Sorry for the late post-- I will extend the deadline.
New due date: Posting due by Tuesday January 18th @ 11:59pm.
I'm changing things up this week. In order to receive full credit you need to write and post your own response and also provide thoughtful commentary to another classmate's posting (i.e. respond/comment to one posting)
The Task:
Choose one of the following statements and defend your choice. Please use examples from Zinn and historically accurate references.
The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by wise humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality.
The Unites States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
The Revolutionary War was a struggle for power between members of an upper class.
The United States Constitution defined a democratic government.
I guess since I'm the first one to write, I will have to reply to another person's comment later.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
The delegates of the constitution were mostly men of wealth which includes lawyers, merchants, shippers, and moneylenders. There were none who were from the poor social class. According to the American Pageant on page 178, 19 of the 55 delegates owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson, who is one of the founding fathers of the constitution, refused to include the equality of black slaves in the Constitution. A black man, named Benjamin Banneker, wrote to Jefferson asking for equality by saying that they were “a race of beings” who wanted to stop being “labored under the abuse.” Jefferson thought it was best to keep slaves inferior since was a slave owner for the most of his life. By giving the black slaves rights in the Constitution, he along with many other rich men will have problems with gaining profits from the cotton plantations and other types of working farms. According to Zinn on page 88-89, the rich men wanted to benefit their economic interests by making protective tariffs for manufacturers, stopping the use of paper money to pay off debts which would benefit the money lenders, and giving security to the slave-owners from slave revolts and runaways. Slaves, servants, women, Indians, and men without property were not represented in the Constitution. Charles Beard, from the New York Times, found that wealth and the support of the Constitution, goes hand in hand. In addition, the Constitution has “life, liberty, or property” in it. Men would have their property protected. This applied to only a small group of people. 3 percent of the population had a lot of land and were wealthy. There were other people who had none.
The Revolutionary War was a struggle for power between members of an upper class. It was a fight between the rich plantation owners and others of wealth and the English Gentlemen. All that the wealthy Americans wanted was recognition of its adulthood. Thomas Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense explained this family relation when he compared America to a teenager struggling for freedom from an oppresive mother. But the English Gentlemen still saw the Americans as mere children, thus sparking the Revolutionary War.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the war there was a constant flow of men wanting to better their social standings. Peter Oliver was one such man. In Howard Zinn's A People's History, there is a short passage explaining Oliver's rise throught the army. He began as a simple shoemaker and when the rebellion began, he saw his friends enter the army and rise in status. He then enlisted as a Private Soldier with a Lieutenants Commission. "If my captain was killed, I should rise in rank and should still have a chance to rise higher". Peter Oliver was only one man with this mindset, and his social class was not the only one searching a rise in rank.
The elite of American society also wanted to gain power. Including the wealthy General George Washington. He had fought in the French and Indian war, married a rich war widow, and was even born into a bit of money, but he still wanted more. He wanted what his colleague and fellow revolutionary leader, Benjamin Franklin, wanted-to be an Englishman. Although Franklin was of more humble birth, he saw the grandour of being an Englishmen as well. But not even the wealthy George Washington could claim that status. And this angered the revolutionary leaders. The revolutionary leaders were not of the lower class, they were already the colonial leaders in search of more power. And with the Revolutionary war, came that power.
Yes the Revolutionary granted us freedom, but is also granted power.
Kristina Mai commented on The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interest. I agree with her. The Constitution did protect the already elite because it was written by them. Also, the freedoms expressed in the Constitution only protected land owning men, not women, slaves, Indians, or the landless.
Another way it helped protect the aristocrats was by the new system of checks and balances. It was established so that no branch of government could become more powerful than the other, thus translating into American society. The men in the Senate, House, Supreme Court, and The President were all powerful, but only as powerful as the other branches allowed them to be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Constitution contains various amendments created to ensure the liberty of the governed. However, the people who proposed the Constitution had an ulterior motive -- to provide a federal government that benefited their financial pursuits. The Constitution had even more positive effects for the wealthier like the ability to quell rebellions as well.
ReplyDeleteThe ingenious part of the Constitution is that it does give freedom to the lower classes -- but certainly not as much freedom as the upper ones. By awarding rights to the poor, the writers of the Constitution became able to get a strong base to support the ratification cause. However, their freedoms were impeded upon; for example, the Sedition Act of 1798 which disallowed anyone speaking "false, scandalous and malicious" words about the government to be arrested. All of these cases were deemed constitutional, despite that they contradicted the First Amendment.
Even furthering the rights of the rich, Alexander Hamilton created the Bank of the United States, which allied itself with specific economic interests (which benefited the rich). The government also put taxes on items such as whiskey, which fiscally hurt small farmers. The United States Constitution benefited the rich much more than anyone else, but appealed to the common man just enough for the common man to support its ratification without fully understanding the motives behind it.
Kristina Mai also brings up a good point when she says that slaves, servants, women, Indians, and landless men were not represented by the Constitution -- only the land-owning white men were. Also, she points out that the Constitution was written by wealthy men, which demonstrates its bias to help out the upper class. Since the Constitution overlooks the majority of the American population by excluding the lower classes, women, slaves, and people of other races, the purpose behind its creation is clear: to benefit the rich.
The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by wise humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality.
ReplyDeleteIf an individual with no prior knowledge of American history were to read the Constitution they would likely come to the conclusion that it promoted equality and democracy. Our Founding Fathers didn’t even make their old mistake of using the word “men” as—what some would say a substitute—for “people”. They use the phrase “We the People”. A phrase that is plain, simple, but dishonest.
