More handpicked essays just for you.
Democracy in the late 19th century
Political roots of democracy in the united states
Political roots of democracy in the united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
create an undemocratic document designed to protect the property rights of the minority over the impoverished majority. In my own readings and collective analysis of Beard, Roche, and the Constitution, I have personally found Beard’s argument to be the more compelling of the two interpretations.
Particularly, because Roche fails to consider pertinent phenomenon surrounding the drafting of the Constitution (ie: historical context, the entire character of the Framers as individuals, and whole portions of the Constitution itself), Beard is more able to make a more compelling argument for his interpretation of the Constitution as intentionally undemocratic. One’s ability to analyze the motives of the Framers necessitates some understanding of the sense of national instability instilled in the US its first form of government, the Articles of Confederation in granting little power to the central government; in particular, focusing on the economic turmoil and it’s effects on the Framers. In his analysis of America in the Articles, Beard comprehensively summarizes the failures of the Articles as compromising to the “national defense, protection of private property, and advancement of commerce,” (Beard, 36) in the US. Additionally, Beard utilizes these indisputable truths to establish a case for what he believes to be the self-interested influences that urged the Framers to craft an undemocratic Constitution. As Beard puts it, the state centered control of the US under the Articles caused the economic …show more content…
elite to suffer the greatest financial burdens in the form of “immediate losses….or impediments placed in the way of development of their enterprises” (Beard 36). That is, while the Articles created a nation wholly in turmoil, the economic disaster that was created caused particular damage to the assets of the Framers, and thus established a sense of urgency for the Framers to renovate the government in such a way that would no longer place their finances in peril. Roche on his part of analyzing America under the Articles rather selectively addresses the inadequacies of the government to the extent to merely preserve the valiant portrayal he often adopts of the Framers. As he puts it, the Constitution’s historical roots can be understood as “one of a masterful employment of political expertise by the [Framers] as against bumbling, erratic behavior” (Roche, 14) from their opposition. Evidently, Roche makes little reference to the specific effects of the Articles at all, instead opting to generalize the Articles as a cause of turmoil in which the Framers were able to hone their unique democratic skill. It thus appears by his analysis (or lack thereof) that to Roche, the Articles existed in a political vacuum in which their sole purpose was to create an ineffective system, through which the Framers became heroic in their capacity to maneuver such political adversity with agility and perseverance. . Ultimately, where Beard summarizes all aspects of detriment caused under the Articles to craft a reasonably undemocratic motive for the Framers to reform government, Roche shows little ability to derive any such realistic conclusions of the Framers’ character from the context of the times. Furthermore, it is indeed the mutual consensus of both scholars that the Framers created the Constitution through public deception: while publicly calling for only an amending of the Articles, they truly intended (and succeeded) to eradicate the Articles and establish a new form of government from the outset. Roche, again, subjectively interprets historical context here in utilizing the Framers’ deception as a means to retain his virtuous portrayal of the Framers’ legitimacy and political excellency. As Roche perceives the events, the intents of the Framers in calling for a convention to amend the articles were “no doubt subversive to the existing political order…”, but still were conducted on the “fundamental procedural level” (Roche, 13), and because of this the Framers committed no real acts of wrongdoing. Whereas Roche’s interpretation of the Framers as rule-followers can hardly be contested, his failure to in the least attempt to acknowledge public deception as morally wrong is utterly concerning and deeply compromising to the strength of his argument, as the sole claim of his analysis attempts to advocate for democracy in the Constitution. Conversely, to Beard’s strength, he more realistically draws a parallel between the decisively deceptive actions of the Framers and their questionably moral character to construct a reasonable doubt against the democratic roots of the Constitution. Indeed, at the core of Beard’s assertion that the Constitution was intended to be an undemocratic document is the idea that “holding a constitutional convention in the first place was never submitted to a popular vote,” (Woll, 34). Beard, with the knowledge of the deceit underlying the convention, then concludes that the Constitution from the very outset showed a severe disregard for both majority rule and the concerns of the public. Ultimately, in placing priority of reverence over realism in interpreting the actions of the Framers to establish the roots of the Constitution, Roche simply makes this argument all the more compelling. Finally, analysis of the Constitution itself proves to be Roche’s greatest argumental flaw, as he not only neglects realistic consideration of personal motives as an influence on the structure of the Constitution, but truly neglects the Constitution as a whole.
