money (who the heck is that I mean seriously who do they think they are naming themselves that anyway lol?) is actually onto something about the petticoat thing. We have been pelted throughout our education with images and valiant stories of these men to the point where it is nearly impossible to not see them in a very specific light. Furthermore on the whole elite class theory point, that is sort of a understood rule in any modern society (modern as in any form of governing body). It doesn't matter if its in the United States or China or even some despotism in the middle of the Amazon... whoever has more money or really any fiscal resource is going to have a very definite advantage over their compatriots. The ability to buy out land, tools (of war or otherwise), labor, and other nessecities for a functioning society allows for the development of political power as an individual or group with fiscal power becomes a sponsor of candidates or parties respectively. It's not a great system but it is literally fused into human nature so there is absolutely no way to keep Economic and Political power mutually exclusive.
First of all, I think it best to state my own image of the framing. I always like to imagine a group of guys in wigs, speaking in the manner that you hear voice actors on the history channel speak, sweating there butts off in Independence Hall. Or maybe all the sweating was for the Declartion? Thats irrelavent. I did aslo had this image of them all getting along, as well as doing it all for the good of the country. I also thought that everyonbe there was responisble for the revolution. So Beard's dipcition both compares and contrasts to mine. It differs in the fact that, if what beard is saying is true, that " It was on a question of policy, not of government structure, that they had broken with british authories." It also never occured to me that many where of the landed gentry and therefore would have the interest of the upper class in mind. Its the same in that I thought that they wanted to protect peoples rights, but I never correlated that to merely waning to protect their own property agianst the "masses". And I never realized that the checks and balances where built to keep the poplular element of government under control. I think class theory and pluralism fits into Beards impression. Class theory is easy to see. He who controls the resources runs the show. America is suprisingly Marxist, just (sadly) without the proletariat uprising part. Its pluralism in that the two interacted (radicals and the more conservitive) and the more organized one (the conservitive) was more successful in influencing policy
In 2001, when we decided to move to the United States, my dad felt it best to put me through a crash course on United States History. I sat through about three hours a week of listening to my dad talk about the history of a country that he himself was unfamiliar with. The reference we used was an overly simplified children’s book which contained pictures of all the major events in US history. It was from these lessons that I gained my incredibly skewed impression of the framers of the constitution. I envisioned them as selfless individuals who strove to combat abusive leadership and promote equality for all. To me they were the paragons of a form of leadership which truly represented the people. Although it is a nice thought for the framers to be this way, Beard’s depiction is probably a great deal more accurate. His statement that they represented the economic and commercial interests of the country is far from my view that they wanted to empower the people as a whole. As Beard lists the framer’s wishes to secure minority rights, protect private property, and promote commerce, my preconceptions are completely crushed. One view that I have that he does not destroy though, is that the framers were very conscious of preventing any abuses of power. Checks and balance safeguarded against both despotism and any take over by the majority. According to Beard, as commercial leaders and businessman, the framers were able to make a constitution that best fit their needs. This suggests that class theory best fits his analysis of the framers. Despite the many truths in Beard’s analysis, one can not deny that the constitution has led to the creation of the most democratic society in the world.
As I read Beard’s work, I can not help but wonder how he knows all of the things he says about the founding fathers. After all, it is not like he was there to talk to them. He essentially has the same historical information about them as we do. As we talked about in our discussion Friday, historical ESP is not an ideal way to analyze history, and I have my doubts as to whether this is anything more than that. Anyways, now to his actual essay:
The unavoidable fact about the founding fathers is that they were predominately upper class white men. It is for this reason that they were the ones who wrote the Constitution. They were the ones with power in the late 18th century. Thinking that they would write something not intended to protect their property and wealth seems illogical. I did enjoy getting more information about the background of the men though. I had assumed they were all just lifelong politicians, which looking back at it does not make too much sense. All classes were losing money under the Articles, so the Constitution was intended to protect peoples’ money. A stronger central government would be better able to help them. While the thought of a group of men looking to protect the freedom of the masses is nice, nobody gets rich off of that. Beard claims that the Constitution was shaped by economic and property reasons, but I think the social freedom aspect was, at least, a nice byproduct. While the men who wrote our Constitution may have had many motives as claimed by Beard, it is important to not forget the fact that they created an amazing document that resulted in the most powerful and arguably the greatest country on earth.
Ryan and Ian both seem to consider concern for the economy to be an example of the Framers' alternate motives...but I'm not so sure that wanting to protect the nation's economy should vilify them (or any other politician). That's not to say it makes them totally praiseworthy, either. I just don't think it's something that can be classified strictly one way or the other, because it relates to so many other issues. Also, I don't think either of you have any idea what a petticoat is. Hahaha.
Charlie has a very good point in considering aspects of both Class/Elite theory and Pluralism. There were certainly compromises made, so more than one viewpoint was at least to some degree represented and heard. I would, however, consider the situation to be a quite limited example of pluralism. Hypo-pluralism, perhaps.
I would just like to say that I found Michael's perspective quite valuable (and fascinating), because he's pretty much the only one of us with any kind of different experience of American History.
I also like that Jarrod incorporated some positive aspects. While it is a bit disappointing to have those marvelous, gloriously patriotic images that we're familiar with shattered, that doesn't mean that the framing of the constitution was all completely terrible. No matter how it happened, as you said, "the social freedom aspect was, at least, a nice byproduct."
On to my own observations from the reading (I apologize that it's not very well-organized):
The fact that the Framers were businessmen isn't some great conspiracy, you know. It makes sense. The Revolutionaries, "the boldest and most radical thinkers--men like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson" were philosophically inclined. They ran on their ideals and convictions; and "were not, generally speaking, men of large property or of much practical business experience". So once those men had finished their work, and the revolutionary fires had died down, how could they have run a country on nothing but philosophy? Beard points out that "in their anxiety to defend the individual against all federal interference and to preserve to the states a large sphere of local autonomy, these Revolutionists had set up a system too weak to accomplish the accepted objects of government; namely, national defense, the protection of property, and the advancement of commerce." Note the most important items in that list: national defense and the PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. The Revolutionaries depended upon the philosophy of Locke--and what does Locke say about the principal duties of a government? To protect the governed and their property. That, says Locke, is the reason that men willingly give up certain rights enjoyed under the State of Nature in order to form a government. So in a sense, the philosophical Revolutionaries had failed their philosophy. I also think it's interesting to point out that "they believed with Jefferson that 'man was a rational animal endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice'". So clearly these men depended a bit too much on their faith in the nature of mankind.
So the philosophers of personal liberty and small government pretty much failed. Beard explains that "the close of the Revolutionary struggle removed the prime cause for radical agitation and brought a new group of thinkers into prominence", and "the men who were principally concerned in this work of peaceful enterprise were not the philosophers, but men of business and property and the holders of public securities". It was a pretty natural progression; the idealists sparked and sustained the Revolutionary struggle, which was their forte, so to speak, but the practical aspects of governing had to be left to those who had both the experience and the motivation to make it work. The fact that they were property and security holders does mean that they represented a limited cross-section of society, but it also means that they had the most incentive to create a sustainable government that would be able to protect property, and all that Lockian whatnot. As Beard says:
"It is not merely patriotic pride that compels one to assert that never in the history of assemblies has there been a convention of men richer in political experience and practical knowledge, or endowed with a profounder insight into the springs of human action and the intimate essence of government"
It's easy to be cynical about the motives of the men who created the Constitution; but the fact is, these men were undeniably qualified to come up with a governmental system. Beard rather poetically finds it "indeed an astounding fact that at one time so many men skilled in statecraft could be found on the very frontiers of civilization". I certainly get a sense from Beard of mild awe and substantial respect for the Framers. That element of reverence for the men who concocted the Constitution fits nicely with the common historical portrayal of the Framing, but Beard is not shy in pointing out what could be considered shortcomings of the group in the way of Democratic theory. I already had an idea about the kinda-sorta bias of the Constitution's writers before high school but it was pretty vague. Recent studies of American History clarify that notion much more...so I would say that Beard does not totally shock and change my previous conceptions, just sharpens and clarifies them.
