Blog #93 – Historiography of the Constitution
Historiography is the history of the history, or how interpretations of an event have changed over the years. Usually, historians reflect the main concerns of the time period in which they write (for instance, Progressive historians are concerned about economic factors driving events because they wrote during the reform-minded era, the Progressive Era -1900-1915). Sometimes, enough historians write in a similar viewpoint that history scholars call them historical schools of thought (Nationalist, Progressive, Consensus, New Left, etc.). And sometimes, these schools of thought are dominated by an historian who writes an incredibly influential book on that subject (Charles Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution). One of the things that I hope you understand from this look at historiography is that the history of events and their interpretations can and are constantly changing. Here is a link to a wikipedia page on general U.S. historiography – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_United_States
Before the Civil War (1861-65), many people were focused on who the Constitution put in charge of the nation: the states or the federal government? Also, many controversies surfaced in whether they should interpret the Constitution literally as written (strict interpretation) or to interpret the Founders’ intent (loose interpretation). It seems that the writers of this document weren’t ready to answer those questions either in Philadelphia in 1787 and wanted to leave some wiggle room for interpretation for future generations (this is my loose interpretation). The Civil War ended this controversy with the federal government enforcing its supremacy over the states in the defeat on the Confederacy.
Nationalist School (post Civil War – 1900)
George Bancroft began writing his epic history of the U.S. before the Civil War and continued until 1887. His first volume, found here, covers from the early voyages to the New World until the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688 (for us in APUSH, this history ignored the Native Americans in Ch. 1 and focused primarily on the Spanish and the founding of the colonies up until 1688 – over 600 pages in his first volume!). Bancroft and other historians wrote American history reflecting the Gilded Age and American economic growth, railroad expansion, the closing of the interior frontier, and their beliefs in Anglo-Saxon superiority. Nationalist writers believed that “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty” was due to white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments. 
Nationalists viewed the creation of the Constitution as an extension of the Revolution. The Articles of Confederation were too weak to deal with internal threats and problems (Shays Rebellion, economic depression) or with external threats (Spain and England). The American people were divinely picked by God (“City on a hill”? American exceptionallism?) to create a perfect republic, and the men at Philly were creating a new government for the betterment of the nation.
Progressive School (1900 – 1930s)
This time period saw many people concerned about the effects of massive wealth redistribution that widened the gap between rich and poor, in addition to the negative effects of urbanization and industrialization (slums, poor working conditions, low wages). This era saw a huge uptick in reforms that attempted to solve these problems. Carl Becker saw the Revolution as two concurrent changes: one to break away from British rule, and another as to who will rule at home (which culminates in the Constitution). Charles A. Beard was the one of leading historians of the time with his popular 1913 book, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the U.S. (found here). 
Beard found that the men who made the Constitution had strong economic motives to ensure a powerful federal government because “most of these men held public securities, a form of personal property that would increase dramatically in value” if a new government was strong and improved its credit rating. These conservative men had economic interests in banking, public securities (or bonds and promissory notes to Revolutionary war soldiers), manufacturers, and merchants involved in shipping and trade. All of these economic interests declined because of the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. Those who opposed the Constitution were working men and small farmers who were deep in debt. Our new document was designed to protect private property against state assemblies that were much more democratic and likely to protect small farmers and debtors. Beard also saw the creation of the Constitution as undemocratic because there were no “common men” involved, and the proceedings were done in secret. Also, there was no bill of rights protection for Americans, unlike many state constitutions. Beard’s primary focus in his history is class conflict.
Consensus School (1940s – 1960s)
After World War II, some historians moved away from the class conflict interpretation of American history and shifted toward consensus. Because we were engaged in the Cold War with Russians (a country whose ideology is steeped in class conflict – Marxism), consensus historians de-emphasized class conflict and taught that our conflicts are steeped in competition of businessmen and entreprenuers that has made America great. These historians are somewhat throwbacks to the Nationalist school who wanted to strengthen America “as a world leader with a history as a strong and united country free from class-based oppression”. “The cement holding us together is our widespread prosperity and universal acceptance of the principles succinctly summarized in the first parts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Our political struggles have always been within the center rather than between the left and right extremists.”
They saw the Revolution and Constitution as one continuous movement (as opposed to Beard’s democratic revolution against the British and a conservative counter-revolution for private property with the Constitution), and that the state constitutions were created by the same people who signed the Declaration of Independence. Consensus historians saw the Constitution as primarily a political document, not economic like Beard. The delegates at the convention were primarily concerned with making a better government than the Articles, one that was based upon “representation, fixed elections, a written constitution that is a supreme law and contains an amendment clause, separation of powers and checks and balances, a bicameral legislature, a single executive, and a separate court system.” These historians challenged Beard’s assertion that the poor didn’t have a say in the Constitution, stating that 2/3 of men at this time owned enough property to vote in state elections, many of whom were small farmers. These historians include two of my favorites, Daniel Boorstin and Richard Hofstadter (author of the extra article on the Founding Fathers: The Age of Realism).
Intellectual or Republicanism Historians (1950s – 1980s)
This group of historians is dominated by Gordon Wood and Bernard Bailyn. These two assert that Americans adopted many British ideas like anti-authoritarianism, written constitutions, compact theory, and human rights. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists shared a major distrust of central government, and that the 1770s and 80s saw a big push for egalitarianism (push for equality) that the Constitution tried to restrain. The Constitution, essentially, was a rescue attempt to save the Revolution from failure by restraining its democratic excesses. 
“Revolutionary Republicanism was centered on limiting corruption and greed. Virtue was of the utmost importance for citizens and representatives. Revolutionaries took a lesson from ancient Rome, they knew it was necessary to avoid the luxury that had destroyed the Empire.[33] A virtuous citizen was one that ignored monetary compensation and made a commitment to resist and eradicate corruption. The Republic was sacred; therefore it is necessary to served the state in a truly representative way, ignoring self-interest and individual will. Republicanism required the service of those who were willing to give up their own interests for a common good. According to Bernard Bailyn, “The preservation of liberty rested on the ability of the people to maintain effective checks on wielders of power and hence in the last analysis rested on the vigilance and moral stamina of the people.” Virtuous citizens needed to be strong defenders of liberty and challenge the corruption and greed in government. The duty of the virtuous citizen become a foundation for the American Revolution.”
New Left / Neo-Progressive School (1960s – 1980s)
These historians were shaped by the social and political changes going on in the U.S. like the Civil Rights and women’s rights movement and the student protest movements against the Vietnam War. They are a throwback to the Progressive Era, but some writers thought that Beard had oversimplified things with his strictly economic approach. Beard did not include many of the people who were not part of the political process in the Revolutionary Era: blacks (both free and slave), women, and Native Americans. Social historians began to weave their stories within the tapestry of American history and present a fuller picture. “The “new” theoretically differentiates them from the unimaginative, Socialist Party orientation of the old left of the 1930s and 1940s. The “left” signifies an orientation toward methods and concepts that focus on the masses and their experiences, “history from the bottom up,” as it is called. Unlike the old left, the New Left avoids the preconceived molds of Marxist theories, which distorted the facts to fit a foreign doctrine. The historians of the New Left demand the inclusion of those features of our history that explain how we came to be a violent, racist, repressive society.” Some of these historians are Gary Nash (you read his essay, “Radical Revolution from the Bottom Up”) and Howard Zinn.
This video is here just for your interest.
Nash, in particular, looks at both Northerners and Southerners deeply involved in making the Constitution a stamp of approval for slavery since it guaranteed slavery with a fugitive slave clause and the South’s boost in Congressional representation with the 3/5 Compromise. Other historians argued against the Consensus historians’ assertion that our political legacy is basically liberal and democratic. The time period of the 1780s -leading up to the Constitutional Convention – was time of disruption, overtaxation, and heavy economic hardships. The poor were forced to pay their taxes in gold and silver (extremely hard to get) and not allowed to use paper money. This school’s approach refocuses on class conflict in which different segments argued over who’s responsible for fixing the economy, “which segment should sacrifice for the good of the whole.”
I’ve presented you with four different schools of historiography concerning the Constitution. Your job is to explain, with plenty of examples from class and your readings: 1. Which school of history do you agree with most and why?; 2. Which school of history do you disagree with most and why?
Due Wednesday, December 21, 2016 by class. 300 words minimum.
Sources:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/mrhorton/constitution%20historiography.htm
Interpretations of American History, ed. by Francis Couvares, et. al.
I agree most with the Nationalist school of thought. I coincide with them on the fact that the Constitution was an extension of the Revolution. We see this in many ways-the first one being that local state governments called people together to vote on the new constitution. This was quite rare for the time-important legal documents in European history, (the Magna Carta, for one) was formed thanks to extensive amounts of support from nobles and clergy.The Constitution (and with it, the entire American government) called upon the support of the people in order to survive. The Bill of Rights also serves to defend Americans from the unjust laws that Parliament imposed on them (which were leading causes of the Revolution itself)-the fact that something so seemingly trivial, like quartering in peacetime is 3rd on the list of priorities shows how committed the founding fathers were to make sure a Parliament-like tyranny would never rise again.I also agree that the American people have made great and unique strides in progress. Compared to countries like the UK and France, America is about as young as a toddler. The European nations have had hundreds more years than America to develop a national culture, identity, and traditional form of government. Despite this massive gap in terms of age, America has soared past what was expected of it and has, to this day, topped the European nations in industrial output and military power. I do not believe that Americans were chosen to lead the world into freedom-I believe that Americans chose themselves to lead the free world, and have earned that reputation. Again, the European nations had many a year to democratize and reform (compliments to the Commonwealth for getting close to that before their partition), and the fact that America achieved so much in so little time is astonishing. Through diligence, hard work, and a love of free will, America has shaped herself into a model nation for the rest of the world to behold.
I disagree most with the Neo-Progressive School of Thought. The contributions and accomplishments that our nation has achieved must, as any other feat, be traced back to those who committed it. The political restrains of the time period do not in any way affect the magnitude of the feats performed by our ancestors. Imagine such a scenario. An architect plans to build a tower-a large, tall, beautiful tower, one that the world has never seen before. This tower will be made of marble. In order to build said tower, the architect takes a trip to a nearby marble mine and speaks with the manager, thus purchasing the necessary building material. When his tower is finished and the many citizens of the world gaze upon it, should the workers in the marble mine receive credit for the statue? Shouldn’t the construction workers be given credit for building the tower? Of course not-the workers would be just as happy building shacks or selling marble to regular statue makers-it is the visions and the dreams of our noble architects that shape our history, our government, and our nation.
The school of history that I agree with the most is the New Left/ Neo-Progressive School historians. I agree with this school of history more than the others because it includes social factors into the mix, not just economic and political. In my opinion, social factors affected all of the others: class, economic, and political. Social reasons such as racial injustices were a primary reason that the country experienced so many hardships, for example the entire Civil Rights Movement. Poor, lower-class whites felt superior to any person of color just because they were white, and them being white was the only thing keeping them “above” black men. Regarding the Constitution, the Progressive school talks about how it was created by the “whole people”, but it was created by wealthy individuals who had economic interests in the outcome of the creation of the Constitution, not exactly for the whole equality and egalitarian approach. In Charles Beard’s “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States” (1913) he states, “The leaders who supported the Constitution in the ratifying conventions represented the same economic groups as the members of the Philadelphia Convention; and in a large number of instances they were so directly and personally interested in the outcome of their efforts”. But along with social issues, the New Left/ Neo-Progressive school focuses on the idea of class once again but in a different way than the other Progressive school of history. The New Left school had the idea that the Constitution was triumphed by mercantilism, and I agree with that as well. The New Left focused more on a social activist approach, and had liberal and radical ideas. Concerning the Constitution, the New Left/ Neo-Progressive school of historiography looks at Northern and Southerners who were involved with making the Constitution a stamp of approval for slavery, and I believe this shows the disregard for any racial equality. I agree with this school of history the most I think because of the ideas that social factors and somewhat class conflicts and which class is responsible for fixing the economy.
