Ellenberger, also a Grinnell graduate, was impressed. What An Economic Interpretation does not correctly illustrate is that for most of those involved the concern over private property was one based more on ideology rather than personal gain. Charles Austin Beard November 27, 1874 — September 1, 1948 was, with Frederick Jackson Turner, one of the most influential American historians of the first half of the 20th century. My rating is probably partially the result of the fact that the copy I read, the Kindle eBook copy, was horribly formatted. It was very difficult to read, on top of the material itself just being terribly dry and horribly organized.
Beard attempts to prove that the Constitution is the product of the small, upper-class An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Everything else in the constitution was just gravy. In the second half of his book, Beard looks at the economic interests of each member of the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia. There is implicit to his economic analyses of this, that and the other event a subtle tone of disapproval, a sense that this is how people normally act, but they oughtn't. He Throughout American history we have seen various interpretations of one of the most influential documents of our government: The Constitution. Capital as opposed to land—public securities, shipping, manufacturing, money at interest—suffered at the hands of the prevailing government, and men representing these interests were involved in the maneuvers. Beard uses the records from the Treasury Department are in Chapter V to give insight into the possessions, personal property, and real estate of each member present at the Convention.
It was criticized roughly for degrading the constitution, sullying American ideals, and its marxist leanings which suggested an elitist conspiracy to check what they saw as an unbridled gallop toward mob rule and anarchy by the unwashed and illiterate masses. States printed their own money that only had value within that territory which created a hindrance in trade and in turn produced an unstable economy. Beard's penchant for always looking for economic motives when explaining the actions of persons and collectivities in history struck me as a powerful heuristic tool. Since so many leaders in the movement for ratification were large security holders and securities constituted such a large portion of personalty, he said, the security holders were a very considerable, if. Conservatives such as were shocked at the Progressive interpretation because it seem to belittle the Constitution. Overall, the book provides support from outside sources to support his theory but seems to be limited to the documents listed above and may be due to the fact that many pertinent records have either been destroyed or never existed.
The self-criticism is unneeded due to the extensive use of primary sources, especially The Federalist and financial records from the Treasury Department in Washington. Unlike those writers, who had stressed idealistic impulses as factors determining the structure of the American government, Beard questioned the Founding Fathers' motivations in drafting the Constitution and viewed the results as a product of economic self-interest. From the moment of its debut, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United Statesby Charles A. It's not the baker's altruism that puts bread on the table, its his self interest. It was a straight-up scan, with footnotes mixed directly into the text and no spacing between chapter titles, subsections and the text itself. Every course I've taken up to now has been on Middle Eastern and South Asian history.
The lumping of these conclusions. Beard further argued that this study was not a definitive study. When it is dark enough, you can see the stars. Beard, shattered previous visions of the revolutionary era long promulgated by nineteenth century historians when it was first published in 1913. I do not really agree with Beard. Those who did not have the right to vote: the slaves, the indentured servants, the mass of men who could not qualify under property tests imposed by state legislatures, and women.
These schools, particularly the second and third, contributed the ideas of scrupulous care. I think that they wrote these documents. Beard argues that the manorial lords and the small farmers, primarily a debtor class, generally opposed the ratification of the Constitution, while the slaveholding planters generally supported its adoption. The true nature of the Constitution is not apparent on the surface, he said, for it contains no property qualifications for voting and does not outwardly recognize economic groups or confer special class privileges. In his own interpretation, Charles A. It seems like the framers really did do a good job at protecting the rights of average citizens.
Grendel gives much more of a story than Beowulf. The author addressed different topics in a list format, turning entire chapters into something akin to encyclopedia entries. One could argue that although the framers did want to protect their money, the system created here in America and codified in the Constitution gives everyone a chance to succeed. Beard, an Intellectual Biography 1983 p. In 1913 there appeared a book which caused more than a ripple of interest in both academic and nonacademic circles. Constitution has remained a subject of debate since its first publication. He goes on to suggest a new fourth theory: economic determinism, which he believes has been largely neglected 6.
Meaning, the framers not only had poor motives to create such a document, but also their individual desires were so over powering that there were multiple selfish objectives being imputed into such an integral document. Beard says, its just one interpretation of the origins of the constitution. This perhaps gives reason as to Charles A. Few books in American history have aroused such bitter partisanship; few have elicited the extremes of both commendation and condemnation that were heaped on this single volume. Beard, Framing The Constitution, 1996, Harper Collins College Publishing 2.