Source 1
“The movement for the Constitution was rooted in the economic interests of the wealthy elites. The delegates at Philadelphia were not disinterested statesmen acting out of pure idealism, but rather holders of government bonds, land speculators and merchants who suffered under the weak financial system of the Articles of Confederation. They designed a strong national government with power over taxation, interstate commerce, and contract enforcement specifically to protect private property, secure their investments, and limit the influence of democratic agrarian majorities.”
Source: Charles A. Beard, historian, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, 1913
Source 2
“The Framers were driven primarily by political imperatives rather than personal economic motives. They recognized that without a strong, energy-filled federal structure, the fragile young republic would succumb to external European military threats or collapse from internal factional chaos… The compromises forged at Philadelphia were practical political mechanisms intended to balance regional interests, protect republican liberty, and preserve national unity – not a self-serving conspiracy of the propertied class.”
Source: Gordon S. Wood, historian, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776 – 1787, 1969
Respond to parts (A), (B), and (C)
(A) Describe ONE major difference between Beard’s and Wood’s historical interpretations of the motives behind the Constitutional Convention.
(B) Briefly explain how one event or development from 1781 to 1787 not directly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Beard’s argument about the motives of the Framers.
(C) Briefly explain how one event or development from 1781 to 1787 not directly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Wood’s argument aboutthe motives of the Framers.
ANSWERS – Let’s take a look!