The school of historiography that I disagree with the most is the Nationalist school. Although I do feel in a way that the people were destined to create a great republic, I don’t agree with the idea that the progress of mankind toward national liberty was thanks to “white Christian people” and their “ability to build strong governments. I do believe in the strength of the people, however the idea that these people were divinely chosen by God to create this government is a bit of a stretch for me. I primarily disagree with this school of historiography because of the religious interpretations that come along with it, although I do agree that the people deserve the credit of making, or trying to make, a “perfect republic”. George Bancroft’s “History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1884) states “[The Constitution] … knows nothing of differences by descent, or opinions, of favored classes, or legalized religion, or the political power of property”. However, I agree with the Progressive’s feeling that the Constitution was created by men who were looking out for their best interests economically, considering it guaranteed slavery with the fugitive slave clause. The Nationalist school of historiography historians view the founders as great people who were only considering the best interests of the people when creating the Constitution and were concerned with the welfare of the region, and while that may be partially true, I don’t agree with it completely. Although the Constitution may have been said it was created unbiased, and for the people, by the people, I somewhat disagree with that.
1. I agree with the Intellectual or Republican Historians because the group tells it like it was, and how it should have been. Historians like Gordon Wood and Bernard Bailyn explained that since the first Americans landed in Virginia, they had always been taking things from the British. They took their ideas, money, and ways of living, which wasn’t bad because they originated from Britain. They showed that there was distrust in whatever government was in control, and the time period saw a push for equality. Equality was the main factor in this historian group, as it was in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, which was when the historians were popular. The historians focused on putting others before themselves and having a selfless life. The best citizens, in their book, were someone who defended liberty and was always in the loop and helping the country become better. I agree with this because I think this is how many people in America lived in early America, for example, William Penn, who created a state, Pennsylvania, which had religious freedom and always was welcoming to others. This was a good reflection of the attitude that America had.
2. I disagree with the Consensus School the most because they focused on the unavoidable conflict throughout all their works. Because the historians were in the time period where the conflict of the Soviet Union was dominating, the writers were sure to focus on the bad things about history. They also believed in a strong leader that thinks for everyone’s views. The historians from this school liked to think of history as one long continuous movement. They thought of things as all political and made sure people had a say in things. They too liked equality and a say in decisions, but also still thought of bad things and conflicts as the main overarching theme of history. I think of American history as more of a success story, and focused on the good things that came out of the history of us.
I agree most with the schools of New Left/Neo-Progressive Historians (1950s-1980s). I believe that in order to tell the correct history of the founding and development of America, you have to tell it from multiple points of views. All of my history books growing up have centered around mainly or entirely on the white, wealthy or middle class, man. This is an extremely biased way of retelling history because America was created on the backs of women, Native Americans, and African-Americans and to entirely exclude them from the narrative of America’s development is ignorant. This is why I agree with the New Left School of Historiography because they are group that are finally telling history the way that is has occurred. Not just through the white man’s struggles and triumphs, but how the white man got to where he is now. The New Left demands the inclusion of what made America the racist, violent, and repressive society that it is today and that is normally ignored. In my younger years of schooling in history, I was unaware that the creation of America (through the Boston Tea Party, the Revolution, etc) was told from a one sided point of view. I believed that the creation of America was gift that granted all people the same level of liberty, rights, and privileges. However, that is incorrect. I believed that false statement of “All men were created equal” in Pledge of Allegiance because that is what I had been taught. Now I know thanks to New Left teachings that I was only taught how wealthy white men that fought for the liberty of other wealthy, white, men. America has not so secretly acknowledged this as true. African-American and other people of color are widely subjected to racial prejudices and are not equally or even close to equally being treated the same as people of fairer skin. Women, as well, are still not being paid the same as men and women of color are paid even less than white women. This proves that in America’s reality men are not all created equal because if they were we would be treated the same. In the essay, “Radical Revolution from the Bottom up” by Gary Nash, he addressed the fact that while slaves were attempting to fight for the same rights and liberty as whites, slave owners did their best to suppress African-American’s liberty. Same with women, Abigail Adams wrote a letter to John Adams pleading that he would include women in the Declaration, but was ignored. John Adams laughed off Abigail’s attempt for gender equality because he was afraid that other members of the classes would attempt to also want rights in the same way John wanted his.
I most disagree with the Nationalist School because this ideology ignores the hard work that women, and people of color have accomplished in America’s history. This school dedicates the creation and prospering of America entirely to white Christians and I believe that is cretinous in all aspects. I also disagree with the strong religious emphasis on how Christianity was the superior faith and how that ulteriorly lead to America. Since America is/was a place that allowed people of all religions to prosper, many people of faiths other than Christianity aided to the creation of America. Again, I believe that to exclude any member in the creation of America is wrong because that whitewashes the trueness of America’s history. To be able focus on the full economic and political agenda of America, one must include all factors. I do believe that everyone has a purpose in life, but I also know that America could have been created by anyone who believed in an increase in liberty and rights. So, I don’t necessarily agree with the “City on a hill” slogan that the Puritan, white, people adopted. I agree with the Nationalist’s viewpoint that the men in Philly were creating a new government for the betterment of the nation, however I also believe that they not talking about the nation as whole. That nation being one to give African Americans, Native Americans, and women rights and credit to the advancement of America.
The teachings that I like the most are those of the New Left / Neo-Progressive School. This one appeals to me particularly because it includes all minorities (blacks, both free and slave, women, and Native Americans. Also, in contrast to the Old Left, it takes all of history into the picture, or “history from the bottom up” as they call it. In addition, it teaches against old Marxist theories, theories that definitely caused their fair share of trouble throughout history. Historians that believe in the New Left / Neo-Progressive teachings demand the inclusion of all the events of how we got to where we are now, no matter how violent, racist, or repressive it may have been. It’s important that we don’t hide any event that had an influence on us just because it impacted us in a negative way. If it got us to where we are now, it had to have been pretty important.
I disagree most with the teachings of the Nationalist School. I don’t think it was that likely that the American people were just chosen, just like that, by God, to create the perfect republic. Sure, through the actions and hard work of the men at the Philadelphia Conference creating the new government for the wellbeing of the nation, a Constitution was formed. It takes more than just being picked by god. The Americans went through so much, from the French and Indian War, to being bullied by Britain with taxes in the years leading up to the revolution, to fighting in the revolution and gaining their freedom. To me, that sound like a whole lot more than just being picked by a god. There were many long nights, intricate plans, blood, sweat, and tears that went into Americas freedom from Britain. That’s a little more than God just deciding that it would be them to create their perfect republic.
I agree most with the New Left/Neo-Progressive schools of thought. I believe that in most readings or teachings prior to this class, I have learned that America’s history was shaped by the white man. This is biased and untrue because American history was created through many view points like women, blacks or natives. Most ways children are taught history does not fully show the struggles of the women throughout time, or the natives constantly having to deal with the pressure of colonists. It does not show many of the different types of people who’s turmoil has changed and shaped the nation’s history. It should not only be the white man getting his story told as American history. It should be all races and types of people. This is why I agree with the New Left school of thought because they are telling history the way it actually happened, through different perspectives. The New Left demands that everything be included in our nations history, even the racist and violent parts that people are ashamed of. Even if one is ashamed of the past it needs to be shared so it won’t be repeated. When I was younger, I believed that the revolutionary war was just the British versus the Colonists. I thought that Thanksgiving was the natives and pilgrims coming together and that was it, they worked together from then. That was not true. I did not learn about the cruelty the colonists and some other nations imposed on the Indians. Thanks to the New Left school of thought everyone, not just white males, get their stories shared. Today, African Americans are still being classified by racial slurs and are not equal to whites which is unfair. They are being blamed and persecuted. Women still are being paid less than men, and colored women even less. They are called sexist names and also said that they are unequal to men and won’t do as good a job just because they are women. Gary Nash’s piece “Radical Revolution from the Bottom Up” shares that while slaves were trying to fight for the same rights and liberties that whites had, the slave owners tired their very best to suppress their rights using mind games and violence. Abigail Adams wrote to John Adams asking for women to be in the Declaration of Independence but she was ignored. New Left ideas show the deep dark pain that women and also people of color faced throughout time. They share that everyone should be heard and seen in the nation’s history which I fully agree with.
I do not agree with the Nationalist school of thought’s teachings. I do not agree with the statement that American people were chosen by God to be the perfect republic society. It takes much more hard work to create a thriving society than just to be chosen by God. From the French and Indian war to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, there were so many struggles and hardships the people endured in this time. They were taxed by the British and had to fight for their freedom. That took a lot more than just being picked by God. This school of thought says that America and the thriving society came from white Christians. I disagree with this because America is a place for all religions to be free and not persecuted. I think that excluding other religions and types of people in the creation of America is wrong. I do think that the men in Philadelphia creating the new constitution was to better the nation’s government, but they are only talking about the white men of the nation. The Nationalists do not credit the Africans, women or any other group of people except the white males and God for creating America.
I agree with the progressive school’s view on the constitution the most. I think that the people writing the constitution, wealthy white males, were worried about keeping their property. I also think that the revolution and constitution were two politically different changes. Charles Beard explained that the people who wrote the constitution had strong economic motive to create a strong federal government. I believe the wealthy people were scared because they weren’t going to get their money if the Articles of Confederation was the main federal power. After Shay’s Rebellion, the Wealthy men decided they needed to strengthen the government to force the poor to pay taxes, and also prevent rebellions. Beard’s statement that the Constitution was a conservative movement is true because the people who pushed for the creation of it were wealthy men who wanted to keep their wealth. The people who opposed the Constitution were poor farmers that were in debt. Therefore, the creation of the Constitution was undemocratic because it was created in secrecy by wealthy men. The poor farmers had no say on creating the basis of the American government. Beard also mentions that the revolution was a democratic movement, while the constitution was conservative. I agree that the revolution was democratic because the colonists were trying to break away from Britain’s tyranny, and create an equal and democratic society. However, the constitution is conservative because it benefits only the wealthy men that created it.
I disagree with the Nationalist’s perspective of the Constitution the most. I disagree with the statement that the “American people were divinely picked by god” because it ignores the sufferings that Americans went through to create the country. They fought in the French and Indian war, were taxed without representation, and ultimately broke away from Britain after the Revolutionary war. A group of people, the colonists, that devote their whole life to gaining independence, and establishing a new nation aren’t just picked by god. The Nationalists also explain that prosperity in America was due to Christian people and them building strong governments. Although the people who wrote the Constitution were all male Christians, the growth of the nation also included women, blacks, and people of all religion or color. Lastly I disagree that the Constitution was an extension of the revolution. The revolution included all classes and races fighting for the independence of the colonists, while the Constitution was only influenced by the wealthy class.
