seemslikeadream
01-14-2008, 07:28 PM
I would like to read more of Charles Beard
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States
By Charles A. Beard
Review by Serdar Goz
Original review by John H. Latané
What comes to the minds of most people when they think of the constitutional convention is a gathering of scholarly gentlemen who sought to create a government that was for the people and by the people. In all facets of the documents this holds true. Nowhere in the Constitution are there rules that protect any one class in its rights or property over any other. The Constitution does not distinguish differences by descent, opinion, religion, or property. In these respects the founding fathers have much credit owed to them. In An Economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States Charles Beard refutes this perception of the founding fathers. “The whole theory of the economic interpretation of history,” Beard states, “rests upon the concept that social progress in general is the result of contending interests in society…”(p.19). By researching the classes and social groups that existed at the time previous to the adoption of the Constitution those who would have most immediately gained and benefited by the overthrow of the old system and adoption of the new system would be made clear. BeardBeard goes methodically through who was in the convention and the person’s financial standing, the states involved in the ratification and where her finances were found.
To begin to make sense of why those at the convention were there and what they sought to protect one needs to be familiar with the problems that existed and the specific interests that existed at the time before the adoption of the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation there was a loose union of thirteen sovereign states. The national government consisted of a congress with one house in which each state had equal voting power. There was no executive department or judiciary. The central government had no power to regulate commerce or tax directly. In the absence of these powers all branches of the government were rendered helpless according to Beard. It is necessary to go further in depth into the specific interests of the groups at the convention, which are four fold, to understand what was at stake.
Although personalty in the form of money in interest or investment capitol doesn’t come close to what it does today nonetheless it played a role in the politics at the convention. Money capitol was suffering in two ways under the Articles of Confederation. It was difficult to invest money because of the lack of protection for manufacturers, there was an absence of protection for investments in western lands and there existed discrimination against American shipping by foreign countries. Personalty in money was also in dire straights because of the makers of paper money. There were stay laws, pine barren acts, and other mechanisms to depreciate the value of money or to delay the collection of debts. Furthermore, each state had its own form of currency and coinage making it difficult to conduct business across borders. This situation greatly favored debtors, possibly driving creditors into class-consciousness and seeking a means to an end at the convention according to Beard.
Those who were holders of personalty in public securities were greatly concerned with the establishment of a national government. Under the Articles of Confederation the government was not paying the interest on its debts and its paper money had depreciated to the point it was selling at one-sixth to one-twentieth its par value as Beard put forth. State money was also at a low price because of the reservations people had of the actions of state legislatures. The advantages of a strong national government that would be able to pay off its debts at face value, coin its own money and maintain its worth is obvious.
Personatly in manufacturing and shipping were not at the forefront of discussions in the convention but it was in the minds of pamphleteers outside of the convention. The Industrial Revolution was just getting underway in England. Concerns about British discriminatory measures against American shipping and manufacturing were perceived to be disastrous to American economic independence in the future as well as in the present by the pamphleteers. As early 1785 petitions from manufacturing and shipping centers from around the Unites States were being sent to state legislatures stating that these groups did not believe the congress had full power or authority over the commerce of the United States. The Connecticut Courant wrote how in her harbors British ships greatly outnumbered American ships, how these ships transported produce from South Carolina and what would happen is “Northern cities will soon be depopulated and dwindle into poverty, while Southern ones will become silk worms to toil and labour for Europe”(p.47). These groups believed a strong national government would be able to lay and collect tariffs as well as initiate other forms of legislation to safeguard their businesses.
The final interest was capitol invested in western lands. Although companies had been formed before the Revolution to settle the lands of the west effective steps were not taken until afterward the end of the Revolution. The general ignorance concerning the west and the depreciated value of money made speculation a lucrative business. Under the Articles of Confederation a policy of accepting certificates in part payment for western lands was adopted, it was believed the national debt could be paid off in this way. However, the weakness of the government, the lack of a military, and uncertainty as to the frontier kept the value of the land abnormally low. The advantages a strong national government were obvious, a military to protect the people, organized means of settling the land and appreciation of money would make speculators wealthy.