Throughout the entirety of his analysis, Roche consistently reiterates what he feels to be the greatest testament to the political excellence of the Framers: their unrelenting ability to compromise. While this could serve to potentially benefit his analysis had he cited with it specific constitutional evidence supporting these democratic values, Roche mainly relies on storytelling tactics of the struggles of the Framers to compromise instead. Indeed, perhaps Roche’s analysis can best be summarized in his assertion that “however motivated… [the Framers] demonstrated their willingness to compromise their parochial interests [for the sake of the nation]” (Roche, 15). This is to say that because Roche spends such vast amounts of his analysis of the Constitution on the sacrifices of the Framers with no real relevance to the actual wording of the Constitution itself, his argument about the democracy reflected in the constitution simply becomes lost within his “Founding Fathers” rhetoric. Beard, however, in citing specific constitutional features (including the Electoral College, the general means of representation for citizens, and the ratification of the Constitution) as anti majoritarian in nature successfully supports
his portrayal of the Framers as privately influenced by self-interest. What’s more, throughout his comprehensive analysis of the Constitution as a document, Beard’s greatest strength is actually in his citation of quotational evidence from the Framers themselves, which he insists confirms their fear of democracy in creating the Constitution. As he puts it, direct quotations from the Framers simply prove that they “were not seeking to realize any fine notions about democracy and equality..." but rather to establish a government equipped with the means to maintain stability while simultaneously protecting the wealthy minority "against the possibilities of despotism and..., the onslaught of majorities" (Beard, 40). Simply put, whereas Roche loses site of the relevance of the Constitution in his analysis, Beard not only remains on topic but expertly derives meaningful data from the context of the Constitution as a means to solidify his case against the “democracy” reflected in the Constitution. In summation, Roche’s general inability to analyze the crucial phenomenon surrounding the Constitution severely impede his argument in comparison to Beard. The Articles of Confederation indisputably created a sense of national turmoil and instability, that of which is crucial to understanding some source of motive for the Framers to create a reformed government. Roche rather briskly and subjectively reviews these effects on the union, only so much as to portray the Framers as benevolent politicians; to be sure, his analysis here seems to contain little relevance, and to an even smaller extent provides true testament to the democracy reflected in the Constitution. Moreover, the Framers privately, rather than publicly, resolved to drafting the Constitution in replacement of the Articles and in doing so, established a lack of democracy in the Constitution from its outset. Roche does more to acknowledge the realities of the Framers’ actions here as deceptive, but again focuses more on redeeming the character of the Framers than truly making a statement about their intentions or the effects this had on the Constitution. Finally, the Constitution itself contains multiple ambiguities for which either Roche or Beard could make a plausible argument concerning the democracy reflected within it’s pages; Roche, however, analyzes no such passages so as to extract meaningful evidence for its democratic values. Ultimately, in light of the multiple shortcomings of Roche to consider the elements encompassing the Constitution, from conception to ratification, Beard excels in his capacities to create a compelling argument for his idea that the Framers intentionally crafted an undemocratic document designed to protect their private economic interests over the rights of the majority.
Within the pages of One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea, author Ed Millican dissects not only The Federalist piece by piece, but scrutinizes numerous works of other authors in regards to the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As a result, a strong conclusion asserts that the motives of The Federalist was to create a sturdy nation-state but above all, that American polity is far more complex than pluralism and a free-market economy.
In this paper we will discuss the different point of views on the revolutionary war period that lead up the creation of the constitution between Howard Zinn and Larry Schweikart. It is true that the constitution as created by the rich, however the rich were more educated than the poor at the time, making them the reliable leaders of the society. This said, the rich might have tweaked the Laws to their slight advantage. Schweikart explains the creation of the constitution in order to fulfil the needs of the population. However Zinn emphasizes the fact that the government is controlled by the elites who benefit the most form the foundation of the constitution.
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
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within
Madison speaks of the problems of the present attempts at a new government saying “our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority”.
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.
While the evidence found in Jefferson’s political and military dealings helps us understand how Madison and him “out Federalized the Federalists”, an examination of Jefferson’s economic policies truly proves that in the words on one historian he was the “American Sphinx”.
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).
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
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.