The late 19th and early 20th centuries raised a generation that witnessed the astounding exploitation of people by huge industries and corporations. It is certainly no wonder why the children of this time became cynical and questioned the motives of people in power. And it is no wonder why Columbia University professor Charles Beard’s 1913 book, “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution,” enjoyed serious consideration among academic circles and within popular political thought until the 1950s. It was clear that the elite and powerful industry tycoons shared no common interests with their employees, so those employees — voters — were primed to reject the supposed patriotism with which the elite and powerful Founding Fathers created the U.S. Constitution.
In a summary of the book, the Constitution Center said:
“Beard’s bombshell book, whose data and interpretations were both praised and challenged, if not denounced, sought to demonstrate that, far from being selfless champions of disinterested ideals, the Founders were largely wealthy and self-interested property owners, whose system of checks and balances was designed to frustrate majority rule to preserve and maintain a hierarchical order protective of economic, political, and social elites.”
Beard argues that the Constitution was a logical and secondary continuation of the wealthy social classes “seeking positive action and negative restraint.” He points out that the majority of supporters of the Constitution were wealthy land and slave owners, and most of the people who opposed the document were poor farmers and debtors. He also said that the men who wrote the Constitution were land and slave owners, whose interests were protected first and foremost in the document itself. Beard claims property rights were treated as “morally beyond” the influence of democracy or the government and dismisses the idea that the document was made to represent all Americans.
Beard is correct in thinking the Constitution did not represent all Americans. It is clear that all people of color and white women went unrepresented in the system of government proposed by the Founding Fathers. Beard’s argument that the Constitution itself was an economic document, however, has been generally discredited and rejected since the 1950s.
His questioning of the Founding Fathers’ motives warrants contemplation, though perhaps it’s clear that the Constitution itself is not an economic document. People who argue against Beard’s idea say the document describes governmental organization, which is clearly political, that it does not require that representatives, the president or Supreme Court justices be wealthy property owners. Henry Steele Commager, Columbia and Amherst professor and essayist, asserted that Beard’s view of the Constitution was too narrow and misrepresented the mindset of the men who wrote the document. Commager wrote in 1958, “It is not the generation of the farmers that was undemocratic; it is our generation that is undemocratic.”
Beard’s book sparked serious discussion about the philosophical origins of the U.S. government, and while his conclusions seem like an overextension of his logic, it is still worthwhile to address. The U.S. has never been a place of political, social or economic equality, and perhaps if the Constitution had been written with all Americans in mind, the progress in civil liberties and equity seen over the last 250 years would have happened faster.