An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States

Review by Serdar Goz
What comes to the minds of most people when they think of the constitutional convention is a gathering of scholarly gentlemen who sought to create a government that was for the people and by the people. In all facets of the documents this holds true. Nowhere in the Constitution are there rules that protect any one class in its rights or property over any other. The Constitution does not distinguish differences by descent, opinion, religion, or property. In these respects the founding fathers have much credit owed to them.

In An Economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States Charles Beard refutes this perception of the founding fathers. “The whole theory of the economic interpretation of history,” Beard states, “rests upon the concept that social progress in general is the result of contending interests in society…”(p.19). By researching the classes and social groups that existed at the time previous to the adoption of the Constitution those who would have most immediately gained and benefited by the overthrow of the old system and adoption of the new system would be made clear. Beard goes methodically through who was in the convention and the person’s financial standing, the states involved in the ratification and where her finances were found.

To begin to make sense of why those at the convention were there and what they sought to protect one needs to be familiar with the problems that existed and the specific interests that existed at the time before the adoption of the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation there was a loose union of thirteen sovereign states. The national government consisted of a congress with one house in which each state had equal voting power. There was no executive department or judiciary. The central government had no power to regulate commerce or tax directly. In the absence of these powers all branches of the government were rendered helpless according to Beard. It is necessary to go further in depth into the specific interests of the groups at the convention, which are four fold, to understand what was at stake. →