Carl Deger (page 85) says that, “No new social class came to power through the door of the American Revolution.” And it never did. If the members of the Constitutional Convention and the American people truly stood for equality, the middle class would have swelled. Slaves would be freed, women would be able to get jobs, and the poor would be educated. It could be argued that the first two centuries of this new Constitution would be little different from the years before it because it was a radical change. Becoming a new nation was radical enough. If men like Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson had truly wanted equality they would have settled for nothing less in their positions of power after it was enacted.
During the Constitutional Convention, there were numerous outcries from women, often the wives of members (Abigail Adams was the wife of John Adams), who cried to be heard. But their voices, like the ones of the Founding Fathers’ slaves and the poor, were scoffed at and considered “cute”. The Founding Fathers were genius in creating a Constitution that boasted such freedoms so voters would be onboard but they had no intentions of following through. The Constitution is a great document and wonderfully expresses America’s modern values of equality and democracy, but it was not truly written with those intents.
Bianca Guzman agreed with Howard Zinn that soldiers like Peter Oliver and the elite of America did many of the things they did to gain power but cut them a bit too much slack in the process. Granted, the power these men were struggling for had to be struggled for because there was no way to obtain it at the time, but the motives our Founding Fathers once they had achieved that success was more success rather than revolution.
Bianca also states at the end of her post that, “…the Revolutionary granted us freedom, but is also granted power.” The power they gave to themselves did not create power or very much freedom for “us” the country. The power they possessed would have affected others to a very small extent if they were not pushed to by the power of the vote. Thankfully, the Constitution they drafted said some great things, even if they did not originally mean to follow through on them.
In addition to my original post, I would like to add that Steven Colson made a good point in explaining how the Constitution was written by men who promoted equality and democracy, but they did not think that the voices of the women, slaves, and Indians were as important. Steven clearly uses the example well that if everybody wanted equality, the “slaves would be free”, “women would be able to get jobs”, “and the poor would be educated.” His assertion is true as Blacks, such as Peter Mathews, petitioned to “repeal discriminatory laws against blacks” in the 18th century. His voice barely made a dent into the minds of wealthy men as the rich mostly cared about their domination of having a lot of wealth and power.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Jacy-Anne Cesar uses a great example that demonstrates how the Constitution benefited the rich more than any other groups. She states that the Whiskey Tax hurt the small farmers a lot. This is true as some farmers relied greatly on the grain that they raised to make into whiskey and sell. This tax law was created to pay back the war bonds, which usually goes to the wealthy people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Revolutionary War was a struggle for power between members of an upper class.
ReplyDeleteDuring the time of the Revolutionary War many seeked power by using their wealth. For example on pg 86 of "A People's History" by Howard Zinn, during the month of May 1779, there was an extralegal gathering initiating an investigation on Robert Morris. Robert Morris was a rich Philiphean who was accused of holding food from the market. Another story was of James Wilson. James Wilson was a wealthy lawyer and Revolutionary official who opposed price controls on democratic constitution that happened in Pennsylvania 1776. This led to the "Fort Wilson riot," where a militia group marched into the city and James Wilson's house. Robert Morris and James Wilson both upper classmen showed the need to change in order to strive for power. Zinn also described the effect of the Revolution when land was confiscated from fleeing Loyalists. For the Revolutionary leaders they were able to improve themselves and thier friends, also to collect some land to famers to make a base for the new government. Thsi allowed the nation to have enormous amounts of wealth and could create the richest ruling class in history. On page 78, Zinn inputed a sotry of a wounded American lieutenant at Bunker Hill who was interviewed by Peter Olive. This man did not state his name however he described how he wanted power and to rise in rank during the time he was in battle. He was Shoemaker and lived by his labor. He had saw his neighbors got into Commission and thought to himself he could be in it too. so he enlisted as a private soldier. He had also enlisted in having a Lieutenants Commission. His reason was, if his commander was killed in a battle he would rise in rank and maybe become even higher. This shows that not just colonial leaders struggled for power even though they were in the upper class, men from battles also strived for power by rising in rank.
Following up on what Krisitna and Jacy said I also agree the constitution is biased because it was written by the rich men. This is only beneficial to the white men becuase the wealthy men were only thinking of themselves and what is important for them during the time they were writing the constitution. These men were not others, such as the women and blacks which is unfair for them.
The Unites States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Constitution was written by the people we study in class. The great lawyers and political men that helped make the nation what it is today. The view point of Charles Beard from Zinn makes sense. As Beard points out, most of the men who drafted the Constitution were lawyers and wealthy men any way you look at it. How could they have known what the lower classes would want in government? If they didn’t include all the people in the United States, how does it create the framework for Democracy? Beard also points out that four groups were not represented when the Constitution was ratified. Those were slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property. That is not very democratic. With that said, I don’t believe that this was all on purpose. The colonist came from England where there was always a hierarchy. When the hierarchy was brought to America the lower classes did not like it. Not all of the rebellions around the time of the revolution were against the British. Shay’s Rebellion was against the unfair taxes that the American governments placed on farmers and Liesler’s Rebellion was the wealthy against aspiring merchants. There was a sense of a hierarchy and that came across in the Constitution.