The school that I most agree with is the Nationalist school of thought. I think this school of thought is the best one because they believed in the fact that the Constitution was in a way a continuation of the Revolution. It was a continuation because the revolution led to the Articles of Confederation which purposely gave the states a lot of freedom and the federal government very little power. Because the founders finally realized that the Articles were too weak is why the Constitution was put in place. I also agree with the point that the founders were creating a constitution for the betterment of America. Unlike the Progressives, I agree with the Nationalist that the founding fathers were not just creating the Constitution because they were greedy, but because they wanted America to be the most free and greatest country. The Constitution was made to make the country better, not for greed like the progressives say or the New Left’s view that the Constitution was made for upper and middle class white men. The founding fathers realized that the Articles were too weak and couldn’t provide all that was needed. It lacked an ability for the federal government to effectively deal with international affairs and it couldn’t properly tax and regulate interstate commerce.
I disagree with the New Left school of thought the most. I disagree with them on many things, but mostly that they believe that just because some groups of people were treated poorly is the fault of the constitution and its throwback to the Progressive school. In the Constitution, northerners tried to stop slavery through ending the slave trade in 20 years. This would have happened sooner if it wasn’t for the South. The constitution is not in itself racist or sexist either as the New Left implies. The Constitution guarantees the rights to all people and nowhere does it denies certain people’s rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that women, non-Christians, and non-whites don’t have any rights and nor does it endorse these ideals. It is not the fault of the founders that the Bills of Rights were not enforced equally, but it was the fault of a racist and sexist society of the time. Women and minorities may not have had a say in the making of the constitution, but the rights provided should have made them equal. In fact, it was unconstitutional for women and minorities not to have a say. This was solved later in history because the creators of the Constitution thought far enough ahead to realize that the people might want to edit the constitution. The ability to amend the constitution says that the creating of the constitution was not to hurt people who were not wealthy, white men, but to help them later when society changes to be more accepting. I also disagree with the part that the New Progressives took from the progressive party that the founders made the constitution for their own benefit. I don’t believe that these people would spend so much of their lives to benefit themselves the little it did considering that many were already well off. It is sad to think that these people might consider the founding fathers had no moral character. Look at George Washington, he could have had it all, but choose to give it up.
I agree most with the teachings of the Progressive School (1900-1930). The main focuses of this movement was to decrease the widened gap of wealth between the rich and poor and to fix problems inflicted on workers (poor working/ living conditions, etc.). Although this school was widely made up of “conservative men”, I still agree with their ideas to close the gap of wealth inequality for the different classes. One of the most important leaders of the Progressive School, Charles Beard, disagreed with the Constitution. However this may seem strange, and I am a supporter of the constitution (with correct interpretation), he thought it didn’t support the common man. I like this thought because I believe that no American should be forgotten and that all should be treated with equality. I can’t say that I agree with all of the Progressive School’s ideas, but I do support most of the group’s main ideas. I do not completely agree with any of the schools above, however I do like a lot of the ideas supported by the Progressive School.
I disagree most with the teachings of the Nationalists School of Thought (1900). I can not agree with any organization that believes that success is only achieved due to Christian white men. This movement completely leaves out the history and success of other races, religions, and nationalities. This movement believes on an extreme level, that America’s success is due in total to God’s choosing, not due to the hard work and sacrifice of many people. Another problem is that these teachings only relate towards the great successes of America, without any of the hardships or wrong doings. All in all, this school forgets many key parts of American history and teach many falsely, unjustifiable ideas. For these reasons, the I disagree most with the teachings of the Nationalist School of Thought.
I agree with the New Left/ Neo-Progressive School and their way of focusing on more than just the political side of the Constitution. Out of all the schools, this one is the only one that adds the social part into the mix. The social side of the Revolution, and American history in general, seems to be left out by the other schools, which seems a bit strange to me. This school, by mentioning the minorities that helped during the revolution, sees how every single individual contributed to the creation of the America we now know. This school tells history as it is supposed to be told: using the perspective of all the individuals. As we have seen in class, most of the historians and books in general focus more on the white side of the population and how wars and history affects them. As we have learned, whites weren’t the only ones to change history. The decisions made by the slaves (running away and joining the British, or staying with the colonists) and the Native Americans (whether to abandon their land or not) affected the way history played out. Besides focusing on the minorities and how they played a role in history, the Neo-Progressive School also points out the truth about history. Unlike the Old Left, the New Left doesn’t use the Marxist Theories, and doesn’t deny the truth about the way their country was in the past. All year long and throughout our lives we have studied the way slavery was implemented in the world and the Americas. Some Schools don’t look at this fact or prefer to ignore it because they seem scared to tell the truth and admit their country was once racist, violent and repressive. This is mostly why I prefer this school: it isn’t afraid of telling who they are. The New Left/Neo-Progressive School is the one I agree with the most because of its focus on other than the political and economic problems. By talking about the social problems they tell history form various points of view, which I believe is the only way history can be told.
I disagree most with the Nationalist School. Their view on the creation of the Constitution being an extent of the revolution isn’t what bothers me; what sounds strange to me is that they see the American people as being chosen by God to make a “perfect republic”. First of all, I don’t believe there is a perfect republic, or we would all be happy and there would be no more problems, which isn’t the case at all. Also, the fact that they see the Americans as “divinely picked by God” seems an exaggeration. The reason why people came to America was to find new jobs and be able to make a living out of the new country. Some people did come to fulfil their religious dreams, but not all. By saying they were chosen by God, I believe they are only focusing on one category of the society, hiding the other reasons why America came to be. The Nationalist School seems to me as a school that “brags” too much about how America was founded, making their nationalist feelings get in the way of the reality.
1. The interpretation of the constitution I agree with the most is the interpretation of the Progressive School. I agree with the notion that the revolution and the creation of the constitution were two separate events with separate motives. As Ralph Barton Perry said in Puritanism and Democracy, “Revolution is associated with the defiance of authority and the resort to violence; it is the task of political reconstruction to persuade men once again to obey.” This demonstrates the idea that the revolution and the constitution were distinct separate events. One piece of evidence to support this argument is that the Patriots in the American Revolution were made up of many different types of people from all different classes and backgrounds. However, the federalists, who were in support of the constitution after the war, were almost all high-class, wealthy, and well educated. The revolution and the constitution had different motives and goals, and as a result, attracted different demographics in their support. Another key point in the progressive argument was that the constitution was created mainly to provide economic support to wealthy landowners, which is not that far-fetched given the fact that all the delegates at the constitutional convention were themselves wealthy landowners. Systems like banking, manufacturing, and trade were all things that would improve the economy and dramatically increase the value of private property. All these systems required a large federal government to work, so the constitution called for a much larger national government presence than the Articles of Confederation
2. The school of thought I disagree most with is the nationalist school. A main part of the nationalist belief is that the revolution and the constitution are one continuous movement. In reality, however, the constitution was put in place to curb the dramatic turn towards democracy after the war, a movement which was headed by the Articles of Confederation. As Merrill Jensen writes in The Articles of Confederation, “The Articles of Confederation were designed to prevent the central government from infringing upon the rights of the states, whereas the Constitution of 1787 was designed as a check upon the power of the states and the democracy that found expression within their bounds.” As time wore on with the Articles of Confederation providing the framework for the American government, people quickly realized that some sort of central power was needed to regulate the states and to make important decisions for our country, and the constitution was a response to that, not a continuation of the same ideals expressed in the revolution.
Blog #93: Historiography of the Constitution
1) The school of history that I most agree with is the New Left/ Neo Progressive school. I
agree with this school the most because it holds the idea that it wasn’t just rich white males who created our government. Though this school was effected by the protests occurring at the time, I feel that the New Left most accurately included all aspects of history with their view of the constitution. The New Left/ Neo Progressive school describes the history of the Constitution by focusing on the points that different classes, both social and economic, were a part of the making of the Constitution in some way. This school recognizes that some people did not have a say in the Constitution but they instead talk about how they effected the outcome/making of the Constitution. I agree with this school’s idea about how hard it was for the poor to survive off of the little gold and paper money that they had and that effected who was a part of the making of the Constitution. I can agree with this because of the example done in class about money during that time period. I agree with this school the most because it has an all-inclusive historiography teaching that I can appreciate. Not only is this school all-inclusive, but it goes against the old beliefs of rich white men that has tainted our view of history for decades.
2) The school I disagree most with is the Nationalist School. The Nationalist’s beliefs are
based on white Christian supremacy which founded our nation, but I disagree. I think that our nation was founded by everyone, not just the people who were at the top of the social ladder. I disagree that there were Americans who were “divinely picked” to create the Constitution, instead I think that they were desperate people in a divided nation after the Revolution who wanted to solidify freedom and democracy in their New World. With the Nationalist thinking we would have the same government that history has seen over and over again, and we wouldn’t have the democracy that we have now. My disagreements with the Nationalists school are based a lot off of how I grew up and in the time period that we are in. I was raised to treat people equally and with respect. At this time the nation is in a place of equality that it has never seen before, it is by no means perfect but it is a promising step towards full equality. It is because of this that I have a hard time reading about the Nationalists School. A school that focuses on superiority based on race and a biased view on the founding of our nation. To the people who believe in the Nationalist School, they might find the school’s beliefs similar to theirs because of the way they’ve been raised. But it is because of my own opinions and beliefs that I have to disagree with the Nationalist School’s beliefs.
I would like to start out by saying that I think that all of these options are, at most, half-correct (according to me, of course). As much as I hate to say it, I agree most with the Nationalist thought. The reason that the Constitution was originally conceived by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton was because the Articles were failing, and no one knew what to do. The lack of the ability to order and collect taxes on the national governments part was entirely due to the overly weak Articles of Confederation. Because the national government couldn’t enforce its tax laws, the states had their citizens only pay taxes to the state. But the lack of federal taxes made it so that the bad economy due to inflation from the overly-printed paper money could only worsen through deflation, making it so that people’s gold was suddenly worth less, creating an economic vacuum. This, of course, led to Shays’ rebellion, which just proved Hamilton and Madison right. But Shays’ rebellion wasn’t ended by the federal government. It was ended by a privately funded militia. The government was so weak they couldn’t demolish a small rebellion in western Massachusetts. The Constitution was written to overcome the lack of power that the federal government had over what was happening in America because of the lack of economic leverage that the government needed to create political advances toward greatness. And the school of thought that most agrees with this theory of mine is (unfortunately) the Nationalist thought. I cannot emphasize how strongly I disagree with the idea that we were created by God to shed moral light on others though our torch of superiority. I cannot stand people who push their religion as the only thing that is right, much less a reason for why our non-religiously motivated Constitution was written.
The school of thought I most disagree with is the Progressive school of thought. This school of thought (to me) is bad on a number of levels. Firstly, the convention was held in secret from fear that the people would try to stop an “attempt on the security of our democratic government,” not to be unconstitutional. Secondly, those who attended were some of the smartest (not necessarily educated, for example, Ben Franklin) and most influential people of their states and of their time. They were respected by almost all from their home state, and did more than a good job at representing their states. They all met with the idea that a stronger, more powerful government needed to be created to save our country from the downward spiral we were heading in.
