Historical Interpretations Of The Constitution

[A.A]

I am beginning now (in my third year of B.A studies of general history) to try and grasp the difference between historiographical interpretations to American history. For the purpose of doing a paper on the Antifederalists/Antifeneralism I read a textbook on that subject by Jackson Turner Main. My professor informed me that Main is a "Beardian", which means that he is following the method/premise of Charles A. Beard, who wrote a sort of Marxist interpretation (my phrasing, based on reading about it) of the constitution. The main scholar that my professor has offered me to read in order to see the opposing view, is Forrest Mcdonald (in his book "We The People"), who offered an interpretation of the constitution as based on ideas and not on economical interests.

What I wanted to ask any of you who are well diversed on the issue: is McDonald a good representative of pro-capitalist interpretation of the constitution and of the views of the opposing sides in the battle of ratification? Whether he is or isn’t, which other good historians regard this issue in the same general approach?

Thanks in advance.

[Tom Robinson]

My professor informed me that Main is a "Beardian", which means that he is following the method/premise of Charles A. Beard, who wrote a sort of Marxist interpretation (my phrasing, based on reading about it) of the constitution. The main scholar that my professor has offered me to read in order to see the opposing view, is Forrest Mcdonald (in his book "We The People"), who offered an interpretation of the constitution as based on ideas and not on economical interests.

To be accurate, Charles A. Beard was not a Marxist but a Progressive, a turn of the century word for what we today would call liberal. In his later years he would find himself regarded as “right-wing” for penning a work sharply critical of FDR’s foreign policy. Beard saw the framers of the U.S. Constitution as being motivated by certain economic interests and provided support for his thesis in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. He did not have to rely on Marx for this, for the same kind of class analysis was being done by Etienne de La Boétie centuries before Marx.

Forrest McDonald takes issue with Beard and offers a more complex picture of the Founders. But it is not true that he sees them as motivated purely by ideas. In any case, the hero in McDonald’s history is not Jefferson (whom he regards as both backward-looking and dangerous in his revolutionary fervor), but the great centralist, Alexander Hamilton. In McDonald’s view, the Hamiltonian program, including a powerful national bank that could monetize government debt (inflate currency), was the key to political and economic progress. Thus, McDonald is really more pro-mercantilist than pro-capitalist.

As someone who regards the Articles of Confederation as an arrangement superior to the Constitution, I find myself closer to Beard-Jefferson than McDonald-Hamilton.

[A.A]

To be accurate, Charles A. Beard was not a Marxist but a Progressive, a turn of the century word for what we today would call liberal.  In his later years he would find himself regarded as “right-wing” for penning a work sharply critical of FDR’s foreign policy.  Beard saw the framers of the U.S. Constitution as being motivated by certain economic interests and provided support for his thesis in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. He did not have to rely on Marx for this, for the same kind of class analysis was being done by Etienne de La Boétie centuries before Marx.

Forrest McDonald takes issue with Beard and offers a more complex picture of the Founders.  But it is not true that he sees them as motivated purely by ideas.  In any case, the hero in McDonald’s history is not Jefferson (whom he regards as both backward-looking and dangerous in his revolutionary fervor), but the great centralist, Alexander Hamilton.  In McDonald’s view, the Hamiltonian program, including a powerful national bank that could monetize government debt (inflate currency), was the key to political and economic progress.  Thus, McDonald is really more pro-mercantilist than pro-capitalist.

Thank you very much.

Just to be clear for anyone reading this who dose not have knowledge on the subject: my characterizations of the historians are currently second-handed, from my professor and not from my own investigations of the works. So my descriptions are not to be relied upon. I now think of the possibility that my professor (a person with socialist orientation, though much less than the average professor where I study) gave me McDonald’s name because he is a Hamiltonian, and because he sees mercantilist/centralist and capitalist views as similar.

Do you have any offers for me to read of historians with more pro-capitalist angels?

P.S About this statement:

As someone who regards the Articles of Confederation as an arrangement superior to the Constitution, I find myself closer to Beard-Jefferson than McDonald-Hamilton.

Do you think that had the constitution not being ratified things would be better? If so, I would suggest opening a thread about this since I think that’s quite an interesting question concerning the implementation of laissez faire.

[Tom Robinson]

Thank you very much.

Just to be clear for anyone reading this who dose not have knowledge on the subject: my characterizations of the historians are currently second-handed, from my professor and not from my own investigations of the works. So my descriptions are not to be relied upon. I now think of the possibility that my professor (a person with socialist orientation, though much less than the average professor where I study) gave me McDonald’s name because he is a Hamiltonian, and because he sees mercantilist/centralist and capitalist views as similar.