As I was reading a question began to turn over in my head. How did the representatives of these separate interests have their opinions voiced at the convention? The answer came in the chapter entitled “Safeguards In Election Of Delegates.” In the chapter it is made clear that a majority of the states placed direct property qualifications on the voters and the other states eliminated practically all who were not taxpayers. Special safeguards for property were secured in the qualifications imposed on members of the legislature in a number of states. Someone who is well versed in the Constitution would interject but there are no property qualifications to vote in the Constitution. That is correct, but not for reasons one might presume. Property qualifications were not left out because it was the right thing to do, to allow all men to participate in government, but rather it was because of economic reasons it was left out. James Madison clearly put forth the reasoning behind not imposing slight property qualifications. It would first not exclude small farmers, whose paper money ideas had been so detrimental to personalty, and property qualifications would exclude those representatives who were not landowners, the manufacturing and shipping personalty, and it was not believed the manufacturing and shipping personalty would turn their personalty to land. The pursuit of wealth greatly affected decisions at the convention, even more so then I had expected.
I must regretfully admit that I too was one of those misguided souls who saw the founding fathers as infallible men of higher consciences. It is mainly due to the way in which history is taught at the lower levels. Early on, teachers candy coat the truth and make these men seem like angels. As one gets on in his or her education the candy coats are taken off one by one until one is able to seek the truth and decide for oneself. I found what Beard was saying to be a breath of fresh air. I find his explanations very well grounded in reason and fact. Although he does say many times in the book that many of the documentation necessary to make a more in depth analysis has been lost with time Beard makes great use of that which is at his disposal. In his review, John H. Latané criticizes Beard’s work saying that it “is a deliberate attempt to upset all of our traditional ideas as to the motives and purposes of the men who framed our national government.” Latané goes further to say that the main defect with Beard’s book is that he does not take the thesis further by analyzing the votes of those at the convention. Beards states that many of those at the convention were bondholders. Latané says that those with the most to gain from the bonds if a strong national government were adopted voted against the Constitutions ratification. I believe that Latané has a point that Beard could have analyzed his thesis further, Beard himself states that much of the necessary paperwork to make his theory conclusive was either lost or destroyed by time. However I don’t think it’s a question of degree, rather it is a question of possibility. The delegates at the convention were most likely there because they felt they had a chance of gaining wealth and they were going to make sure in some form or another actions were taken to secure their economic means. This gave the few independent thinkers the luxury to speak their minds and voice their opinions, knowing full well the economic safety of most every delegate would be ensured by the others at the convention. The book is quite lengthy and full of economic data and charts. I would suggest the book to others to read if they had the time and a calculator. It presents a view of the founding fathers and formation of the Constitution that is very contrary to many previous beliefs.
Beard A., Charles. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Toronto, Collier-Macmillan Canada, Ltd. 1913
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States
By Charles A. Beard
Review by Serdar Goz
Original review by John H. Latané
What comes to the minds of most people when they think of the constitutional convention is a gathering of scholarly gentlemen who sought to create a government that was for the people and by the people. In all facets of the documents this holds true. Nowhere in the Constitution are there rules that protect any one class in its rights or property over any other. The Constitution does not distinguish differences by descent, opinion, religion, or property. In these respects the founding fathers have much credit owed to them. In An Economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States Charles Beard refutes this perception of the founding fathers. “The whole theory of the economic interpretation of history,” Beard states, “rests upon the concept that social progress in general is the result of contending interests in society…”(p.19). By researching the classes and social groups that existed at the time previous to the adoption of the Constitution those who would have most immediately gained and benefited by the overthrow of the old system and adoption of the new system would be made clear. BeardBeard goes methodically through who was in the convention and the person’s financial standing, the states involved in the ratification and where her finances were found.
To begin to make sense of why those at the convention were there and what they sought to protect one needs to be familiar with the problems that existed and the specific interests that existed at the time before the adoption of the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation there was a loose union of thirteen sovereign states. The national government consisted of a congress with one house in which each state had equal voting power. There was no executive department or judiciary. The central government had no power to regulate commerce or tax directly. In the absence of these powers all branches of the government were rendered helpless according to Beard. It is necessary to go further in depth into the specific interests of the groups at the convention, which are four fold, to understand what was at stake.
Although personalty in the form of money in interest or investment capitol doesn’t come close to what it does today nonetheless it played a role in the politics at the convention. Money capitol was suffering in two ways under the Articles of Confederation. It was difficult to invest money because of the lack of protection for manufacturers, there was an absence of protection for investments in western lands and there existed discrimination against American shipping by foreign countries. Personalty in money was also in dire straights because of the makers of paper money. There were stay laws, pine barren acts, and other mechanisms to depreciate the value of money or to delay the collection of debts. Furthermore, each state had its own form of currency and coinage making it difficult to conduct business across borders. This situation greatly favored debtors, possibly driving creditors into class-consciousness and seeking a means to an end at the convention according to Beard.