I agree most with the Intellectual or Republicanism School of history from the 1950s-1980s. I agree with this group in many different areas, beginning with how Americans adopted an ample amount of British ideas. Our founding fathers didn’t invent the American government system out of thin air, rather they were influenced by British ideas and heritage. One thing that many people forget is that the colonists were British until the American revolution, so it would make sense that they would borrow British ideas. Examples of some ideas that the Americans borrowed from the British are rights, limited government, and rule of law. These ideas can be found in English documents such as the English Bill of Rights that was written by members of the English parliament in 1689. Documents like this one served as an example for the founding fathers that they were able to adopt different ideas from. I also agree with the Intellectual School of history regarding Federalists and Anti-Federalists both sharing a major distrust of central government. It’s safe to say that the vast majority of the American people had a distrust of central government because they had just finished fighting a war against that very sentiment. Federalists and Anti-Federalists may have not agreed on much, but the majority of colonists felt oppressed when living under the strong British central government, and they didn’t want to have a recreation of that government. Another idea from the Intellectual School of history that I agree with is that virtue was of the utmost importance for citizens and representatives. Gordon Wood, an advocate for the Intellectual School of history, wrote a portrait on George Washington that we had to read for a homework assignment. In this article he wrote about how nothing was more important to Washington than being virtuous and coming off as being virtuous. Washington wasn’t the smartest guy or the best military tactician, but he tried to be virtuous and honest, something that was extremely important to people. It was also important for the normal people of early America to be virtuous. These people were gaining freedom, and with freedom came the chance to misbehave. There needed to be a standard for people to live honest lives, and that standard came in the form of revolutionary republicanism. Revolutionary republicanism was concentrated on limiting greed and corruption, which led to virtue becoming such an important quality to have.
I disagree most with the Nationalist School from post Civil War-1900. I disagree with many of the points this group has, one of which being that “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty” was due to white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments. I don’t think that the ability to build strong governments exists as an attribute of all white Christian people, and I also think that there were many other factors that went into the progress towards liberty. This idea of only Christian white men driving the country towards liberty fails to take into account all of the other people who don’t fit this billing that worked equally as hard for liberty. Freed slaves, non-Christian’s, and many other groups of people fought for liberty. I also disagree that the American people were divinely picked by God. This idea deals with predestination and that the American colonists were destined to beat the British, which I don’t really believe. This idea also takes away from all of the people that worked so hard to gain independence from Britain by just chalking up their work to God.
I agree with the consensus school of thought on the Constitution. The consensus school of thought says that we Americans have survived as a nation for so long because of our common beliefs in government and political doctrine that took root in the first days of our history dating back to the early colonial era, and the Constitution was written up as a method of making widely accepted ideas such as representation and checks and balances a part of American daily life. In this sense, the Constitution was the final part of the American Revolution that had started in the 1760s because it made many American morals and values, such as separation of powers and ability to make new amendments with time, the supreme law of the land. The reason the Constitution has survived to this day is because it created a series of laws that reflected the average American’s beliefs in how government should be run and how the people should be represented.
I disagree primarily with the Progressive school of thought on the Constitution. This school of thought says the framers of the Constitution helped draft the new supreme law of the land only because of their own self-interests, as (according to this school of thought) many of the delegates, all of whom were wealthy and well-off, were losing money as a result of the Articles of Confederation, and wrote up the Constitution as a way to save their own skins. The idea that the framers were not looking out for the best interests of the people is supported by the fact no “common men” were allowed to participate at the Constitutional Convention, the Convention itself was held in secret, and there was no bill of rights, a document which many of the states had. Most, if not all, of these Progressive conceptions are wrong. As for the secrecy of the Convention, this was to protect the fact the framers were writing up the Constitution instead of revising the Articles (as everyone else thought) and a bill of rights was later added at Massachusetts’s insistence. The framers knew the Articles of Confederation were not working, and if action was not taken, there would be a complete breakdown in society and destabilize the young nation. The so-called lack of “common men” was because the delegates thought only college-educated, experienced men like themselves had the capacity to perform such a task of fixing a nation. From my perspective, the Progressive school seems to be biased against the upper class and believes in the idea that the wealthy are corrupt and self-interested, which is far from reality when it comes to the men who drafted the Constitution.
I agree with the New Left Historians most because I like the idea of the inclusion of the whole America, just political figures. I think that the inclusion of minorities and social issues are essential when looking at an event in history because it can have a huge impact on the political figures and decisions.I also like that they don’t strictly stick to one focus, but focus on economic, political, and social issues of the time. In the passage above it states “ The historians of the New Left demand the inclusion of those features of our history that explain how we came to be a violent, racist, repressive society.” I definitely agree with this statement because if we were only to include the good parts of history, everything would seem good and we would be blind to the real problems. Therefore, because we are blind to the problems, we would never progress or fix the problems. Also knowing what caused the issues allows us to avoid future problems. The act of acknowledging our mistakes and issues and where they all come from allow us to change and evolve into a better nation.
I disagree with the Nationalist Historians most because writers believed that “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty” was due to white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments. I think that this is very one sided, obviously because they are ignoring every other ethnicity that isn’t white, and also it isn’t correct. As stated earlier, i think that even minorities should be taken into account and by only considering the white Christian males, a large group of people is left out of the equation entirely and it only credits a small part of what truly helped in the progression of mankind. Another thing that I don’t agree with about the Nationalists is that they believed that Americans had been divinely chosen. I think that it is a little crazy to think that a group of people were chosen and because of that will succeed when there was so much hardship and a lot of struggles that people went through.
From the four schools presented, I agree with the New Left/Neo-Progressive School the most. They helped shape movements like the Civil Rights and women’s rights movements. These historians thought that we should look at the full picture with women, blacks, Native Americans, and all of the social classes. I believe that everybody’s story should be heard, and noticed. This school looks at the class conflict, and who is responsible for fixing the government. During the 1780s, the poor were forced to pay with gold and silver, and not with paper money. The gold and silver was extremely to get. During the class, I learned how it was to get gold and silver through the money game we played. Through the inflation and deflation, the wealthy were the ones that could pay. The wealthy had the power because they had to money. The poor and many other groups were not represented in the Constitution. The New Left school represents everyone who wasn’t heard in the 1780s.
I disagree with Nationalist school the most out of the four given. This school believes that the creation of the Constitution was an extension of the revolution. They think that the American people were picked by God to form the perfect republic. I disagree that the white Christians are the people who can build our country, and make a strong government. The Nationalist school believes that Christian males were the people that were destined to make our Country strong with the Constitution. These historians wrote about American economic growth, railroad expansion, and their beliefs with the Anglo-Saxon superiority. The Nationalist school believe that the strongest people to build America would be the Christian males. I don’t agree with the values of the Nationalist School because of their belief that Christian males were the best people to make our government.
I agree most with the New Left/ Neo Progressive Historians. I agree with these historians the most because they’re shaped by political and social issues as opposed to only economical. I also find it important to include all people, including women, African Americans, and Native Americans in history. I also agree with their choice to “weave” the stories of these people into history so that we can get a better understanding of history as a whole. History too often is told strictly from a white male’s perspective, but without others, they wouldn’t have been able to do anything. America was built, unfortunately, with slaves of different races and although it’s nothing to be proud of, it needs to be included in our history. I also agree with their choice to look at “history from the bottom up” to avoid problems from the past from happening. I think that including all people, no matter the skin color, race, gender, or ethnicity, is important if you really want to learn the whole picture.
I disagree the most with the Nationalist school historians. First off, they didn’t include the Native Americans when discussing voyages to the new world and the American Revolution. This is absurd considering the large role that they played during this time period. I also don’t agree with their ideas of Anglo- Saxon superiority. All races should be treated the same and I can’t agree with that idea. In addition, their claim that: “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty” is due to white Christian males is something I would disagree with because that’s something that all humans have to work together for. Lastly, I can’t agree with their ideas that American colonists, especially the men in Philly working on the new government, were hand picked by god. This isn’t true because these men were no better than any other people, and I think there should have been more common people there to represent themselves.
I agree the most with the New Left/Neo-Progressive School views, which brought up facts that had previously been neglected by historians. The Neo-Progressive School took into account the complexity of human motivation, class differences, economic details, and slavery, as well as other oppression. The New Left works well in their analyzation of the Constitution because they make sure to take into account the stance the founding fathers took on slavery, sexism, and Native American rights. The historians suggest that the creation of a constitution could have resulted from the determination of the people in power to keep a system that benefits them. In “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, the historian states, “…that it serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support. The slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Indians, the very poor whites” (Zinn). Zinn’s description of the class system, set up by wealthy whites in a way that would benefit them and those below them but still allow them to remain in power is very realistic. Wealthy white male landowners making sure to set up a system which isolates those who are oppressed is also an accurate inference, given the ambitions and rationality of the time period.
I disagree with the Progressive School’s views. The Progressive School discusses economic motivation for the founding fathers. Class differences and economy were reasonable factors to consider in the ratification of the Constitution, however the Progressive School didn’t take enough into account the multilayered society that the founders lived in, driven by slave labor. Considering the School’s position and research on class differences and founder motivation, leaving out such a central detail of economy was not a good choice; a lot of evidence that could contribute to his argument was left out. For example, in the article “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States” by Charles Beard, the author makes claims regarding the founders eagerness to defend their property, but he doesn’t bring up clauses of the Constitution which eagerly protect slaves. In my opinion, Beard missed a important detail of economic motivation for the founding fathers.
The school of history that I agree with the most is the New left/Neo-progressive schools of thought. This is because within their structure and nature, they seem to be more balanced and equal with regards to the rights of the people, not just giving all the power to white males like our nations history is notorious for. Many history teachings to American’s and people around the world have been told more as from a white males perspective and not by the people who really shaped it, which could include the white male but also can include other genders and ethnicity that were present during the founding of our nation and its history. The way this group teaches and tells things is the way it should be which is from more than one perspective and not just from one certain group of individuals who some are given the reputation of having a biased opinion of events throughout our nations history. Although, even though some white males were very important to the founding and shaping of our nation, there were many other people from different races and genders that have done just as much or even more in some cases than some of the white males and don’t get the recognition they deserve by many, due to the fact that they don’t get spread around as much by the constant bombardment of the history from a white males point of view. Many examples include Radical Revolution from the bottom up, which talks about slave owners who forced cruel punishment onto the slaves for almost no reason, or any reason for that matter, and most frighteningly, when they wanted freedom, which something that someone should not be punished for no matter who they are.
I do not agree with the Nationalists school of thought teachings because of a few reasons. One is that they relied more on religion than conventional thinking. While religion is important, nevertheless they still needed more influence and motivation rather than relying solely on religion. They also state that America and its community as a whole came from white Christians which I do no agree with. It is not equal or just to state that and it took much more than that group of people to create our nation. It also included women, African-Americans, Natives, Spanish, French, and many more people from around the world of all different ethnicity’s besides just white British Christians coming to America to form colonies.
The class of historiography I agree with the most is the Progressive School. The ideas in the book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the U.S by Charles A. Beard are what I most agree with and feel strongly about. I feel that he is completely correct when he states that most of the men who made the Constitution had strong economic motives if the federal government was strong. This is highly unfair and is morally wrong because these wealthy white men will become even wealthier when they create a stronger federal government, while most other people (middle class farmers and lower class workers) will become negatively affected. Most of the men who created the Constitution held public securities which would increase in value if a new federal government was strong. Obviously these men are going to push for the stronger federal government so they will become wealthier. The Articles of Confederation had weakened many economic interests of these rich white congressmen, banking was down, bonds and promissory notes may be almost worthless, manufacturers declined, and so did merchants involved in shipping and trade. If these congressmen could make the federal government stronger by completely changing the Articles of Confederation, than all of their economic interests would increase. This really just shows how much greed was involved and how much unfair activity went on when deciding about a Constitution. The idea that there were no “common men” involved in the creation of the constitution is also very true and an idea which I agree upon. It really was not fair to the 99% of “common people” who were not represented in the creation of the Constitution, do that they could give their ideas and opinions.
