Charles Beard - Framing the Constitution

beard thought that the typography was just a document pen 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 sozzled lawyers. He was able to show that many another(prenominal) of the men at the Constitutional Conventions fell into one of those categories. He said that the dry land the framers wanted to protect against majority rule, was so the majority could non everywherethrow the few rich men and pick out over. He then compared this to a small group of creditors protecting themselves against the mint 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 to a greater extent power from the common man to give out themselves.

I do not really agree with Beard. It seems alike the framers really did do a good conjecture at protecting the rights of average citizens. Especially considering how long the constitution has lasted and how a great deal changed in regard to everyday life has since then. They did an incredible job at making the constitution a long long-lasting and effective document. Beard was the opposite of Roche. I think that they wrote these documents as a debate, and that Roche most likely won. There is more licence to support his theories, especially since we can see how well the constitution has worked since its creation. Also there were many members of the Constitutional Conventions who were not pie-eyed land owners and there were many wealthy men who conflicting the Constitution. Because of this, I would say that Beard was most likely mistaken.

BibliographyWoll, Peter. American...

--

References

-->

This essay is a very good beginning, and it needs a elevate development. The author gives Beards first name only in the epithet to the essay, and never explains who he was or where he set frontward his views -- his book was for many years one of the leading discussions of the motivations underlie the Constitution. It also does not detail Beards argument, or the various counterarguments that sop up gradually superseded his views.


These are flaws, but I do promise that this student continues to study and to write.

This article is much too outline and superficial. Rather than recounting and scarcely stating facts, try to get underneath it all and analyse the text you are given, even if it is on a topic so plain as this. Also, when paper on your personal opinions, though a good idea, guard to third person rather than first it is quite simply more academic if you do so. With your bibliography, it is obvious you havent used many sources. Try to broaden your horizons, do a bit more in depth study.

If you want to get a affluent essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper