Framing the Constitution Framing the Constitution This corresponds with two competencies:…

Framing the Constitution
Framing the Constitution
This corresponds with two competencies:   Take a look at the differing viewpoints below. Who would you have supported and why?
John P. Roche and Charles A. Beard offer an interesting contrast on how and why the Constitution was framed.
Beard suggests the framers conspired to protect their personal property against the mob.
Roche sees the framers as practical politicians who were above all nationalists seeking the necessary compromises to get agreement among themselves and from the people.
Beard’s Arguments
?      “The makers of the federal Constitution represented the solid, conservative, commercial and financial interests of the country….”
?      The framers “were anxious above everything else to safeguard the rights of private property against any leveling tendencies on the part of the propertyless masses.”
Roche’s Arguments
?      the framers “were first and foremost superb democratic politicians…committed (perhaps willy-nilly) to working within the democratic framework, within the universe of public approval.”
?      the framers were ”
political
men”
?      “Charles Beard…to the contrary notwithstanding , the Philadelphia Convention was not a College of Cardinals or a council of Platonic guardians working within a manipulative, pre-democratic framework; it was a
nationalist
reform caucus which had to operate with great delicacy and skill in a political cosmos full of enemies to achieve the one definitive goal–popular approbation.”
While the framers’ motives are an interesting topic, and important in terms of original intent, motives are really impossible to aggregate in a micro way. Madison, Hamilton, Franklin and the other delegates wanted a strong national government, as Roche points out. That’s the macro picture.
Remember to respond first by Wednesday and again by close of week. One post must contain citation.