I most disagree with the ideas of the Nationalist School. One of the large things that pops out at me is the idea that “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty” was due to white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments. I completely disagree with this statement for the simple fact of how white Christians treated minorities at the beginning of America’s history. White Christians did not show personal liberty to Indians first, who they kicked out of their homes in many cases, and even would kill them for money. Second are African American’s, who were treated in such a horrid manner, as slaves. This was a very cruel practice, towards a people who are just like anyone else, other than the color of their skin. The fact that when the Constitution was written African American slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person is just unbelievable. It is almost like these White Christians were treating these slaves as animals and not humans. This obviously does not show personal liberty throughout the America during this time. Lastly women were also not given personal liberty until much later in American history. Women could not vote, nor did they have nearly as many rights than white men. While these white Christians did build a strong government, it sure did not give personal liberty to all of mankind. I lastly disagree with the idea that the American people were picked by God to create a perfect republic, and that the men in Philadelphia were creating a new government for the betterment of the people. The idea that Americans were chosen by God I do not agree with, because Indians were in America before Americans, and while America did end up creating a strong government, if anyone was supposed to be chosen to create a republic, it was the Native Americans. The final idea that the men in Philadelphia were creating a new government for the betterment of the people, is just so outrageous. Looking back at the ideas of the progressive school, we see that many of the reasons why the Constitution was made, was because of greed by these congressmen, and the betterment of themselves. If they were going for the betterment of the people, everyone should have been represented in the making of the Constitution, even if it were by just simply sending a few trusted farmers and slaves to help write the constitution.
I most agree with the Intellectual or Republicanism school of thought. To me, this is simply the most logical way of thinking. It makes perfect sense that early Americans copied off the English and that our very nation was built on principles taken and modified from the Brits. Furthermore, I do not buy it for a second that the United States were “directly blessed by god” in order to be the greatest nation on Earth. The intellectuals believe that America is great because the people keep the government in check and vis versa. As Wood and Bailyn believed, if the people became too content with life, if they began to gain a false sense of security, or if the government stopped listening to the will of the people, our very nation would begin to crumble. This can be seen in Shays’ Rebellion; the farmers did not like what their government was working, so they protested. The government did not change their ways, so their protest turned violent, acting as a wakeup call for the leaders. This perfectly mirrors the republican idea that the people are who keep the government in check.
I most disagree with the nationalist school of thought because it is unrealistic and ignorant. As a historian, it is incredibly harmful to only look at the positive aspects of a nation. One cannot fully understand how colonization looked in the New World without learning about and accepting the atrocities that were committed against natives. It’s irresponsible and simply not good practice. Furthermore, the idea that every good thing in American history happened because of a white, Christian man is ridiculous. It’s not as if white people have some innate knack for building governments that all other races lack. Did the nationalists not realize that whites had failed to colonize North America several times before Jamestown? Did they not realize that prior to the arrival of Europeans, Native Americans had been successfully governing themselves with their own form of government? Simply being Christian or simply being American is not a claim to greatness on its own. The idea that America was handpicked by god and therefore cannot do no harm is so incredibly ridiculous and irresponsible. Nationalism to me simply is like saying “we are the best because we are the best and I said so.”
I agree with the Intellectual or Republican Historians because they are the most correct in my opinion and the least biased. In their example they said that Gordon wood and Bernard Bailyn say that many ideas that America built themselves on like having a constitution and other ideas like compact theory and human rights came from the British. They show what really happened and don’t take any sides and that is what made this group stand out to me the most. The talk about how they showed a major distrust in the central government and how there was a big push for equality in the 1770’s and 80’s and how the constitution was trying to restrain that. According to Bernard Bailyn, Virtuous citizens needed to be strong defenders of liberty and challenge the corruption and greed in government. The duty of the virtuous citizen become a foundation for the American Revolution.” This meant that Bailyn was saying citizens had to have a strong belief in complete freedom and needed to be able to challenge corruption in the government, that last part has a connection to the declaration of independence were the people have the right to abolish a corrupt government.
I disagree with the nationalist school of thought because they believed “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty” was due to white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments, this meant that because of the white Christians America was able to become great and that is just wrong thinking. They also said that the American people were divinely picked by god, I don’t understand this America was built by great people but I don’t think that god had picked the best people to come and start the greatest country on earth because Americas is special. And if god had done that then why would he have the people go through so much war and difficulty, if god thought America deserves the best he would have just given it to them, instead of having people settle in the colonies in the 1500s and gaining their independence 200 years later.
1. I agree with the New Left / Neo-Progressive School of Thought. I agree with them because I also think that the constitution was somewhat written using class conflict but not in the way that Beard had written it. The conflicts that are going on around this time period (1960s-1980s) the people were influenced with what was going on around them. There were Civil Rights, Women, and Student Protest Movements happening every day. This gave the historians a good look at the fights between classes and why they would say “which segment should sacrifice for the good of the whole”. In the 1700s, the poor were faced with many economic hardships. Making it obvious on why they would think that the upper class would be more entitled in fixing the economy since they’re the ones with the most amount of money who weren’t being too badly effected by all the taxes. Thus making them the obvious chose. But then that’s where Beards idea comes into play which is why I also somewhat agree with the Progressive School. The Constitution was written by people who were merchants and so on. They were people of money, people who weren’t greatly affected by all the taxes and other economic hardships that were happening at that time period. I think that the Constitution was a little bias, leaning toward helping the rich but overall did help all classes eventually.
2. I disagree with the Nationalist School the most. I think that their interpretation is showing that they are trying to make the constitution something like what the British have. Saying that the Constitution was only a good document because it was written by white Christian males who are good at building a government. This to me sounds like they are saying that any other government who wasn’t written by white Christian males isn’t a good government. Around that time period, catholic was the dominant faith so it makes sense that they would say it but I believe that it doesn’t work for the idea on why the points in the Constitution were so great.
The school of history that I agree with and like the most is the New Left/Neo-Progressive School for many reasons. This school of history is the best one because it includes not just white people but it also includes all types of people like blacks (both free and slave), women, and Native Americans. The Progressive school of history did not include any of these and only included some of the different races. The New Left also had everything that happened in history and did not leave anything out even if it was too violent or racist. These things are very important in our history and should be not be left out. Another reason why I like the New Left school of history is because people like Nash who are in this group look at everything in depth and examine it. Nash looked at both the Northerners and the Southerners involvement in the decision about slavery for the constitution. I agree with this school of history because it includes everything that happened in history, doesn’t leave out any one such as blacks and the study of everything in history.
The school of history that I disagree with is the Nationalist school. I do not agree with this school of history because it claims that the American people were divinely picked by God. I do not think that all of these people were just picked by God. They all worked really hard to be where they are and that is why the people that created the constitution were picked. Americans went through so much to get to where they were at the Constitutional Convention. They went through all these wars and different problems that they had to deal with. All this led up to the creation of the Constitution. For these reasons I do not think that these people were just picked by God. These people did things to get where they are at now. That is why I disagree with the Nationalist school the most.
1. The one I agree with most is the Progressive School. I agree with this one because it states two things I strongly agree with and feel is true. They state that revelation was split into two parts. One where we needed to leave the strong grip of England. This one also gives credit to all the racist and people who contributed to the development of the country (unlike in The Nationalists School that I go over below).
2. I disagree most with the Nationalists School. I disagree with this one for a multitude of reasons. For one, they completely ignored the fact that before the European settlers “discovered” North America, there was millions of other Native people living there. The Native people who were here before us shaped our country a lot, they influenced our decisions and customs. The Natives aren’t someone to be ignored in the history of America. Secondly, they bring God and the Church into relations of the Government, which should always be separated. They say that they believe that white, male, Christians are destined to be the leader of Governments as that what they were born to do. I disagree with that, as anyone can help build and run the government. No matter what race, gender, or religion. The Nationalists completely ignored everyone else, who wasn’t a white, male, Christian, and what they did for our country. For example, African Americans helped shaped out country, without those people our country will not be the same. African Americans helped us become less racists and more acceptable to other people, which is a completely necessary trait that every country in the world needs. Without this trait, we will be looked over by other Governments as ignorant and immature. If it wasn’t for African Americans and other races, like the Native Americans as well, we wouldn’t be acceptable to other races and religions.
The school of history that I agree most with is the New Left/Neo-Progressive School. I agree with this interpretation of history because it includes the whole picture. It includes all the people who were discriminated against, such as African Americans, Native Americans, and women. These people made up the backbone of our country, and we cannot just ignore them. Large portions of the United States’ history have to do with political and social reform movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement and the push for women’s rights (ERA, feminism). The statement, “history is from the bottom up” is a good rule to follow. We must acknowledge all the lower level people in society, and take away lessons from mistakes we have made in the past. This type of historiography teaches Americans how we got to our present point, and it acknowledges the violent, racist moments that America has had. In order to truly understand American history, we must be able to see all sides of the equation. For example, what if two kids had a physical fight at school, and the principal only listened to one kid’s side of the story? That would not be fair to the other kid, who had a whole different viewpoint about the fight. This lesson can be taken into accounts of American history, where the perspectives of all Americans should be taught. As the Constitution states, “all men are created equal.” Sadly, most history textbooks do not show us the whole picture, but the New Left form of historiography does the best job.
The school of history that I disagree most with is the Nationalist School. I disagree with this school for two reasons. First, this school claims that “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty” was due to white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments. This statement ignores the different religions and races throughout America, and only focuses on the dominant race and religion of people at the time. This only takes one perspective on history, and gives no credit to anyone else on building the foundation of America. Another reason I disagree with this school is because it claims that the American people were chosen by God to create a powerful nation. A large amount of the American population was slaves or immigrants, and these people had to go through many hardships throughout the formation of America. Americans also were very cruel to the Native Americans during their westward expansion. I do not think that God would envision America’s harsh, discriminating history to get where they are today.
I agree most with the Intellectual or Republicanism historians. These historians explained that many ideas used in America’s government today originated from the British. Some components that were originally used in the British government were human rights and a written constitution. Some of the main historians that believed in this concept were Gordon Wood and Bernard Bailyn. These historians explained that there was a distrust in the central government and that the people were pushing for equality, which the constitution was restricting. The historians believed that many people were selfless and trying to resist corruption. This type of historian was popular after World War II. The views of resisting corruption relate to the war; this is why I believe it was popular at that time. The historians said that the constitution was a way of saving the revolution by restraining democratic excess. I agree with the view of these historians because I do agree that many Americans at the time had these view, and I also do believe the constitution helped the government by making some decisions that were needed for the people.
I strongly disagree with the Nationalist School. Mostly I disagree with the belief that the white Christian man “progressed mankind toward a greater personal liberty”, and that the white Christian man had a better ability to build a strong government. I also have a problem with believing that these white men were chosen by God, and that they were destined to create this government. The view of the Nationalist school disregards many groups of people, including women, and anyone of an ethnicity other than white. The colonists, over generations, worked very hard for their freedom form the British. I have a hard time believing that they were chosen by God, as they put a lot of work and fought for their freedom over time.
I agree most with the consensus school. When ignoring class conflicts, and simply view American history through the lens of an American, rather than an American of a certain socio economic status, race, ethnicity, gender, etc., we appear stronger to the world, and are certainly more unified. The Revolution and Constitution are one movement. This Constitution guaranteed the same rights (and arguably more) that the colonists shared before the tyrannical government stepped in. The Constitution does serve mainly as a political document. I disagree with Beard’s argument involving the protection of private property. I find it imperative that in order for liberty to be protected, property must be protected. The Constitution was created in order to prevent the union from failing. The union was failing due to a weak central government that could not levy taxes. A new document was very necessary in order to preserve the independence of the States. I could also certainly make a case for the nationalist school, should the words “white Christian people” be replaced with “Europeans”. Europeans certainly were destined to succeed in overseas expansion and administration. Simply look at the advantages Europeans had. Europe is absolutely covered with rivers, so food isn’t a big issue to them, this leaves large room for technological innovation. There are also several coasts, most of which connect to their own state, which leads to really fast infrastructure and development of ideas. This allows Europe to have a massive technological edge over the rest of the world. It isn’t due to them being white Christians. It simply has to do with natural geographic advantage. Again I agree with the Constitution and Revolution being connected as they hold many of the same principles.