Steven makes a good point that the use of the phrase “We the People” promotes equality and democracy but just like the fact that the word “men” is debated to mean all men or just white rich men, you can argue that “We the People” could mean either all the people of America or the rich, white, men who owned land. The goal of democracy was not reached in the Constitution. If it was then women would not have to fight for their rights later in history and the Civil Rights Movement wouldn’t have needed to happen either. Again, it might have been the goal of the Founding Fathers but they failed. Not all the people of America were represented in the Constitution and that means there was no true Democracy.
We all know that the United States Constitution was written to bring fairness and organization to the government, but what most people overlook is that the writers of this groundbreaking document were mainly in it to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteIn historian Charles Beard's book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, he stated that of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution, most of them were wealthy lawyers who all had some kind of ties to the government from which they could benefit. Amendment Two of the Constitution, the right to bear arms, gave greedy land speculators protection from the Indians when invading and stealing their land. Also, a strong federal government, given by the Constitution, could protect wealthy slave owners from slave revolts.
The Constitution was clearly written for the wealthy, given the fact that four groups of people were left out of the document. Slaves, indentured servants, men without property, and women were not mentioned or given rights in the so-called document for "equality." If the Constitution was written for democracy, these four groups of people should have been recognized. But since the Constitution was written by wealthy men in order to benefit wealthy men, it stated the laws with regard only to wealthy men, leaving out the poor Americans.
While the Constitution was a step up from previous forms of government in the United States, it still needed to improve its outlook and rules on equality for ALL people, not just wealthy men.
The Unites States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteWho likes analogies? I like them, so i'll start with one. There's an executive board meeting of an obscenely rich oil company. But this ain't any ordinary meeting. Decisions made here will affect the situation of it's employees, who they surprisingly care for, and the rest of the country, who isn't cared for as much.
It was the same with the delegates of the Constitutional Convention. Most of them were lawyers, who are stereotypically greedy and ambulance chasers, and rich in one form or the other. The "employees" of the constitution can be the laws that make it easy for the delegates/directors to make money. Without the "employees", where would the delegates be? Most likely, they'd be poor and not prominent in society.
Now there's a reason why this league of extraordinarily rich gentlemen convened in Philly. They had to set the basis for the government that was in accord with the Declaration of Independence. This document had to appease most, if not all of the people including them. Why? Again, without the "employees", where would the delegates be?
According to Carl Degler, "No new social class came to power through the door of the American revolution. The men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class." The same men who wrote the Constitution were most likely influenced by their lifestyle, and designed the Constitution in way that "serves the interest of the wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support." This broad base of support, the employees; the people, keep the rich and educated at the top. The Constitution, though it could have done more for the middle-class, brought stability to the "dominant powers" at the time, exactly what America needed.
Time for the "thoughtful commentary." Sorry if it looks like i'm raining on your parade, but it human nature and much easier to find the negatives and disagree.
From the top,
Kristina- Lucky you, I completely agree with what you wrote, and I hope my commentary shines the same light on the same topic, albeit from a different angle.
Bianca- Looks like it comes in twos. I too, agree with what you said. But to add, mankind has been spurred on by avarice and jealousy. Perhaps it wasn't really a war between social classes, but the desire to "become English" and to have massive amounts of land and slaves.
Jacy- I'm in agreement for pretty much all you've got, except for the part where the Bank of the United States benefited the rich. America needed money, lots of money, to pay off war debts and the pay of the veterans. Pay that was constantly withheld until the people assembled for their rights. So, unless i'm wrong and my train of thought is off track, I think that the BoUS also benefited the other social classes.
Mr. Colson- When you call "We the people" dishonest, I disagree. I think "people" was the term used because society back then was controlled by men. Using the word "men" could have applied to men of all races and property standing. "People" creates a distinction between
the men who they thought should be given rights, and the men who lived lives of servitude and in the forests.
Rachel Lee- Read my "thoughtful commentary" of Bianca. Y'all fall in the same category.
Morgan- I agree with what you said, too. Read what i wrote for Kristina.
Rachel Lahr- I thought you actually looked into An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, but then i realized it was mentioned in Zinn.
Jacy brings up a good point that within the governing of the Constitution, some acts contradicted the rights given by the Constitution. She brings up the Sedition Act of 1798, which allows those who speak badly of the government to be arrested. This completely contradicts the First Amendment, which gives the right of speech. The entire Constitution in a way contradicts itself. It was written aimed at equality for all, yet it still refrains from providing this equality since it left out women, slaves, indentured servants, and landless men.
ReplyDeleteThe Unites States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteThe writers of the Constitution were members of the wealthy upper class who wanted to protect their own interests in the writing of the Constitution. According to Charles Beard in his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, the majority of the men who were present in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution were rich lawyers with slaves, land, and other forms of wealth. The wealthy had reasons for a strong federal government – the taxes, consistent paper money, and protection were all beneficial to the writers, according to Beard. So if the wealthy were the ones writing the Constitution with their own well-being in mind, how can we say that everyone was represented and it wasn’t just focused on economic gain for the rich? Slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property were not mentioned or represented. Therefore, the Constitution was written as a way to benefit those who wrote it – but it probably wasn’t intentional malevolence towards the lower classes. As with the Declaration’s “all men are created equal” only referring to white, property owning males, the writers probably just didn’t consider the others that were being represented. They didn’t leave them out on purpose; they just didn’t consider the lower classes as important.
Jacy brings up a good point that the Constitution did a good job of giving just enough freedom to the lower classes to make them happy, while allowing the more powerful government to take away freedoms that were granted to all citizens in the First Amendment. Also, the ability of the government to tax items that hurt the lower classes and benefitted the rich supports the economic interests behind the Constitution.
