Propertied men
who dressed well in wigs and petticoats that had a substantial economic
interest in the drafting of the constitution.
An Economic
Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard, 1913, Edited Excerpts
Having
shown that economic motives were behind the movement for a reconstruction of
the system, it is now necessary to inquire whether the members of the
Convention which drafted the Constitution represented their own property
affiliations. In other words, did the men who formulated the fundamental law of
the land possess the kinds of property which immediately and directly increased
in value by the results of their labors at Philadelphia? Did they have money at
interest? Did they own public securities? Did they hold western lands for
appreciation? Were they interested in shipping and manufacturing?
George
Washington, of Virginia, was probably the richest man in the United States in
his time. He possessed, in addition to his great estate on the Potomac, a large
amount of fluid capital which he judiciously invested in western lands, from
which he could reasonably expect a large appreciation with the establishment of
stable government and the advance of the frontier. Washington was also a considerable
money lender. If any one in the country had a just reason for being disgusted
with the Confederation it was Washington. He had given the best years of life
to the Revolutionary cause, and had refused all remuneration for his great
services.
A
survey of the economic interests of the members of the Convention presents
certain conclusions:
A
majority of the members were lawyers by profession.
Most
of the members came from towns, on or near the coast.
Not
one member represented the small farming or mechanic classes.
Public
security interests were extensively represented in the Convention.
Investment
in lands for speculation was represented by at least fourteen members.
Money
loaned at interest was represented by at least twenty-four members.
Mercantile,
manufacturing, and shipping lines were represented by at least eleven members.
Slave-holders
were represented by at least fifteen members.
The
overwhelming majority of the members were immediately, directly, and personally
interested in the outcome of their labors at Philadelphia, and were economic
beneficiaries from the adoption of the Constitution. It cannot be said
that the members of the Convention were “disinterested.” On the contrary, we
are forced to accept the profoundly significant conclusion that they knew
through their personal experiences in economic affairs the precise results
which the new government that they were setting up was designed to attain.
A People’s History of
the United States by Howard
Zinn, 1980
When
economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution,
then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a
decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain
their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of
the people to ensure popular support.
No comments:
Post a Comment