Historiography of the US Constitution Flashcards
Charles Beard
argued that the forces of the revolution were in effect subverted by the forces of the established ruling class of the pre-war period. He argued that the history of America, and that the Constitution itself, was the result of Marxian-style class struggle. He further asserted that the Constitution was an economic document designed by those with money and property to protect those with money and property.
Forrest McDonald
debunked Beard completely. “No correlation” exists, he discovered, “between their economic interests and their votes on issues in general or on key economic issues.” In fact, he emphasized that in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and New York “most [public] security holders opposed ratification.”
John Fiske
painted a grim picture of political life under the Articles of Confederation. The nation, he argued, was reeling under the impact of a business depression; the weakness and ineptitude of the national government; the threats to American territory from Great Britain and Spain; the inability of either the Congress or the state governments to make good their debts; the interstate jealousies and barriers to trade; the widespread use of inflation-producing paper money; and the lawlessness that culminated in Shays’s Rebellion. Only the timely adoption of the Constitution, he claimed, saved the young republic from disaster.
Merrill Jensen
argues in that the 1780s were not years of chaos and despair, but a time of hopeful striving. He agreed with Beard that only the economic interests of a small group of wealthy men could account for the creation of the Constitution. To them, the Constitution was notable chiefly for the way it abridged the democratic possibilities of the new nation.
Robert E. Brown
argued in 1956 that “absolutely no correlation” could be shown between the wealth of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and their position on the Constitution.
Gordon Wood
de-emphasized economic grievances but nevertheless suggested that the debate over the state constitutions in the 1770s and 1780s reflected profound social divisions and that those same divisions helped shape the argument over the federal Constitution
Jackson Turner Main
argued that supporters of the Constitution, while not perhaps the united creditor class that Beard described, were nevertheless economically distinct from critics of the document. The Federalists, he argued, were “cosmopolitan commercialists,” eager to advance the economic development of the nation; the Antifederalists, by contrast, were “agrarian localists,” fearful of centralization.
Jack Rakove
The Constitution, he argues, was not the product of a single intelligence or of a broad consensus. It was the result of a long and vigorous debate through which the views of many different groups found their way into the document.
argued that the forces of the revolution were in effect subverted by the forces of the established ruling class of the pre-war period. He argued that the history of America, and that the Constitution itself, was the result of Marxian-style class struggle. He further asserted that the Constitution was an economic document designed by those with money and property to protect those with money and property.
Charles Beard
debunked Beard completely. “No correlation” exists, he discovered, “between their economic interests and their votes on issues in general or on key economic issues.” In fact, he emphasized that in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and New York “most [public] security holders opposed ratification.”
Forrest McDonald
painted a grim picture of political life under the Articles of Confederation. The nation, he argued, was reeling under the impact of a business depression; the weakness and ineptitude of the national government; the threats to American territory from Great Britain and Spain; the inability of either the Congress or the state governments to make good their debts; the interstate jealousies and barriers to trade; the widespread use of inflation-producing paper money; and the lawlessness that culminated in Shays’s Rebellion. Only the timely adoption of the Constitution, he claimed, saved the young republic from disaster.
John Fiske
argues in that the 1780s were not years of chaos and despair, but a time of hopeful striving. He agreed with Beard that only the economic interests of a small group of wealthy men could account for the creation of the Constitution. To them, the Constitution was notable chiefly for the way it abridged the democratic possibilities of the new nation.
Merrill Jensen
argued in 1956 that “absolutely no correlation” could be shown between the wealth of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and their position on the Constitution.
Robert E Brown
de-emphasized economic grievances but nevertheless suggested that the debate over the state constitutions in the 1770s and 1780s reflected profound social divisions and that those same divisions helped shape the argument over the federal Constitution
Gordon Wood
argued that supporters of the Constitution, while not perhaps the united creditor class that Beard described, were nevertheless economically distinct from critics of the document. The Federalists, he argued, were “cosmopolitan commercialists,” eager to advance the economic development of the nation; the Antifederalists, by contrast, were “agrarian localists,” fearful of centralization.
Jackson Turner Main
