Beard thought that the constitution was just a document written by the rich, whose only motive was protecting their wealth and property.Beard said that these rich men included landholders, creditors, merchants, public bondholders, and wealthy lawyers.
Beard thought that the constitution was just a document written by the rich, whose only motive was protecting their wealth and property.Tags: Bloody Sunday Russia EssayEssay On Education System Of PakistanPe Homework SheetsWhat To Write For A Personal Statement For CollegeEssay On My Mother In UrduFun Group Creative Writing SProblem Solving LessonsEssay On What Do For My
Beard believed that the reason why the rich framers wanted to protect against majority rule was to prevent the majority to overthrow the rich.
Beard did manage to fit most of the framers under “rich” categories such as lawyers, landowners, and merchants.
We apologize for any inconvenience, and thank you for your visiting.
Throughout the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention labored to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new frame of government.
Klarman seeks to understand why the Framers produced such an undemocratic plan in the first place, and how they managed to get it approved over strong opposition in the state conventions.
At the risk of oversimplifying—the book comes in at more than 800 pages—Klarman argues that the Constitution is undemocratic because it was designed to protect wealthy merchants and landowners from the redistributive tendencies of popular government.He then compared this to a small group of creditors protecting themselves against the masses that owed them money.This is also why the constitution had clauses limiting the states control over money lending and circulation.The framers left these powers with the Federal Government, of which they were supposedly in control of.Beard felt these elite men were conspiring to take even more power from the common man to better themselves. It seems like the framers really did do a good job at protecting the rights of average citizens.The book seems intended as a bracing antidote to the phenomenon that Klarman has elsewhere The idea that the Constitution was really about money is not new, although it has lost favor in recent decades to “ideological” interpretations that focus on the Framers’ moral worldview and political goals.Klarman draws the core of his argument from Woody Holton’s 2007 (1913).Overall, though, the signers were pleased with the system they created.James Wilson of Pennsylvania judged it, “The best form of government which has ever been offered to the world.” Next, the Constitution was sent to the states to be debated and, the Framers hoped, ratified.Especially considering how long the constitution has lasted and how much changed in regard to everyday life has since then.They did an incredible job at making the constitution a long lasting and effective document. I think that they wrote these documents as a debate, and that Roche most likely won.