Neither statement “The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by wise humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality” nor “The Unites States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests” are completely true. In other words, the United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by wise rich men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality, which benefited their economic interests. Our founding fathers had no intent of building a country where all men and women could be treated equal and just under the law, but they did set up a system in which free and equal country could grow. I changed the sentences above for several reasons. I removed the word humane, because by modern standards not all the men who worked on it were. For example Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder the entirety of his life. The founding fathers did not create the constitution to make an environment in which they would economically prosper nor did they create it with the intension of making a structure for future generation’s equalities to be realized, although this eventually led to both. The purpose of the Constitution was merely to make a more concrete central government. I am not saying that they were oblivious to the fact that they were economically helping themselves or the fact that they were creating a system that could be amended for future rights. I am saying that they were smart men who wanted to strong government, comfort the mob ready poor, and keep their newly attained power.
ReplyDeleteAs Kristina Mai mentions there were particular groups excluded from the constitution. Indentured servants, slaves, women, and men without land all unrepresented in the constitution, but they later were. The constitution, consciously or not, was set up in a fashion that later led to amendments securing these groups their rights.
The Revolutionary War was a struggle for power between members of an upper class.
ReplyDeleteThe Revolutionary War, as every war, was fought for power. In this case, members of the American upper class fought to obtain the power that members of the British upper class possessed. Edmund Morgan sums up the nature of the war in saying "The fact that the lower ranks were involved in the contest should not obscure the fact that the contest itself was generally a struggle for office and power between members of an upper class: the new against the established."
The involvement of the lower class was limited primarily to the manual fighting of the war. As stated in Howard Zinn's "A People's History," most of the time the poor only fought to attempt to move higher in the social rankings. They often did not even consider the cause as their own. There was no representation of the lower class because the Continental Congress was dominated by rich men and it was almost impossible for the poor to run for office because of the money required to participate. This left the decision-making power in the hands of the wealthy, upper class.
As Emily Weissberger states in a previous post, the resulting document of the war, The Constitution, sticks to the main principles of what the war was based on--obtaining and keeping power in the hands of the wealthy upper class. There was no consideration of the lower classes as she states.
A Democracy is a government where the government’s power is derived from the people. While the United States Constitution does have ulterior motives such as promoting the economic interests of the rich and power, it nevertheless laid the framework for a government that is a democracy.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the democratic government that the Constitution sets up has a president that is voted in by the Electoral College. The Electorals follows the popular vote of the people in their representative state and from those votes, vote for a candidate. Through this, the people can determine who will rule as the president. Secondly, the legislative branch is made up of people either directly or indirectly voted for by the people. The House of Representatives have representatives determined by voters in each state, while the State Legislature, which is voted in by the voters of that state, determines the Senate. Through the Constitution, the people can decide who will be in the legislative branch and who will be the president in the Executive Branch. Especially compared to the rest of Europe, the United States Constitution provided the world’s most democratic government. People could decide who was in their government and if people wanted to remove people from the government they just have to vote against them next election.
Both Charles Beard and fellow classmates that the Constitution is actually a work of genius that benefits the rich have pointed it. As Beard’s research noted, the majority of the Constitution writers were rich and used the Constitution to secure their power, which backs up this claim. They themselves could not have put it better; the Constitution is a work of genius, because it actually provided a framework for the democratic government. That was why it was so effective in promoting their economic interests. By actually giving the people power, they ensured they could keep their wealth.
The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution defined the rules for a brand new society; however, they created a power structure similar to those that existed in Europe at the time. The constitution was not created solely to benefit the economic interest of the moneyed few; rather, it was created to stabilize the societal structure that existed after the colonies' victory in the Revolutionary War. During the colonial battle for independence, many lower-class citizens fought valiantly for their country. Granted, they were mainly fighting for the money that they would receive, but their efforts contributed to the overall victory of the Americans over the English. After the war, these lower and middle-class citizens did not receive the pay that they so dearly risked their lives for. What's more, the government required them to pay higher tariffs in order to fund the recovery from the war. Being broke and heavily taxed, these lower-class citizens were now considered debtors, and were sent to debtors' jails. Witnessing these seemingly unjust actions, fellow soldiers who fought in the War alongside these so-called "debtors" made quite a protest over the arrest of their friends. They petitioned the courts, and when this proved useless, began threatening and assaulting judges and other members of the law. They were, however, forced to cease their rebellion by a small Massachusetts militia. This uprising raised deep concerns about the strength of the governing documents of the States, the Articles of Confederation.
Due to the general weakness of the government in response to these outbreaks, details were included in the Constitution that allowed the government to "repress domestic faction and insurrection." Most of the authors of the Constitution were wealthy upper-class citizens, and it was in their interest to create a government powerful enough to enforce taxes and squash rebellions, and to cement the colonies' societal structure that favored the rich and powerful. It is also true that the authors of the Constitution aimed simply to establish peace and order in the States.
Elizabeth Freese raises the idea that the lower class only became involved in the fighting of the American Revolution to increase their "rank" in society. Indeed, the primary goal of the poorer soldiers in the War was either to make money or rise in status. Members of the lower class were also kept out of the judicial decision-making process; only the wealthy and propertied were allowed to vote (this constituted about 10% of the population.) The Constitution grants many rights and privileges to wealthy, white men, and leaves the rest of society to fend for themselves.
