Compare/Contrast the argument of Beard and Roche in regard of the Constituion and Founding fathers
2 Answers | Add Yours
The main difference between Beard and Roche’s theories of the constitution’s creation is the idea of motivation. Beard believed that the constitution was created for economic reasons, and that its sole purpose was to balance economic interests and create a strong economy. Roche, on the other hand, believed that the motivation in how the constitution was written was compromise, to make sure all factions and interests were balanced.
The difference is a little more stark than that. The Beards indeed argued that the Framers were driven by economic motives, but their motive was not simply to create a strong economy for everyone. Rather it was to benefit their own economic interests, and those of people whom they believed to share their class interests. John Roche dismissed the idea that class had much of anything to do with the framing of the Constitution, suggesting, as the preceding post says, that the document represented a reconciliation of varying interests. He essentially said that though the Framers only represented a wealthy elite, they formed a document that, in its completed form, was reflective of a national consensus. This ideal of national political unity trumped whatever self-interest, or class interest, they may have felt.
Join to answer this question
Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.Join eNotes