Overall, Beard holds that the group was not perfectly or ideally representative of the governed (and thus could be considered to subscribe to Class/Elite theory)--but he does concede that they at least knew what they were doing. I would agree with Beard's impression there.
I also would like to point out that the Framers did ensure the Constitution's flexibility, allowing for possible alteration in the future to reflect the tides of whatever popular thought may lean toward. Don't forget that despite wanting to protect their own interests, they did not block out "the people" entirely. There's more than one side to this issue.
Wow, I sure hope I am not the last person to post. To be perfectly honest, I almost forgot about this blog we had to write. It is Sunday, I am sore from Friday, and my arm keeps falling out of socket...I am not a happy camper. But according to Beard, neither were the delegates in Philadelphia. They were faced with a problem that would determine whether or not America would survive. This is traditionally where I say that these courageous men took on this task with selfless motives and conquered it. However, Beard's interpretation of this historic event is far from traditional.
Like Charlie, I pictured a bunch of old guys sitting around figuring out what would best for the country. I imagined it was hot and miserable. I never really took into account that like every politician, our founding fathers were looking out for their own interests. Their thoughts were, "If we don't get this right, there goes our reputation and career!". So I guess you could say that the motives of the framers were far from selfless. So yea, Beard pretty much destroyed the way I imagined the framing of the constitution.
I also imagined that the delegates would be cooperating with each other, and of course Beard had to spoil my view of that too! Compromise after compromise is really how the delegates were able to finish writing the constitution. My views of Washington and Franklin were barely touched by Beard, but I never truly had a preconception of Madison or Morris. So I have new conceptions of how they behaved at the convention.
Finally, as far as the class that Beard describes in his essay goes, I would have to agree with Shirley and Ian that the Elite Class theory best fits. As Ian said, it is human nature to allow those who have the money or resources to have the power. Beard was trying to show in his essay that the founding fathers were looking to keep power in the hands of the upper class, of which they were members by the way. Beard truly shows us the more realistic depiction of the framing of the constitution.
Throughout these last years of high school, many of the naïve notions I once had of our nation’s history have been shattered. This particular revelation comes as no surprise to me. Before reading this essay, I had thought of the founding fathers purely idealistic men seeking to change America for the better. While they did try to change America for the better, they had motives that I hadn’t necessarily thought of before, and they aren’t that shocking.
Beard explains that the founding fathers were not philosophers, but merely businessmen, property holders, and holders of public securities. This revelation actually makes a lot of sense. If you look at today’s leaders and politicians, these descriptions are very applicable to them. I’d have to agree with Charlie, in that I think that both class theory and pluralism fit our early founding fathers. Their policies were shaped by the interests of their businesses and property, but at the same time they had mostly the upper class in mind.
Though the founding fathers seemed to be predominantly concerned with safeguarding their property and the interests of the upper class, they were qualified to write the Constitution, especially in light of the failing Articles of Confederation.
Beard's image of the founding fathers does fit the image fostered by popular American culture in that he descrbies them as brilliant and practical politicians, an assembly of some of the most well versed men in the world and all found on the frontier of a newly formed small country. However; they do not fit the image as to what their motivations in creating the constitution were instead of high minded philosophy of government they meant to be practical and support the matters that mattered to them. The idea of them making a constitution that they know will get passed by the states does fit my idea of their characteristics (men who seek to enact their ideas) but their motivations driven by money do not until you stop and think about everyones real motivations and you go why would theirs be any different. I believe that it is a combination of elite and class and pluralist theory that really best fits Beard's impression.