Yes, that confusion crops up often, even among people who are supposedly pro-capitalist. By the way, I don't mean to dismiss McDonald altogether. He has some keen insights on such subjects as the War of 1812 (it was "stupid") and states rights (he likes them).

Do you have any offers for me to read of historians with more pro-capitalist angels?

Tom Bethel’s The Noblest Triumph is a good overview of the benefits capitalism brought to Western Civilization. Jakob Christoph Burckhardt’s Reflections on History is excellent on Europe. The only avowedly pro-capitalist history of colonial America is Murray N. Rothbard's multi-volume Conceived in Liberty. I like Carl Becker's The Declaration of Independence. Becker was another Progressive, but he's very good at showing that support for the Revolution included all classes of Americans. F.A. Hayek’s Capitalism and the Historians is the best book on refuting statist myths of the Industrial Revolution. When you get to the Civil War, you have Jeffrey R. Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War. Arthur Ekirch's The Decline of American Liberalism is a superb account of how liberalism changed course from favoring limited government early in the 19th century to big government by 1900. The best history of the New Deal is still John T. Flynn’s The Roosevelt Myth.

P.S About this statement:

Do you think that had the constitution not being ratified things would be better? If so, I would suggest opening a thread about this since I think that’s quite an interesting question concerning the implementation of laissez faire.

The rise of statism in America coincides with the centralization of power in Washington. The Constitution was merely the first step taken in that direction.

Edited April 8, 2005 by Tom Robinson

[Free Capitalist]

The rise of statism in America coincides with the centralization of power in Washington. The Constitution was merely the first step taken in that direction.

I don't think it's that simple. A very good argument could be made that though we're statist now, at least we're still one country. A less weaker central government would dissolve the country into anarchy and perrenial civil war, as happened in Ancient Greece, and what the Founders feared might happen again.

[A.A]

Tom Bethel’s The Noblest Triumph is a good overview of the benefits capitalism brought to Western Civilization. Jakob Christoph Burckhardt’s Reflections on History is excellent on Europe.  The only avowedly pro-capitalist history of colonial America is Murray N. Rothbard's multi-volume Conceived in Liberty.  I like Carl Becker's The Declaration of Independence.  Becker was another Progressive, but he's very good at showing that support for the Revolution included all classes of Americans.  F.A. Hayek’s Capitalism and the Historians is the best book on refuting statist myths of the Industrial Revolution. When you get to the Civil War, you have Jeffrey R. Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War.  Arthur Ekirch's The Decline of American Liberalism is a superb account of how liberalism changed course from favoring limited government early in the 19th century to big government by 1900.  The best history of the New Deal is still John T. Flynn’s The Roosevelt Myth.

Thank you very much for the very valuble suggestions.

[Tom Robinson]

I don't think it's that simple. A very good argument could be made that though we're statist now, at least we're still one country. A less weaker central government would dissolve the country into anarchy and perrenial civil war, as happened in Ancient Greece, and what the Founders feared might happen again.

Will you explain how the U.S. Constitution prevented civil war?

[Harald]

AA, have you checked out the lectures by Ridpath on www.aynrandbookstore.com ? Also, C. Bradley Thompson's "John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty" should be of interest.

[Free Capitalist]

Will you explain how the U.S. Constitution prevented civil war?

Sure. What happened in Ancient Greece, the history of which the Founding Fathers knew very well, was that here was a moral and conceptually developed culture, yet with terrible intestine fighting and civil war between small balkanized associations. Aristotle said that if the Greeks ever calmed down enough to unify, they could conquer they world. Well they weren't able to do the former, and so they couldn't do the latter. What the Founding Fathers did, by establishing a strong central government, was to prevent just this sort of petty warfare. American Civil Wars was not petty warfare, it was a huge ideological divide and no political structure can withstand it. But the Greeks, despite their other virtues, commonly waged war against one another for petty reasons, and kept fighting within each other. That's all they really did, they didn't have many barbarians invading them, they were pretty much left alone by the rest of the world, but they kept fighting and killing each other. The Federalists, learning from that example, created a strong Federal Government that would prevent the individual states for waging wars and having petulant arguments with other states for petty reasons, and for destroying the union. If you look at the Federalists' examples, that is primarily what they base their arguments on, the lessons from history, rather than some kind of a-priori ivory tower philosophic deductions. They had great reasons for a strong federal government. We can argue that they made it too strong, strong enough to overpower the states to such a degree as to enforce statism, but as I said before, at least statism is better than anarchy, which is what would inevitably follow if they made the Union too weak. And it WOULD be inevitable, because even the Greeks couldn't stop themselves, so we certainly would not.