ReplyDeleteToday, a number of people see America’s founding fathers as intelligent fair men who made a work of genius when they wrote the Constitution. Though we are taught throughout our childhood that our founding fathers were some of the greatest men that have governed over our country, we also have to acknowledge that while the Constitution was a brilliant paper that has been able to guide the U.S. throughout its history, the founding fathers were rich white men who had economic interests in establishing a strong central government. The moneylenders, manufacturers, land speculators, slave owners, and bondholders that made up the Congress that led the new union by human nature couldn’t ignore their own personal economic issues, and tried to make sure they would benefit, even if a little, by tinkering with the Constitution. As Zinn states, four groups weren’t represented in the Congress, and these groups consisted of slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property. Also, though the Indians weren’t technically Americans, they were also not represented for in the Congress. These five groups did not have representation so therefore were either set aside or forgotten about when the delegates began to talk about their political businesses. Even Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that “all men are created equal” and “we hold these truths to be self-evident” could not give up his slaves and remain a slave holder for his whole life because of his economic ideologies and current structure of the American society. Even after Banneker writes to Jefferson about the absurdity of slavery, Jefferson could not give up his slaves as an “enlightened, thoughtful individual.” The founding fathers wrote a nevertheless a genius piece of work that has remained a guidance for our government and also keeps the government from getting too powerful, but we also can’t forget that our founding fathers were rich men who also looked out for their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteAs Huawei was pointing out on his blog post, the constitution of the United States did lay the foundation for democracy. Our government not only has checks and balances to make sure that one branch doesn’t get too powerful, but also the people of the United States are allowed to vote for our leaders. When America first came out as a new power in the new world, many of the European countries were run by a monarchy and since the colonists did not support a strong central monarch because of the experiences they had with king George III, they started to form a republic where people would have a say in who would lead the country. Though the democracy was not perfect and still isn’t, the system’s basic were laid down by the constitution so the constitution did offer a valid form of a democratic government.
The Unites States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Chapter 5 of Zinn, To many Americans over the years, the Constitution drawn up in 1787 has seemed a work of genius put together by wise, humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality. Charles Beard said that the rich must,in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates. Beard applied this general idea to the Constitution, by studying the economic backgrounds and political ideas of the 55 men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the Constitution. He found that a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping, that half of them had money loaned out at interest and that 40 of the 55 held government bonds, according to the records of the Treasury Department.
Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds. Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those groups.
As Charles Bear stated in his book "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution": Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government.
Morgan Theis made a good point about Charles Beard and what was ideal thinking about how most of the people that made the constitution were just in it for money and social status. I liked how she put the example about lower class people and how that proved the constitution writers wrote it for the prosperity and that it didn't help the lower class.
The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by wise humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality.
ReplyDeleteThe assertion that the Constitution was created as a legal framework for democracy and equality is partially valid but also contains a misinterpretation of the framers intentions. To present the Constitution as a document to strive towards democracy is a valid interpretation. Due to the oppressive nature of the British, the Americans wanted a government far from a monarchial society. Instead, the Americans wanted to practice a government that was governed by the people rather than a universal ruler to make laws, regulate commerce, or impose new taxes. The American government that was first created allowed states to call their own shots in effect of the British oppression the Americans felt they were under.
The second portion of the assertion claims that the framers created a legal framework for equality. In reality this assertion seems plain and easy enough however the framers weren’t particularly “talking the talk” and “walking the walk” they promised something that they couldn’t even provide-primarily the notion of slavery. Most plainly seen during the American Revolution, blacks were unable to enlist for either armies until the two sides were low on soldiers, did they recognize that blacks were necessary to have evenly fought match. Another aspect of the inequality of people included the Indians. The land the American states argued over so much showed the Americans didn’t even bother to think about who owned the land. The Indians were nowhere near equality to American citizens much like the poor slaves who endured laborious work for their white masters. Indians, blacks, and women were just among the few groups who were not equal to the white man.
An interesting observation noticed by Morgan Theis is the uncanny similar occupations the framers held. Most were typically lawyers, shipbuilders, men of land or slaves all occupations held the commonality of wealth. As an interesting concept I ponder whether the framers intentions were for the good of the people or rather the money in their pocket. It is an interesting concept to ponder when realizing the very foundations of our government. As a young nation we will eventually see if our nation was built on selfish intentions or selfless intentions.
All of the men who watched over the making of the Constitution were wealthy. Whether it be George Wasington’s large plantation or Benjamin Franklin’s success from printing, all of the founding fathers were men of considerable opportunities because of their wealth. But just because the founding fathers were rich, doesn’t mean that they put together the Constitution to only benefit themselves and their “economic interests”.
ReplyDeleteI cannot bring myself to pick out of the choices stated above, because I do not think that any of them accurately explain the Constitution. The closest statement would be, “The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by wise humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality.” This statement seems to be the closest fit, but the word that throws me off is “equality”. We all know that ‘all men are created equal’ meant only free white men, and obviously no women. In reality, some free white men without property were excluded. Zinn even states, “They certainly did not want an equal balance between slaves and masters, propertyless and property holders, Indians and white.”
That’s not to say that the founding fathers didn’t have their own benefits in mind. Of course, anything they set in stone, or in parchment, would have no effect on them. They would continue to be wealthy and prosperous no matter the outcome. The main incentive for drafting the Constitution was commerce, and the lack of control thereof. Zinn clearly remarks, “Charles Beard warned us that governments…are not neutral, that they represent the dominant economic interests, and that their Constitutions are intended to serve these interests.” The majority of the people will always make the rules in the democracy outlined by the Constitution.