I disagree most with the Neo-Progressive school. I do agree that a full picture needs to be taken into account. I disagree with the consequences that have resulted from this line of thinking. Now, we focus on how evil we were due to racism. We don’t take anything at face value anymore. We can’t look at the works of the founders of our country without also saying: “by the way, these guys are all wealthy white males, so they cannot be taken seriously as they are racist”. Yes, I know racism is bad. I’m not racist (if the definition: I do not judge people based on the color of their skin applies), I am simply saying that then isn’t now. I think it would be nice to analyze the Constitution at face value, without thinking of potential ulterior motives of the authors, to see how it helps everyone.
When I interpret the Constitution, I tend to agree with the Consensus School of thought. This school believed that the Constitution was not made for the economic gain of the men who created it, but it was solely a political document. We have no way of knowing for sure, but when I interpret the Constitution I tend to see the best ion the founding fathers and therefore I choose to believe that the Constitution did not specifically entice economic gains for them, but the document was created to create a new form of government that was best for everyone. It was no secret that the Articles of Confederation were not an ideal, or even workable, form of government, and Shay’s rebellion and the economic depression that we learned in class highlight that simple fact perfectly. In addition, the Consensus school asserts that although the Constitutional Convention was strictly elite white males, it did not exclude other groups from economic gains. We learned in class that the entire nation was actively drowning in debt and struggling, and the Constitution helped to keep the new nation afloat, and eventually develop the United States into a world power.
The school of thought that I most disagree with is the Progressive school. The Progressive school of thought it near exact opposite of my preferred school of thought (Consensus), so I don’t think you’re particularly surprised to read that this is the school I disagree with. The Progressive School of thought looks at the Constitution strictly economically, and that is just something I cannot stand behind. This school asserts that the founding fathers made the Constitution to benefit their personal gains economically. This is empirically false however, because not only did the wealthy benefit from the making/signing of the Constitution, but the small farmers and lower class did as well. The Progressive school points to the Constitution as a cause of slums or poor areas, but that is also false because that also exists/existed in every society, and unless something amazing happens that will likely continue. Therefore, I do not agree with the Progressive School and align myself with the Consensus School.
1. The school of history that I agree with the most is the group of Intellectual or Republicanism Historians because that group believed in the greater good for everyone rather than only benefiting individuals. They were against greed and corruption and greatly favored integrity and virtue. This group valued a virtuous citizen who ignored monetary compensation and made it a priority to avoid having greedy and corrupt individuals in government. Not only that, but the virtuous citizen was a strong defender of liberty and tried to improve the country. I agree with this group for many reasons. I believe that putting the greater good before yourself is very important and is a necessary component in life. Being a virtuous citizen reminds me of George Washington because he was extremely virtuous and cared very much about the greater good rather than himself as an individual.
2. The school of history that I disagree with the most is the Nationalist School. This group claims that “the American people were divinely picked by God” to be the perfect republic society. I strongly disagree with this statement because I believe that it takes much more than just being chosen by God to create an ideal republic society. The people during this time period encountered many difficult obstacles, such as dealing with costly taxes, and I don’t think that being chosen by God was an accurate statement. I also disagree with the statement that “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty was due to white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments”. This is because America is welcoming to people of any or all religions and is a place that allows those people to prosper. Many people of other faiths contributed to the build of strong governments, not just people of Christian faith.
1. I agreed with the New Left/Neo-Progressive school the most out of all of these. The school had focused on both important topics aka social and political changes and how those make and affect history. It had talked about the different social order and classes and how each had a major effect. I feel like If you learn something in history you’d need to know the information from all sides as someone could be biased due to their race or gender or wealth. You’d also want to know both sides so you get to know how it affected everybody and how they experienced it getting the full story in different perspectives. Most of the time everything is taught or shown from the wealthy, white man’s point of view. Like when learning about the revolution we did focus a lot on the wealthy, white man’s point of view and colonists view showing how much the taxes were affecting them. But we also talked about some other important views and struggles of African American Slaves (wanting to have rights), women (like Abigail Adams talked about them being more equal to men/have more rights), and the lower class, even though the world was focused on something else not giving them much of an affect (but did show their view adding onto the history and the whole affects of the Revolution, not just the colonists and men point of view). Later in history though you can see these different people having affect and giving social change like during the civil war movement and racial injustice. For the Constitution it was made by mostly, surprisingly, wealthy, white men. Not personally saying that the founding fathers were racist or sexist or anything, just that they made the decisions and were more determined in getting it signed to help since the Articles of Confederation clearly didn’t. Throughout lots of people say and documents say that all people are created equal yet in the constitution it made it so slaves who are human weren’t considered human but 3/5th human (due to 3/5 compromise so the south states would vote for it). These social reasons and changes overall have had a large affect on the country politically and economically.
2. The school I disagree with the most was the Nationalists school. I disagree with a few of the statements and thoughts in the school. One was when it said that, “The American people were divinely picked by God to create a perfect republic, and the men at Philly were creating a new government for the betterment of the nation.” It was basically saying that wealthy, white, Christian men were meant to rule. I also don’t think God just picks whoever to create a perfect republic, It takes a lot more effort to make it. And for the Philly creating a new government better I would agree with as it did fix problems from the Articles of Confederation , but it was still from the wealthy , white man view. I also disagree to where it says that it was a continuation off the revolution. I think the Articles was more of a response to the ending of revolution, and Constitution was a response to that and was its own thing, not a part of it.
1. I most agree with the Intellectual or Republican Historians (1950s – 1980s). Wood and Bailyn’s assertions that the United States took on the British ideas—anti-authoritarianism, written constitutions, compact theory, and human rights—are logical. We were under British rule for so long, with Parliament controlling much of what the colonies did, that we were ought to adopt some of their styles. I agree with the statement that the Constitution tried to rescue the Revolution from failing to restrain its democratic excesses, and the whole “Revolutionary Republicanism” deal. I think when Parliament began exercising control over the colonists, they felt as though they had a moral obligation to gain their country back. That’s where the idea of being “virtuous” comes in. They, as you worded it, “ignored monetary compensation and made a commitment to resist and eradicate corruption.” The last thing [most of] the colonists wanted was to be corrupt. I like the belief that the Republic was sacred; meaning they had to take any and all measures to preserve it—even if that meant ignoring their own self-interests. This led us to the Revolution and eventually the Constitution. We had to be moral and do what was right for the common good.
2. I most disagree with the Nationalist School (post-Civil War – 1900s). I really cannot bring myself to believe in Anglo-Saxon superiority. It is unfathomable to me that many believe the Constitution and the success of America is thanks to white Christians; and that they’re superior than others at building strong governments. They believed that the Constitution was created as an extension of the Revolution, but I think otherwise. I like to think that the Constitution was created for two primary reasons: to replace the weak Articles of Confederation, and to protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the American citizens. I suppose I agree with them that the Articles of Confederation were weak, but I think they were weak because of the lack of power to the federal government. They believed it to be weak in dealing with internal and external issues, in general. I really don’t think the American citizens were “picked by God” to create a perfect republic. American citizens became American citizens by taking over Native land and rapidly colonizing it. This wasn’t them being almost like “the chosen ones”. They took over the land, and now they had to create a government that would work under the conditions they had brought upon themselves; if that makes any sense.
1. I agree with the New Left/Neo-Progressive School’s views on the Constitution more than any other. During the Women’s Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Movement, the Neo-Progressive School historians solidified. The Neo-Progressive School agrees with the Progressive School but believes they leave out minorities such as women and African Americans. The Neo-Progressive School avoids a one-sided opinion by looking at each situation from each point of view. This eliminates the factor of racism and allows for all views to be backed by factually and morally correct evidence from all sides. “They are a throwback to the Progressive Era, but some writers thought that Beard had oversimplified things with his strictly economic approach.” The Progressive School believed in lessening the gap between the rich and the poor, but in doing this, they left out minorities. The Neo-Progressive school brings minorities into the forefront of their theory and looks at everything from not only the view of a middle-class white man but also the view of a lower class African American slave. I like the inclusion and equal ideals that this school possesses.
2. I disagree with the Nationalist School’s views on the Constitution more than any other. They focus on religion and explain how Christianity is the reason America is so great. They take away from the hard work the Americans put in to become as great as they are. Disregarding the separation of church and state, the Nationalist School bases our country off of God. “The American people were divinely picked by God to create a perfect republic,” this quote is an example of the Nationalist School taking away from the people of America. This is a direct violation of the first amendment and it draws us closer to the crown rather than farther from it. I strongly support the idea of freedom of religion and believe the country was built by great people, some religious and some not. No matter the religious beliefs of a human, they have the same ideas. God didn’t build our country, it was the genius minds of the Founding Fathers. Christianity didn’t build our country, it was the freedom of religion. The King didn’t build our country, it was the revolutionary citizens of America.
1. There are many different theories and interpretations for talking about historiography, especially when it comes to historians talking about the constitution. Even before the Civil War, people didn’t know how to interpret the way the Constitution was created and the steps it took to build the country. Many times things like this happened, where the point of view was changed. Some of these times were at points where the Great Depression was going, or a period when the second world war had ended, and when America fought the Soviet Union during the Cold War. These are all very interesting points of view, but the one that I believe is the most correct is the Progressive School period, where America was facing the Great Depression. This was from 1900 to the 1930s. Their theories believed that there were two different times of revolution, which was when America was one where it wanted to break away from the English, and the other when they governed themselves. I also see it this way, except that the Constitution was America becoming America. When the shot that was heard around the world was fired at the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the Constitution hadn’t been written yet, so the colonists were still technically rebelling.
2. Along with all these arguments, there must be a lesson in historiography that is the least right. The theory that I believe is the most wrong with the four listed is the theory called the Nationalist School. This states that the Constitution was a mere add-on to the revolution, and not its own landmark time. Instead of two separate parts that state different parts that shaped America, it is one long stretch that has no chops to separate from what the different perspectives and positions that the colonists were in. When the founding fathers met together to form the constitution, they had a different mind set, a more confident, structured mind set then before, They knew what to do and how they were going to do it, instead of expressing their emotions based on the way they were treated.
Out of the five Schools of thought, I agree with the New Left/ Neo-Progressive School of 1960s- 1980s. The historians that identify with this group have a larger viewpoint of our society, and focused on more than just one viewpoint, like the Progressive School focused on just the economic side of the constitution. The Neo-Progressive School focused on social and political changes such as, “Civil Rights and women’s rights movement and the student protest movements against the Vietnam War”. I think it is incredibly important to focus on the social aspect of our society rather just the political and economical. Our government and history is made out of people of all genders, and races. The New Left/ Neo-Progressive School while explaining the “political process in the revolutionary era includes those of blacks (free and slave), women, and Native Americans”. This new way of history allowed students and learners to learn the full picture of history instead of just the middle to upper class white man point of view. And because our government and society is made up or more then one type of person, I agree with the New Left/ Neo-Progressive School the most.
