The Problem of the Constitution. Why was the Constitution written? Was the Constitution a counterrevolution? Was the first revolution the American Revolution which separated the colonies from Britain and gave rights to the people while the Constitution was the second revolution that took power away from the people and secured it to a small wealthy group of middle class merchants and bankers? Was there a critical period of American history that was cured by the Constitution?

The first historians to deal with the issue of the Constitution were collectively known as "patrician" historians. George Bancroft's work, History of the United States from the Discovery to the Present( 1880), is best known for this school of thought. His history is characterized by super charged patriotism. He perceived a critical period in American history from 1981 to 1789. Therefore the Constitution was the best political stroke of genius that cured most ills the United States was experiencing during the critical period..

Some weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation during 1781 to 1789: -Congress found that it was impossible to pass any laws (9 votes out of 13 were required to pass a bill into law) -no executive or national judiciary -Congress had no power to collect taxes(Congress could ask the states for money but had no authority to collect) -Every state had its own foreign diplomats to foreign countries (foreign nightmare) -rivalries between the states over matters of commerce (states fought with one another e.g. New York state took advantage of its good harbors and heavily taxed other states whose goods went through New York harbors). -each state printed its own money (hindered economic development of the nation as a whole) -Congress had no power to raise an army (military weakness to crush rebellions like the Shay's Rebellion)

Not all historians agreed with the Bancroft thesis. For example, Merrill Jensen wrote The New Nation in 1950 which strongly supported the thesis that there was no critical time period just prior to the writing of the Constitution (Therefore...why the Constitution)

Merrill Jensen could have been the product or prisoner of historiography but was not. He is writing in the 1950's after World War II and at the beginning of the cold war. People who wrote during this time (1940 to 1960) are called cold war, consensus or neo-conservative historians. Collectively, their histories reflect a bias in favor of the United States at a time of international tensions. Consequently, America can do no wrong. Everything we ever did was for humanitarian/patriotic reasons. Jensen did not reflect this school of history and regarded the Constitution as nipping democracy in the bud.

Merrill Jensen claims that the years 1781 to 1873 (the first few years of the new nation) were probably very difficult for the new nation and appear to be worse if you only look only at America through the eyes of disgruntled politicians and soldiers. After 1783, however, Jensen maintains the US was trading profitably with the West Indies, France, Holland, Sweden, Prussia and Morocco (wheat and tobacco). Also, states were beginning to cooperate with one another in terms of interstate trade, banks were being chartered and the Northwest Ordinance (allowing geographical areas become territories and then states...Ohio...Indiana...Michigan...Illinois...Wisconsin.

Another way to answer these questions is to look at the Progressive Movement in US History from 1900 to 1917.(Yes..those are the correct dates)

The progressive reform movement is defined as government becoming more responsive to the needs of the people immediately after the industrial revolution. Progressives passed legislation like child labor laws, minimum wage laws, maximum hour legislation, and laws protecting the immigrants as well as women(hey, history isn't perfect). Periodically, the Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution on behalf of big business and declare these laws designed to help the people as unconstitutional. This led some to question whether or not the Constitution was written for the people or for a particular interest group.

One such writer/historian was Charles Beard who authored An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. (1913) By the way, Beard's thesis was not challenged until the fifties with the publication of two important books: Robert and Katherine Brown's Charles Beard and the Constitution: A Critical Analysis of an "Economic Interpretation (what an original title-wow) and Forrest MacDonald's We the People. (For all the women in the class-Katherine Brown did all the writing and research and Robert received all the credit. Same thing with Charles and Mary Beard).

Beard concluded that the Constitution was written by and for the personalty group (correct spelling) and that the 55 men (lawyers) who met at Philadelphia in 1798 to write the Constitution wrote that document to protect their interests. Therefore the founding fathers were not patriotic men full of lofty ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but a consolidated economic group aspiring to reconstruct the national government to protect themselves and all those affected with money and public securities.

Was Beard correct... Yes and No (Ha ha) Really!

Economics did play a role in the formation of the Constitution. Historians like Forrest MacDonald say that it was not classes but geographical locations that determined whether or not people supported the Constitution. Generally speaking, if you fared well financially under the Articles of Confederation, then you generally did not support the Constitution. If you were hurting financially under the Articles, then you tended to support the Constitution. In substance, it is not economic classes that predisposed you to ratify or not ratify the Constitution but where you lived within the state and how successful you and your geographical area fared under the Articles. Remember MacDonald stressed the importance of states and how you fared under the Articles where Beard simply stressed the importance of classes (personalty v.s. realty). The historical evidence appears to support the MacDonald thesis.

I remember being in graduate school and wondering..ok.. Now that I have read the literature on the Constitution...I asked...who is right. In your case, after reading Issue Six, who is right?

My instructors never did tell me who is right. Maybe no one is absolutely right. History reflects the time in which it is written. I would suspect that historians writing today, being in part influenced by good economic times, might find that the Constitution has something to do with the good economy and then might find evidence historically to show that this political document was a stroke of genius.