In response to Rachel Lahr’s post, a good point is brought up that even though the Constitution was revolutionary for it’s time, “it still needed to improve its outlook and rules on equality for ALL people, not just wealthy men.” This is an excellent point, especially when the Constitution did favor wealthy men, but as Zinn states, “one-third was a considerable number of people who felt they had something at stake in the stability of a new government…the city mechanics has an important interest in a government which would protect their work from foreign competition.”
ReplyDeleteNot all the citizens of the United States were poor farmers, many people favored a government ruled by the wealthy. Of course, there were rebellions to show the disgruntled disposition of many people in the United States, such as Shays’ Rebellion, but those small farmers were still only one-third of the citizens.
Zinn also remarks, “The Constitution…serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support.” Even though Rachel is completely correct in her assertions about unequal rights promoted by the Constitution, many people were getting by fine with the newly created piece of parchment. Yet many changes were still needed, most importantly equal rights for all people, and of course those are later integrated by new interpretations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteThe United States in my opinion was exactly that a work of genius, but not everything that went into it I would agree with. At that time it was what was needed to have order in the colonies and bring all the states together as one. The constitution focused on primarily the white land owning poeple which was a very limited number. The work of genius I think was how they got all the states to ratify it. Especially the strong anti-federalist states like Rhode Island.
I also agree with that fact that the constitution was written for the wealthy's economic interests and not the small farm owning poeple. Zinn for example explains about a small farmer in Massachusetts. He say this, "Daniel Shays entered the scene in western Massachusetts. A poor farm hand when the revolution broke out, he joined the Continental army, fought at Lexington, Bunker Hill, and Saratoga, and was wounded in action. In 1780, not being paid, he resigned from the army, went home, and soon found himself in court for nonpayment of debts. He also saw what was happening to others: a sick woman, unable to pay, had her bed taken from under her." This quote gives an example of how weak the articles were and how they needed a change from the current government because it was not effected.
Sam Florence gives a great point on how the constitution was created. I agree that is was based solely on the economic interest of the wealthy. He approaches it with a point from both sides which is really good. I agree also with he fact that the poor were fighting in the war to move up in what he calls "rank" or social class buy fighting in the war. but in turn only ending up in dept and no money to pay it off. Sam explains how the lower class was prosecuted and how they were thrown in debtors jail because they could not pay off there debt. this was cause bye the congress lack of money to pay them.
ReplyDeleteThe Unites States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests. No matter how it is looked, poor men didn't write the U.S. Constitution. It was written by men of high-social standings, and gave richer men the upper hand. It is not to say that poor men didn't benefit in some ways as well, but rich men benefited more.
ReplyDeleteTo many, the United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by wise humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality. For this statement to be true, the Constitution would have to have had to have representation from all groups of people in its Democracy. As noted by Charles Beard in Zinn, four groups were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property. By definition, democracy is a government ruled by the people for the people. How can there be a democracy if some people aren't allowed to be part of the government?
Even when the heads of congress were given a chance to include a larger part of the population in their government, they turned it down, thinking of the economic struggles it might lead to. A black man, Benjamin Banneker, wrote to Thomas Jefferson, trying to get him to look at the slaves, and other people of color, as "a race of beings". Although Thomas Jefferson tried to change, Jefferson remained a slave-owner his entire life. Some of the things that kept slaves from being free-men were that the power of the cotton plantations and slave trade would weaken. In short, if some men weren't given freedoms, at least our economy would thrive. Although the Constitution was very well put together, it was mainly made by the rich men, for the rich men.
I do agree with what Caroline says about both statements not being completely true. The Constitution did create a legal framework for democracy and equality, but it was very rough, and had to be worked on a lot over the years, especially concerning slaves and women. Although it did represent democracy at the time, it had a long way to go, and in my opinion, it still does.
The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by wise humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality.
ReplyDeleteThe characteristic each and every single member of the Constitutional Convention possessed was their wealth and stature in society. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, even Thomas Jefferson—each of the intelligent attendees to this historical convention all held some official or unofficial position of power in society, usually pertaining to their wealth. Though it is valid that the Constitution was constructed as a work of genius, wise, and humane men, it did not however, create the legal framework necessary to cultivate and enforce both democracy and equality.
In Chapter 5 of A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn writes that many American believed the Constitution (created in 1787) was created in support of equality and democracy alike. This belief written on the very pages of the Constitution was not often held up in practice, as many of the Founding Fathers preaching equality possessed slaves themselves. Charles Beard believed the rich and powerful must fend for their interests first, either by gaining control of the government through positions of power, or by overseeing the laws passed that ensured the operation of the government in align with their desires. Upon studying the various delegates who had attended the Constitutional Congress, he was able to judge the stature of each to be a lawyer by profession, men of wealth in land, slaves, manufacturing, and shipping. As a result, Beard came to the conclusion that the Constitutional creators possessed a direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government, one such that would establish protective tariffs, protection as they invaded Indian territory, security against slave revolts and runaways, and nationwide taxation to regulate trade and commerce. Though it can be said that these characteristics would benefit the common man, it is not likely the Founding Fathers were thinking in their best interests at the time, so it is quite accurate that these fine men were humane, wise men, but they were not working toward a democratic and equal nation.