Wow, since I am one of the last ones to post there is little left to be said... I find the whole article very intriguing. The thought of our Founding Fathers as anything other than patron saints is foreign to me. However, when reading this article I have found there were some faults with these men, but they were not to the extent that Beard has contorted. Sure, the economy did play a huge part in decision making, and it seems that they did indeed create a division of the classes where the upper class "pulled the strings" (nicely put macdaddy) of the government. One must not forget that even with these men's personal agenda's that they formed THE greatest free nation this world has ever known. In terms of the elite class theory, I think Ian said it best, "whoever has more money or really any fiscal resource is going to have a very definite advantage over their compatriots." So the idea that they were there to form a nation simply to better themselves (that was the feeling I got from Beard's writing) is something I do not totally agree with.
You have something of a disadvantage at interpreting this if you read Beard after reading Roche:
Beard's Economic Interpretation of the Constitution was a classic in 1913 because he was the first person in a century to suggest the framers were anything less than wise, benevolent demi-gods who were sacrificing all for God and Country.
His is what became known as a Marxist interpretation and so Charlie is right to associate him with Class Theory.
Although highly controversial at the time, Marxist interpretation of virtually everything about the history and politics of the United States, became almost standard over the following fifty years. Many political scientists took the interpretation much farther than Beard in regard to their cynicism about the nature of politics in 1787 up to the present day.
When Roche wrote his analysis in the early 1960s, he brought interpretation away from the Marxist approach to a more pluralistic approach to the framers and in so doing made them both admirable as well as humanly flawed, a more rounded analysis. He also pretty much undercut most of the specific analysis pointing out that most of the framers did not own government debt.
So as pluralism had been on the rise as an interpretative framework for the Constitutional Convention and beyond, class theory over the last decade has begun to become more accepted in interpreting modern American politics.
If you are interested in that trend, let me suggest Greg Palast's The BEst Government Money Can Buy or The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot in which Naomi Wolffe argues the US is in danger of becoming a fascist state.
Beard's perception of the founding fathers is far different than the version we are all taught growing up. We are taught that the founding fathers were men with immense morals and character, who were only interested in serving the people with the best form of government. But Beard believes that these men have alterior motives tht must be considered. He also points out that they were probably not all in it for selfless, serve the people kind of reasons. These men were political figures who were trying to get ahead in their careers and enhance their power. And in all fairness, who can blame them? Politicians have been the same from the start, and I do not believe that that will ever change really. Because politicians are human men with human/sometimes selfish motives. I think the theory that best fits is the "Elite and Class theory," because in the end the people that gained control were the upper class and to a major extent still are.
Forgot to mention that Michael's skewed vision of the the Framers is the result of that worshipful attitude of the 19th century that saw them as gods come down to earth. My favorite example of that point of view is a statue of George Washington by Greenough in which the artist sculpts the first president in the form of the most famous sculpture of Zeus.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/xtratalk/washington.jpg
Clearly, research from the 20th century doesn't make it to primary level texts on US history!!
The founding fathers were basically all rich, white, and snooty with powdered wigs and, yes, pettycoats. They are the perfect representation of the "Man" keeping us down. Of course, like everyone else, I imagined the founding fathers as happily getting along and making the "right" and "correct" decisions for our country. Being very patriotic guys - they wore alot of red, white, and blue. But that was when I was young and naive and now I know the truth. They were a bunch of fat selfish old men bickering over every little decision because they each wanted the best deal for themself, not the people. Perfect example: the electoral college. The founding fathers believed the general public too stupid (unlike themselves) to make a good decision about their own leader. Yet, they came up with the ingenious plan to let the general peublic vote anyway to give them the illusion they mattered. They even called the nation Democratic. Tricky ole geezers. Basically, all they wanted was money and power just like everyone else ambitious in the world. Thus, our nation if ounded upon those principles, but we still like to pretend its not. Washington is a real G though. He was a great leader and President. I reccomend the professor brothers washington youtube video. Represent.
Post a Comment
<< Home