The Schools of thought that I disagree with the most is the Nationalist School (post Civil War 1900). George Bancroft a famous Nationalist wrote many books covering the history of the U.S. before the Civil War. It is said that he ignored Native Americans. I do not know why he did this, but a good guess would be because he wanted to better the view of the “white man”. Because he skipped such a huge part in the history of the United States, it makes his book somewhat inaccurate. Bancroft and other historians of the Nationalist School also focused on the good times of American history such as the economic growth, railroad expansion, the closing of the interior frontier, and the belief of Anglo-Saxon or white superiority. Because of their beliefs, it makes their beliefs and writings very biased and maybe untrue. If they only focused on the good parts of American history, then you would be missing out on the most important times in American history such as the Indians. And the Nationalist School of thought was very Christian biased. “The American people were divinely picked by God”. I think if history was to be written by these historians, it would not be relatable, and accurate to people who aren’t white middle or upper class males.
1. I agree with the Intellectual Historians because the group tells it like it was, and how it should have been. Historians like Gordon Wood and Bernard Bailyn explained that since the first Americans landed in Virginia, they had always been taking things from the British. They took their ideas, money, and ways of living, which wasn’t bad because they originated from Britain. They showed that there was distrust in whatever government was in control, and the time period saw a push for equality. Equality was the main factor in this historian group, as it was in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, which was when the historians were popular. The best citizens, in their book, were someone who defended liberty and was always in the loop and helping the country become better. I agree with this because I think this is how many people in America lived in early America, for example, Roger Williams, who created a state, Rhode Island, which had religious freedom and always was welcoming to others. Rhode Island became a safe haven to religious minorities. This was a good reflection of the attitude that America had.
2. The school of history that I disagree most with is the Nationalist School. I disagree with this school for two reasons. First, I disagree with this school is because it claims that the American people were chosen by God to create a powerful nation. A large amount of the American population was slaves or immigrants, and these people had to go through many hardships throughout the formation of America. Americans also were very cruel to the Native Americans during their westward expansion. I do not think that God would envision America’s harsh, discriminating history to get where they are today. Another reason this school claims that “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty” was due to white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments. This statement ignores the different religions and races throughout America, and only focuses on the dominant race and religion of people at the time. This only takes one perspective on history, and gives no credit to anyone else on building the foundation of America.
Of the schools of historiography, the one that I agree with most is the New Left and Neo-Progressive School. This is for the simple reason that social issues are very important to me and this school of thought includes the social aspect of history. I also think that this is the most accurate of the 4 school mentions because “Unlike the old left, the New Left avoids the preconceived molds of Marxist theories, which distorted the facts to fit a foreign doctrine. The historians of the New Left demand the inclusion of those features of our history that explain how we came to be a violent, racist, repressive society,” something I think is important because we simply can’t ignore the ugly and parts of history we are ashamed of. Additionally, this way of thinking doesn’t just include the traditional history of privileged American white men; it shows history through the perspective of women, Native Americans, and African Americans.
The school I disagree with most is the Nationalist school. For starters I very strongly disagree that America is what is today because of “white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments” or because “the American people were divinely picked by god.” I believe there are many reasons that America is what is today. Firstly, the actions of every single individual regardless of their religion or skin color have played some part in American history and I don’t think this particular school of thought acknowledges this. Furthermore I think the single most responsible element of why America is what is what it is today is because of what we American people have overcame – before the declaration of independence to present day. I do, however, agree with the Nationalist school idea that the men in Philly were creating a new government for the betterment of the nation. I believe they drafted the constitution because they were concerned about the government under the articles of confederation, rather than to push individual agendas.
I agree the most with the New Left/ Neo-Progressive Historians. Most of the stuff people learn about in history is mostly about the landowning, wealthy, white men. Here a there women, people of color, and the poor will show up but, that is really it. The Declaration of Independence was written with the only the landowning, rich, white men’s ideas in mind. The American Revolution was the white man’s revolution. In The Radical Revolution from the “Bottom Up” by Gary Nash, talks about who the revolution effect the rest of the population not just the white man. I think that to totally understand history and what happened during any time period is to know all sides of the story. The essay talk about Thomas Peters, a slave, who said that he was going to create his of Declaration of Independence. Women wanted to be a part of the Declaration of Independence as well. They thought “if men can have rights why can’t I?”. Abigail Adams wrote to John Adams when he was writing the Declaration of Independence. She told him to write about liberty but, not just of the white men. She told him to talk about the women and to not give all of the power to the men. John just though it was so funny that she would tell him to give rights to women. The Constitution was written so it can be interpreted in many ways. The most common way was it is interpreted is to help the white man. During the creation of the Constitution it was kept a secret of all the rest of the country. No one knew about it so no other person could have a say with what was in it (women and African Americans). The constitution also made that a slave with always basically be a slave forever. They fugitive slave clause made it so that if a slave ran away to a free state and got caught they would be returned to their owner. Everyone should get a voice not just the white man. We the people is written at the beginning of the Constitution which means everyone not just the people that wrote it. The New Left made it so that the minority’s stories were told.
I disagree with the Nationalist School thoughts of teachings because it ignores everything the African Americans and women accomplished in history. I also do not agree with the fact that American was picked by God to be a great republican society. That is forcing Christianity to forefront and saying that was the reason why America was created. It also took a lot of people to get the country to where it is not just God saying that it was supposed to be this way. It glosses over the other religions and by it saying that solely Christianity made America was wrong. But, I do believe in that the Constitution Convention that took place in Philly took place to make a better national government. But it did not benefit the people of color or the women.
I would have to agree with the Consensus school the most out of the five schools. The Consensus school occurred during the 1940s through the 1960s, after World War Two into the Cold War era. The Consensus school moved away from class conflicts. The Constitution was not created for economic gain. For the American Revolution and the Constitution, the Consensus school believed that the Revolution and Constitution where both two consecutive movement that flowed from one to the other. I would have to agree with this statement. Right after the Americans won the Revolution, they needed to create a government to hold the colonies together as a unified nation. The American Revolution ended in 1783 and the Constitutional Convention occurred in 1787, so they were obviously not very far apart at all. In the middle of this period was the Articles of Confederation, which was the colonies first form of government. Political structure was the first priority for the Americans after the revolution and this transferred in one flow over to the Constitution. It was created as a way to making big ideas such as the checks and balances and representation to just the American way of life. The Constitution was the finishing part of the revolution because it created morals that emphasized the separation of powers the main purpose of the colonies. The Consensus also saw the Constitution as a political document, which I agree with because it was made to organize a new federal government.
I would have to disagree with the Progressive school. This school’s period was from the early 1900s to the 1930s. The Progressive school focused more on class conflict rather than other issues. They also believed that the Constitution was created based on an economic standpoint, which I don’t agree with. The Constitution in my opinion was created to make a stronger federal government and replace the Articles of Confederation. Charles Beard was a main leader of this group at the time period and argued that men who made the Constitution has strong economic motives to ensure a powerful government. I disagree that this was the main purpose of the Constitution, and that the Constitution was a political document that was created for political purposes. The Progressives didn’t like keeping the Constitution a secret and thought it was unfair because no common man could be included. The secrecy of the Convention was made so they could write up a new political document and not revise and edit the Articles of Confederation, which many people at this time thought. The Constitutional convention didn’t want a didn’t want any common men because you need strong, well educated men who know what they’re doing unlike a random person off the street to help American stay built. The Progressives seem to believe that the upper class is bad for the creation of the Constitution. The economic issue regarding the government not being able enforce tax laws was a key part to the Constitution but the main issue was that the Articles of Confederation were failing and we needed a political document to take care of the issue.
I agree with the consensus school the most, while i also feel that the nationalist school is correct in saying that the constitution is an extension of the revolution, i feel i agree with the consensus on more levels. The main reasons why i agree with the consensus school the most is because of their belief that businessman and entrepreneurs made this country great. I agree in saying that businessmen and entrepreneurs made this country great because of the great inventions and business empires that make our country what it is today. I also agree that the constitution is a political document and not for economic gain. The creation of the constitution does not regard the economic gain for the creators as much as the social and political issues that face our country. I Feel that the founding fathers of the constitution were in fact creating a strictly political document where they put the country in front of their own economic gain. The consensus viewpoint emphasizes that the constitution was written for the good and benefit of all americans without economic gain for its creators.
I mostly disagree with the progressive schools, along with some of the new-left and neo-progressive viewpoints. For the new-left/neo-progressive viewpoints i disagree with the fact that when looking at the constitution it was created by rich elite white males. The new-left focuses on the fact that we were based off the view of racist elites, while these men may have fallen in some of these stereotypes, like the consensus view, I believe that these men created the constitution for the betterment of the country and not individual gain. This brings me into my main disagreement with the progressive point of view that the constitution was strictly economical. The men who created the constitution were invested in the betterment of t country, which included the population to grow economically. Unlike views from progressive historians that state that only wealthy elites gained economically, when in fact the lower classes too had economic betterment. These are the main reasons why i disagree with the progressive school, and new-left/neo-progressive points of view.
The school that I strongly agree with would have to be the New Left/Neo-Progressive School. I feel like the this school added not just the political or the economic part of that time period but other races and nationalities as well. This stood out to me the most because as a minority you don’t really read about historians adding in the part where an African American was hurt or how they were discriminated against, because they want America to seem a certain way. This school added all the other features as well and it is the most current historiography of the constitution that was presented to us, so they were more aware of racism and how the world today was changing into. And it says in this passage that Beard, one of the leading historians back in 1913, oversimplified things and left out the details that this the New Left/ Neo-Progressive school looked into. So if we related this back to one of the portraits that we read, you could say that Beard was a hedgehog much like Ronald Reagan, just looking at the big picture, and New Left/ Neo-Progressive thinkers could be the fox and the hedgehog, both looking at the big picture and the little details that could have slipped by. This school also confronts the problem or states exactly how Americans viewed other races, you could say they were racists. Nash looks deep into the South AND the North and how they made the 3/5 compromise which degraded African Americans. So in conclusion I enjoyed the historiography of the New Left/ Neo-Progressive school because they confronted the problems that maybe seemed less important back them, but more important now.
The school that I disliked the most would have to be the Nationalist School. This school’s historiography was made way back then so it doesn’t exactly follow the way of thinking that we have now. Either way, I still dislike how they made the white Christian males seem more superior to any other person, race, or religion. It says that, “‘the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty’ was due to white Christian people and their inherent ability to build strong governments”. So to restate the quote he is saying that we are advancing and building our own government due to the fact that the white male Christians have a God given gift. This quote is so wrong on so many levels that it is even hard to type about it. It says that only white male Christians are chosen by God to make a strong government. The first problem that deeply disturbs me is how it excludes women out of it. I know this was in the 1900’s but I still think it was wrong for them to think of women that way. The second thing that really seemed to bother me was that they had to be white and Christian. Many smart and talented people have shown themselves to be an outstanding citizen without having to be white and Christian. America was founded by many different races of people. They were all immigrants trying to get away from the discrimination that they received. So if the historians thought about it, why would we say only white male Christians, even though those were the people who created the declaration, America was founded by immigrants and was the home to many different religions. And for them to exclude that I find it very disturbing.