Those who were holders of personalty in public securities were greatly concerned with the establishment of a national government. Under the Articles of Confederation the government was not paying the interest on its debts and its paper money had depreciated to the point it was selling at one-sixth to one-twentieth its par value as Beard put forth. State money was also at a low price because of the reservations people had of the actions of state legislatures. The advantages of a strong national government that would be able to pay off its debts at face value, coin its own money and maintain its worth is obvious.
Personatly in manufacturing and shipping were not at the forefront of discussions in the convention but it was in the minds of pamphleteers outside of the convention. The Industrial Revolution was just getting underway in England. Concerns about British discriminatory measures against American shipping and manufacturing were perceived to be disastrous to American economic independence in the future as well as in the present by the pamphleteers. As early 1785 petitions from manufacturing and shipping centers from around the Unites States were being sent to state legislatures stating that these groups did not believe the congress had full power or authority over the commerce of the United States. The Connecticut Courant wrote how in her harbors British ships greatly outnumbered American ships, how these ships transported produce from South Carolina and what would happen is “Northern cities will soon be depopulated and dwindle into poverty, while Southern ones will become silk worms to toil and labour for Europe”(p.47). These groups believed a strong national government would be able to lay and collect tariffs as well as initiate other forms of legislation to safeguard their businesses.
The final interest was capitol invested in western lands. Although companies had been formed before the Revolution to settle the lands of the west effective steps were not taken until afterward the end of the Revolution. The general ignorance concerning the west and the depreciated value of money made speculation a lucrative business. Under the Articles of Confederation a policy of accepting certificates in part payment for western lands was adopted, it was believed the national debt could be paid off in this way. However, the weakness of the government, the lack of a military, and uncertainty as to the frontier kept the value of the land abnormally low. The advantages a strong national government were obvious, a military to protect the people, organized means of settling the land and appreciation of money would make speculators wealthy.
As I was reading a question began to turn over in my head. How did the representatives of these separate interests have their opinions voiced at the convention? The answer came in the chapter entitled “Safeguards In Election Of Delegates.” In the chapter it is made clear that a majority of the states placed direct property qualifications on the voters and the other states eliminated practically all who were not taxpayers. Special safeguards for property were secured in the qualifications imposed on members of the legislature in a number of states. Someone who is well versed in the Constitution would interject but there are no property qualifications to vote in the Constitution. That is correct, but not for reasons one might presume. Property qualifications were not left out because it was the right thing to do, to allow all men to participate in government, but rather it was because of economic reasons it was left out. James Madison clearly put forth the reasoning behind not imposing slight property qualifications. It would first not exclude small farmers, whose paper money ideas had been so detrimental to personalty, and property qualifications would exclude those representatives who were not landowners, the manufacturing and shipping personalty, and it was not believed the manufacturing and shipping personalty would turn their personalty to land. The pursuit of wealth greatly affected decisions at the convention, even more so then I had expected.
I must regretfully admit that I too was one of those misguided souls who saw the founding fathers as infallible men of higher consciences. It is mainly due to the way in which history is taught at the lower levels. Early on, teachers candy coat the truth and make these men seem like angels. As one gets on in his or her education the candy coats are taken off one by one until one is able to seek the truth and decide for oneself. I found what Beard was saying to be a breath of fresh air. I find his explanations very well grounded in reason and fact. Although he does say many times in the book that many of the documentation necessary to make a more in depth analysis has been lost with time Beard makes great use of that which is at his disposal. In his review, John H. Latané criticizes Beard’s work saying that it “is a deliberate attempt to upset all of our traditional ideas as to the motives and purposes of the men who framed our national government.” Latané goes further to say that the main defect with Beard’s book is that he does not take the thesis further by analyzing the votes of those at the convention. Beards states that many of those at the convention were bondholders. Latané says that those with the most to gain from the bonds if a strong national government were adopted voted against the Constitutions ratification. I believe that Latané has a point that Beard could have analyzed his thesis further, Beard himself states that much of the necessary paperwork to make his theory conclusive was either lost or destroyed by time. However I don’t think it’s a question of degree, rather it is a question of possibility. The delegates at the convention were most likely there because they felt they had a chance of gaining wealth and they were going to make sure in some form or another actions were taken to secure their economic means. This gave the few independent thinkers the luxury to speak their minds and voice their opinions, knowing full well the economic safety of most every delegate would be ensured by the others at the convention. The book is quite lengthy and full of economic data and charts. I would suggest the book to others to read if they had the time and a calculator. It presents a view of the founding fathers and formation of the Constitution that is very contrary to many previous beliefs.
Beard A., Charles. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Toronto, Collier-Macmillan Canada, Ltd. 1913