SAMPLE RESPONSE, 3/3 POINTS
a) Beard’s Shocking View Beard’s perspective was shocking because it stripped away the idea of the Founding Fathers as selfless, idealistic patriots. He argued that the Constitution was not a work of abstract principles, but rather an “economic document” created by men whose “property interests were immediately at stake”. If Beard were correct, it would imply that the United States government was founded as a “conservative ‘counterrevolution’” designed to protect the wealth of the elite rather than to promote universal democratic ideals.
b) Wood and “Interests” Gordon Wood’s view actually aligns with what Beard critiqued. While Beard looks for economic motives, Wood focuses on the “transformation of political thought” and the “expansion of the principle of representation”. For Wood, the “interests” of the Founding Fathers were intellectual and structural—they were interested in solving the problem of how to create “unmixed and extensive republics” through new political theories rather than through personal financial gain.
c) The Revolution vs. The Constitution. Beard sees a conflict between the two, viewing the Constitution as a “counterrevolution” intended to curb the more radical or democratic impulses of the Revolutionary era to protect property. He would likely interpret the Anti-Federalists as the defenders of the Revolution’s original spirit against an economic elite. Wood sees the Constitution as a natural extension of the Revolution, arguing that the shift in thought was not “disruptive or discontinuous”. He views the Constitution as the result of decades of political experience that began in 1776. From this view, the Anti-Federalists might be seen as those who remained tied to the “old concept of mixed government” that the Federalists had moved beyond.
SUMMARY
Beard views the Constitution as a conservative “counterrevolution." He views it as in the self-interest of the framers of the document.
Wood views the Constitution as the extension of republican political theory--A fight for liberty.
a) Beard’s Shocking View Beard’s perspective was shocking because it stripped away the idea of the Founding Fathers as selfless, idealistic patriots. He argued that the Constitution was not a work of abstract principles, but rather an “economic document” created by men whose “property interests were immediately at stake”. If Beard were correct, it would imply that the United States government was founded as a “conservative ‘counterrevolution’” designed to protect the wealth of the elite rather than to promote universal democratic ideals.
b) Wood and “Interests” Gordon Wood’s view actually aligns with what Beard critiqued. While Beard looks for economic motives, Wood focuses on the “transformation of political thought” and the “expansion of the principle of representation”. For Wood, the “interests” of the Founding Fathers were intellectual and structural—they were interested in solving the problem of how to create “unmixed and extensive republics” through new political theories rather than through personal financial gain.
c) The Revolution vs. The Constitution. Beard sees a conflict between the two, viewing the Constitution as a “counterrevolution” intended to curb the more radical or democratic impulses of the Revolutionary era to protect property. He would likely interpret the Anti-Federalists as the defenders of the Revolution’s original spirit against an economic elite. Wood sees the Constitution as a natural extension of the Revolution, arguing that the shift in thought was not “disruptive or discontinuous”. He views the Constitution as the result of decades of political experience that began in 1776. From this view, the Anti-Federalists might be seen as those who remained tied to the “old concept of mixed government” that the Federalists had moved beyond.
SUMMARY
Beard views the Constitution as a conservative “counterrevolution." He views it as in the self-interest of the framers of the document.
Wood views the Constitution as the extension of republican political theory--A fight for liberty.