The school I admire the most would have to be the New Left/ Neo-Progressive School. While nobody has more love for this great nation than me, I really do appreciate the way historians like Gary Nash and Howard Zinn kept America and the American people responsible for the irrational decisions and mistakes this nation has made along the way to greatness. By doing this they bring awareness to Civil Rights and the Women’s Movement, when you’re an African American female that everything that’s all of your rights in those two movements. It also reminds the American people that history can’t be subjected to white male bias or wealthy bias for that matter, sometimes in the twenty first century it’s hard to remember that. Sure the economic side of history is very important , it’s how people had to live or how they were fortunate enough to live, but when segregation and sexism is in the world it comes above the economy , because persecution affect every aspect of life, and it did in America. “History from the bottom up” represents the purest version of history in my opinion , the historians of this school who made this quote are not appealing to anyone they are just making sure everyone and group that needs to be included is accounted for. The school that I dislike the most is the Nationalist school. Historians like George Bancroft disincluded the kind of important Native American genocide that took place while the Europeans were adventuring into the new world. It’s not only essential to our history because a whole group of people were slaughtered through disease and conflict, but also because it shaped wars, like the French and Indian War, King Philip’s War , etc. The thought that the American people were divinely picked by God is something that strongly disagree with, America was built off of the belief that everyone should have freedom, which includes freedom of religion, not only is it unfair but it’s also wrong to based a country off any kind of God because not all Americans can identify with.
1) The idea I most agree with is the Nationalist Theory. I agree that the constitution is an extension of the revolution. It puts in rights that we did not previously have and tells the people plans as to how we will be governed. This proves that it is an extension because without it we would not have rights that we do today. I also agree that the Articles of Confederation was too weak to be our major basis for government. The Articles did not allow people, especially middle to lower class, fair rights, and that created the uprising known as Shay’s Rebellion. With this happening I think it was clear change was needed. The main point that I agree with is that the men in Philly were concerned with creating a government for the people. They wanted a government that would fairly represent people as they had not been under the British rule. Although this was originally flawed with women and African Americans left out, as time has moved on we have built an equal democracy from the strong base our founding fathers provided us.
2) The theory I must disagree with is the Old-Progressive thoughts. I do not believe that our founding fathers created the constitution to protect their own wealth, but rather to protect the liberty of Americans. I also do not find the process by which the constitution was created to be democratic. Although most members were not common, it was created to benefit the common man. This is because it helped to protect their rights. It gave rights to private property over state assembly. This means that it gives stronger rights to the people than it does to the government, and that certainly helped the quality of life for the everyday man, including people of lower classes.
I agree the most with the Nationalist school in their ideology given specifically about the constitution. When they describe the details of the portion describing their thoughts saying; “Nationalists viewed the creation of the Constitution as an extension to the revolution.” This phrase is describing the creation of the constitution as a second war that needs to be fought throughout the newly created states. I agree with this saying because once we finally won the revolutionary war we went through many hardships including economic depressions making the constitution and additional economic battle we had to fight within our country. This also makes them one movement together, connecting the people with the government giving them freedom and their outline within their newly instated country. Another strong point made in the Nationalists point of view was the weakness of the articles of confederation. I agree with what they are describing in this passage saying that it sparked the Shays Revolution and economic crisis occurring in America. This was caused by the fact that the government gave little closure to the farmers by taxing them like crazy which ended up sparking this rebellion. This later on ended up causing the economic crisis which was even worse than the great depression because of the lack of communication throughout the government by giving the state power to tax imported goods from other states for example. And the last quote I agree with in this discussion is about the people working together to form a strong nation to (in the long run) benefit themselves to a certain extent saying; “the orderly progress of mankind toward greater personal liberty”. Like I said before that most everyone wants to benefit themselves but this quote is saying you have to work together in order to achieve that goal. Also in this quote they describe the process meaning it won’t happen right away but it could take awhile for this process to be finally complete.
I disagree with the consensus school since they are describing the constitution as a written document in order to benefit just the political stand point. I believe they need to look at it as both from a economic and political stand point because if they just focus on the political aspect the nation won’t strive in trade or anything involving money for that matter. I agree somewhat that they should make the constitution better than the articles but again it should’t be the main focus in this situation. The also say that 2/3 of men have enough land to be eligible to vote but from previous knowledge they said that nearly 3/4 of the men couldn’t vote due to the land restrictions (maybe it was changed in the later years).
1. The school of history that I most agree with is the New Left/Neo-Progressive school (1960s-1980s). This interpretation is based off of the idea that everyone should be considered in society, not just those of the white land owning males. When the constitution was written in 1787, slavery was still prevalent in America and women had very few rights. As we know, society has tremendously developed since then and these groups have had large affects on how we are governed. The writers of the Constitution could not possibly have foreseen the affect that these oppressed groups would have on the nations future. With this being said, the wording of the Constitution leaves many issues open for interpretation and the New Left believes we should heavily consider the racial differences between then and now. In basic terms, society is much more tolerable now, and the way we govern should reflect that. Another ideal of the New Left is the distancing from Beard’s philosophy that only the good parts of our history should be reviewed in interpretation, which differs from the Old Left. We believe that all of history should be learned about and not avoided because it will help us better our society.
2. The school of history that I most disagree with is the Nationalist school (post Civil War-1900). This way of thinking is extensively closed minded, to the point that it is, in my opinion, inadmissible as a valid interpretation of the Constitution. First, they focused mostly on the economic outcome of the governing document, which neglects multiple other meanings and is biased. Next, this way of thinking was catered to white christians, and blatantly stated that society would fail without them. The point of view does not even consider the opinions of the majority of people, which is not how a democracy is run. To add to this, the opinion that certain people were hand picked by god to run the country and help America survive is completely ignorant. It leaves most people, many competent, discriminated against and not free to express their opinions.
I agree most with the Intellectual/Republicanism School of thought. I think that it makes sense that the 1770s and 80s had a huge movement for equality, as slavery was being abolished in certain states and feminism was beginning to grow, and I can also see how the school of thought sees the constitution as an attempt to restrain these things. The constitution included the 3/5 compromise, which was not supportive for the equality of blacks, as it dehumanized slaves and therefore free blacks as well. It also does not explicitly state the equality of women, and once again, the fate of womankind was left to be debated over by white men. This school of thought also looks at the virtue of citizens and representatives. Virtue was clearly very important to the men of high standing at this time, epitomized by President George Washington, who’s life was controlled by virtue and gentlemanliness, as discussed in the article, The Greatness of George Washington. In the article, Gordon S. Wood discusses how important these traits were to any gentleman during this time. It only makes sense that these ideals would be carried over into their legal documents that are the ideals for the future country.
The school of thought I most disagree with is the Nationalist School. First of all, giving it the name “Nationalist” just gives it a bad connotation and therefore I am prone to disliking it. I also really do not like their idea that white Christians were the reason for all of the good things happening in America/the World. Native Americans actually had some pretty amazing societies and cultures, such as the Aztecs and Incans, which the Europeans ruined as soon as they found. The most popular writer for this school, George Bancroft, doesn’t even take Native Americans into account when talking about the very beginnings of the New World. I also disagree with the “divinely picked by God” and the John Winthrop “city on a hill” idea because there’s a lot of shady things that have happened in that time but also in modern times, that contradicts the American exceptionality sentiments in this particular school of though.
I agree with the Consensus school of thought involving the Constitution due to lots of hard evidence and less speculation about the Founding Fathers’ motives than the Economic and Progressive schools of thought. The Consensus school of thought persuaded me because one of the primary historians argues that the rich men attending the Constitutional Convention were not solely in charge, as he states “2/3 of men at the time had enough property to vote”. This changes a lot of things, because not only did these men desire property rights, they also had the power to elect legislators, even if they weren’t at the tip top of the upper class. This school of thought also talks about how America is built on competition between entrepreneurs and businessmen, which is what our constitution was founded upon (protection of property and regulation of taxes). I like to believe this to be true even today, and that part of why America is so great is that you can build yourself up from nothing (much like Convention attendee Hamilton) and become a rich, land-owning person. The constitution was supposed to protect that ability.
The school of thought that I disagree with most is the Progressive school of thought because it seems very broad and makes the constitution look like an evil document that protects rich white men, like most of the people at the Convention. Although I agree that the creation of the document could have been more democratic, I still think that the men that “held public securities, a form of personal property that would increase dramatically in value” had better motives, kind of like what the Nationalist school of thought promotes. I definitely disagree with the pessimistic outlook of the Progressive views. I also think that class conflict was not the primary issue in this era, like this school of thought, but rather an overall economic crisis following the revolution that CAUSED problems between classes. Also, like in the Consensus school of thought, many of these lower class men had the ability to vote.
1. I agree with the New Left/Neo-Progressive School, because it accentuates that more than one culture group contributed to the Constitution and events that lead to the Constitution. If credit is given, it must be distributed equally, which would have to mention African slaves and women’s unwilling contribution. White males are seen as the saviors to the colonists from a tyranny, Britain. But most fail to mention how males took advantage of slaves and women for their benefit. Slave owners counted each slave as sixty percent and women as whole, to increase the number of Southern states vote; that is called the three-fifth’s Compromise. This goes to show that white supremacy over goes, not only morals, but also the government they wanted to create. This leads to my next example that is the Supremacy clause, which states if there were a problem between federal and state government, the federal government would always win. This is insurance to Federalists (dominant whit males) to be able to retain more power, because of their economic status. Furthermore stating that Federalists were always put into history as the leaders in ratifying the Constitution, because of their organized and vocal presentations. Tarnishing any and all points made by Anti- Federalists (poor white males) who were made out to be the villains that with holds progress to be made.
2. I disagree with the Nationalist School, because it fails mention that more than one racial group contributed to the founding of America. It lacks attentions towards the Native Americans roles in the history along with their alliances. Also grasping women’s role in raising the children who go onto to rule our country, as the cycle continues. Or acknowledging the fact that slaves provided more than half of the goods produced in the colonies. No credit is given to poor farmers who fought in the war, with no pay, and have to come back to dried out farms. Despite the fact that the rich who contributed in the revolution, came back to live in their lavish homes, taking the least bit of money the poor had to back for themselves. Moreover that it does not seem likely that God would pick people for the roles of colonists, because of the deformity amongst one another.
The school of history that I agree with most is the New Left / Neo-Progressive School Historians. At first when I was reviewing all of the Schools of History, I seemed to be agreeing with Charles Beard with the fact that, “The members of the Philadelphia Convention which drafted the Constitution were, with a few exceptions, immediately, directly, and personally interested in, and derived economic advantage from, the establishment of the new system” (Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States). Those conservative men had economic interests all over the board (in banking, manufacturing, and trade) but what Beard fails to acknowledge in his Constitutional interpretation is a social factor and exterior factor. African Americans, Women, and Native Americans seem to be lost in Beard’s interpretation, with their motives being lost to the sea of white men. The white wealthy man seems to be a separate issue from the call of Abigail Adams to not forget about the ladies, the slaves’ pursuit to be free and equal, and the Native Americans struggle to keep their land. In reality, all of these people are involved, and this School of History remembers all people and their involvement.
The School of history that I disagree with most is the Nationalist School of History. The Nationalist School believes that white Christians could move mankind forward and that they are naturally great at building strong governments, but I do not agree. I respect everyone’s beliefs, but I cannot agree that only white Christians formed our nation. I can only agree with the contrary point, other races and sexes formed America. With the early constant strain between the colonist and the Native Americans, documents and agreements were made after events such as Pontiac’s Rebellion, and the Proclamation line of 1763 after the French and Indian War. These events established anger and hardship in the colonies. Constant slave rebellion and the African American fight for equality and freedom was seeing hope with the ratification of State Constitutions banning slavery, seeming to be the start of next national war, the Civil War. Even after just listing a couple of things, those events and many more were a major factor in the creation of the American. I also have to disagree that, “The American People were divinely picked by God… to create a perfect republic”. People of the revolution fought for their independence, and were not simply chosen to lead by God.