To take Nicole Lemon's opinions farther, I wholly believe the intentions of the framers lied within themselves, their inner circle of wealth, landownership, and stature. It is true that the framers' actions benefited others as well, but they gained the most from the Constitution they created. After all, wasn't it Ben Franklin urging the Americans to stay the course before the war, as he worked to convince the London government to grant him a charter to form a colony in the Ohio Valley? And wasn't it the very same Ben Franklin, who upon deciding Britain Parliament would never see him as an equal, nor grant him a charter in this fertile control center of the Mississippi River, that proclaimed the Revolution must begin? The very Revolutionary, Ben Franklin, simply instigating the Revolution as a temper tantrum to the wary British government, as they wouldn't give him his way.
The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests:
ReplyDeleteThe United States Constitution was created, mainly, for the benefit of the rich, wealthy, and upper class men of the colonies. When creating the constitution they were not thinking of the balance between slaves, Indians, or women. Instead they wanted to create balance between “the dominance forces of that time.” As Zinn states on page 97, the constitution is mainly the works of certain groups that are trying to keep their rights and privileges, while at the same time gaining the support of others by giving them some rights and liberties. The people who the wealthy men were trying to gain support were people such as small property owners, middle-income mechanics, and farmers. As said on page 99, these people were also “buffers against the blacks, the Indians, and the very poor whites.”
I agree with Kristina Mai, in that because the constitution was indeed written by the rich and wealthy people of the colonies, the constitution was biased because mainly covered their needs, and wants. In the constitution, other people like the Indians, slaves, and women were not represented.
The Constitution truly defined a modern democratic government.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution of the United States established the first example of a government that could last in both revolutionary and modern times. It is the oldest constitution still in effect in the entire world. While true that it favors the rich, the ones who wrote it, it provides enough equality and balance to be a legitimate form of government to this day, despite the evolution of capitalism, and rising foreign markets.
Evidence towards a democracy lies in the three houses and the system of checks and balances that were put into place. If the founders of our country cared only for the rich, these things would not have been developed, as they keep one group from becoming to powerful. Considering the representatives from these groups were rich land owners, we can take a guess as to who would be getting the short end of the stick.
The Constitution was founded by, and in favor of the rich land owners of America, however, it provided enough equality for the poor to be considered democratic.
Many students who have been arguing only the side of imbalance towards the wealthy are only partially right. Other governments have been set in place favoring the rich, and only lasted decades before falling apart due to political unrest. The longevity of the constitutional beliefs is testament enough to it's limited democratic values.
The Unites States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteCarl Deglar states "No new social class came to power through the American Revolution, the men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class." Black men, women, indentured servants, and men without property were unrepresented as stated on page 91. If they really would have been all for the public and stood by the quote "All men are created equal," then Thomas Jefferson would have supported it more enthusiasticly, but as stated in page 89, he saw the economic importance of blacks as slaves to the cotton industry. This is strongly emphasized in Charles Beard's statement that, "The 55 men who drawed up the Constitution were those of high professions, men of wealth, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping." This emphasizes the point that they were actively involved in the economics of the time period, and they needed to create a government that was free and equal to their interests and white men of their status. As seen on page 91, most people of wealthy status wanted a strong federal government to boost their own self interests such as the land speculators wanted protectiion as they invaded Indian lands. The constitution was written primarily from the economic viewpoints of the people of that time period, rights and representation were not given until they had the money to represent themselves. Such as in maryland in the New Constitution of 1776 to run for governor one had to own 5000 pounds of property. Its obvious that they didn't care how well your views were in the public good, or your education, as long as you had the money you were eligible. After the writing of the Constitution, economic laws and rules were place immediately to boost the economy, such as the Whiskey Tax which hurt small farmers and led to revolt. Obviously they wouldn't have imposed the tax if they were looking at the public good. In conclusion, the constitution was of written on the bases that it was written for white men of power and wealth, and if they really cared about the public good they would have adapted laws and rules that would have created social equality and representation.
The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteThe framers of the Constitution were all wealthy land owners. They formed laws to defend their way of life because that was the one relevant to them, with the most influence on them. The four groups not represented in the Constitution were women, indentured slaves, slaves and men without land. These people were considered the least wealthy if left on their own. They were not wealthy enough to be represented in government they were a minority not seen during a time of majority votes. The landowners and slave holders were thoroughly represented in government because they were a majority of the population. They most populous delegates however were the wealthiest of the freemen. They improved on life, as they knew it to be. The wealthy didn’t understand the lives of the poor therefore couldn’t represent them in government. The wealthy were over- represented because of the many leaders who were wealthy land owners. There were so many wealthy men at the conventions that they would win the majority vote giving them the power to benefit their lives. The Bill of Rights served as an establisher of individual rights but was more the further enforcement of the rights of the governing.
I agree with Kristina in her assertion that the Constitution only benefitted the wealthy. She uses good evidence pointing out that the addition of “property” to the rights protected by the government only applied to a small three percent of the country. Which leaves us wondering why a law was passed with little good to the nation only the select upper class.
I agree with Shruti Malliwal in that they were not working toward a democratic and equal nation. She states that ,"it is not likely the Founding Fathers were thinking in their best interests at the time," i will have to disagree with this because i believe they were. on page 101 Alexander Hamilton states that "believing that government must ally itself with the richest elements of society to make it strong." Obviously his best intentions are for people with high professions and wealth, and not for the poorest elements of society. Also what about the Whiskey Tax, the founding fathers would not have passed that to anger the farmers if they were looking for the best interests of the people and not themselves. Also Thomas Jefferson saw the importance of blacks as slaves in the slave market. So from an economic view point i believe that the constitution and founding fathers were for the best interests of wealthy individuals and not of everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by wise humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality.
ReplyDeleteWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That is the preamble to the Contitution, and within its words i believe it shows why the writers of the constitution created the framework for democracy and equality. First, it says " We the people ", not seperating any group and creating a sense of equality. Next, is " in Order to form a more perfect Union " By creating unity, everyone feels equally involved and this creates equality. Next comes, " establish Justice " By establishing a justice system that invloves the people everyone once again has that sense of unity and this creates more equality. Also this justice system lays a foundation for democracy. Next, " insure domestic Tranquility " by insuring peace within the country, this means things we'll be settled in a democratic way. next, " provide for the common defence " by providin for the common defense everyone feels equally protected. " promote the general Welfare " by promoting general welfare everyone feels equally supported by their country. " secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity " By securing liberty for our posterity, this means future generations to come will enjoy the same democracy and equality, that was originally laid down in the constitution.
Now my good buddy Zinn likes to bring up Charles Beard, a famous political liberal, who's works included radical re-evaluation of the founding fathers of the United States. And Mr. Beard likes to address that their were four groups not mentioned in the Constitution. Black Slaves, Indentured Servants, Women, and Non - Land owning Men. First, Slaves were not Americans yet. They were owned property and were not considered citizens. Indentured servants, until the full term of their contract was served, fell into the same category as Black slaves. Women were ment to Housewives and be married to men and take care of the family. This is how it had been for Generations, and only in hindsight can we look back and say they were wrong. Now with the Non - Land owning men, they were comparable to say Homeless people in today's soceity and were not necesarily seen as law-abiding citizens.
Now, Ceril Fangon said " There's an executive board meeting of an obscenely rich oil company. But this ain't any ordinary meeting. Decisions made here will affect the situation of it's employees, who they surprisingly care for, and the rest of the country, who isn't cared for as much. " Now he compared that analogy to the writing of the constitution. Now i'll work with his analogy. Lets say that the country is the oil company, wouldn't the employess they " surprisingly care for " be the citizens of the country. This is why ceril's analogy confused me. I would see people who were not employed by the oil company as outsiders of the United
States and therefore not able to enjoy the Freedom, Liberties, Equality, and Democracy we enjoy that was laid down by wise, humane men. Who were able to create a paper that would be able to help run a country for over 200 years.
I’m not sure I agree with any of the statements 100%, but I believe this one to be the one that best fits my opinion: The United States Constitution was a work of genius put together by rich men to benefit their economic interests.
ReplyDeleteFrom the very beginning of the war, the rich white men were the ones in control, often manipulating the poor to fight for their cause—“a cause [the poor] may not see clearly as their own”. The elite practically forced people to fight in the war, stating that people have to either go fight or pay 5 pounds to get out, and jailing those who refused to do either. So, obviously they did not have the people’s welfare in mind; instead, like Zinn states, they were concentrated on only wealth—and how to get more of it.
Charles Beard had it just right in saying that the “dominant classes” must create the rules in the Constitution that would benefit them, so they can continue to stay and grow more wealthy and powerful. And that is exactly what they did. First of all, 45 men that signed the document were all rich and white, and the majorities were slave-holding lawyers who had invested in multiple successful organizations. All those men needed different things from the Constitution (all of which they received) and among which were protective tariffs, federal security, and taxation. None of them were thinking of giving up some of their power and money to help the poor; in fact, the landless poor went unrepresented in the Constitution along with women, slaves, and indentured servants.
All the poor had was the Bill of Rights, but in comparison to the rich, they really had nothing. The elite class only provided the poor with a “just enough to build a broad base for support” because they were mainly focused on how the new system would work out for themselves. But like Zinn states, the Founding Fathers didn’t want equality, they simply wanted balance among the dominant forces at the time (master vs slave, property-holder vs the propertyless), meaning they wanted the rich to stay rich and the poor to believe that they were getting more equality when in reality they weren’t getting much change at all.
Sam brought up the point that because the authors of the Constitution were wealthy and white, the Constitution itself came out reflecting their goals and desires for an ideal government based on their needs. Although they did give the poor more rights, they completely ignored the needs of the other minorities such as women and slaves, which is quite selfish seeing as those groups were such a large number in society.
ReplyDeleteAmerica’s Constitution laid down the framework of one of the most successful democratic countries of this world. Its revolutionary ideas of giving power to the people and allowing them a say in the government was revolutionary for the time. But was it really a great change in thought? I would answer no; while the Constitution created several democratic ideals, it was created to keep the power of the people under the rule of the elite.
ReplyDeleteSome people would ask “What about voting? That is one of the most revolutionary ideals.” While this is true, the fact is that popular vote does not determine the president, it is in fact the Electoral College that determines the true president. And who are the people of the Electoral College? The answer to that would be the wealthy and elite. The Electoral College was created as a buffer between the common man and the president, and it would choose a president based on educated reasoning. The belief was that common Americans were not educated properly to be able to choose a proper leader for the country. Therefore the common American had little to no say in the electoral system.
Granted the Constitution did allow for free speech, freedom of religion and the like, it still harbored several clauses that were purposed for keeping the elite in power.
I also agree with Caroline and Huawei’s posts. The Constitution was very democratic but also, as I said previously, harbored the safety and power of the rich.