[Tom Robinson]

The Federalists, learning from that example, created a strong Federal Government that would prevent the individual states for waging wars and having petulant arguments with other states for petty reasons, and for destroying the union.

If a strong federal government prevented the individual states from waging wars, how did 618,000 Americans happen to die from 1861-1865?

If you look at the Federalists' examples, that is primarily what they base their arguments on, the lessons from history, rather than some kind of a-priori ivory tower philosophic deductions. They had great reasons for a strong federal government. We can argue that they made it too strong, strong enough to overpower the states to such a degree as to enforce statism, but as I said before, at least statism is better than anarchy, which is what would inevitably follow if they made the Union too weak. And it WOULD be inevitable, because even the Greeks couldn't stop themselves, so we certainly would not.

If statism is better than anarchy, wouldn't it be better for the U.S., Canada and Mexico all to be under one federal government of North America?

[Free Capitalist]

Tom, as to your first question, I already responded directly to it in my previous post. Please re-read it for the answer I give.

As to your second question, a strong argument could be made that all three should be under one federal government, because that avoids mercantile and petty conflicts. However, a strong argument can be made against an excessively large territory for a federal government to control, because that eliminates the idea that different countries can try and achieve the best constitution independently of one another, which they could not if the entire Earth were united under one federal government. In short, my answer is that there is no one principle that says the federal government should be size X, at all times and in all places. When creating such a government, the citizens will have to decide how to balance the need to unify and place barriers on intertestine strife, by creating a powerful central authority, with a government that is geographically larger than it ought to be, by not making the central authority too powerful and too expansive.

[Harald]

AA, this academic article ("Life, Liberty, and...: Jefferson on Property Rights" by Luigi Marco Bassani) addresses your questions (historiography on the Constitution etc):

http://www.vonmises.org/journals/jls/18_1/18_1_2.pdf

You might also want to take a look at Michael P. Zuckert's "National Rights and the New Republicanism" (Princeton University Press).

Edited April 15, 2005 by Harald

[A.A]

Thank you, Harald, for the last suggestion and for the previous one. I certainly have a lot of reading to do.

[Harald]

My pleasure, I find this a fascinating topic. In the foreword of OP Dr. Peikoff mentions the "debris of history" which has to be uncovered before we can start to actually learn from history. He sure was and is right and your enterprise is such an important one!

By the way, it's been briefly touched upon already, this Revisionism in history is not particular to American history as you may well know. You will see the same Revisionism in the study of for instance Locke by modern Locke scholars (Bassini, ref my link above, also mentions this). Political Locke is actually made out to be a majority rule authoritarian (Kendall), a "Hobbes in Sheep's clothing" (Strauss, MacPherson), a religious dogmatic authoritarian (Dunn) or a Kantian social democrat (A.J. Simmons) by modern scholars. And that's just mentioning a few interpretations of Locke.

In fact the whole Enlightenment and it's emphasis on reason is under attack (Peter Gay has written some good pieces on this). I don't even want to go into the Middle Ages (which apperently cannot really be separated from the mystical Renaissance, or so the many scholars say).

It's interesting and fascinating to see how the values and philosophy of historians shape their historiography and view of history. I think Objectivism is an essential tool to analyze this field. A lot of good work needs to be done here!

Edited April 15, 2005 by Harald

[Tom Robinson]

Free Capitalist wrote: “A less weaker central government would dissolve the country into anarchy and perrenial civil war, as happened in Ancient Greece, and what the Founders feared might happen again.”

Now if the federalists’ strong government was designed to avert civil war, how did the U.S. Civil War occur anyway?

Free Capitalist wrote: “As to your second question, a strong argument could be made that all three should be under one federal government, because that avoids mercantile and petty conflicts. However, a strong argument can be made against an excessively large territory for a federal government to control, because that eliminates the idea that different countries can try and achieve the best constitution independently of one another, which they could not if the entire Earth were united under one federal government.”

The same “strong” argument against an excessively large territory would apply to the former British colonies of eastern North America. That was precisely the argument of the anti-federalists.

Free Capitalist wrote, “In short, my answer is that there is no one principle that says the federal government should be size X, at all times and in all places. When creating such a government, the citizens will have to decide how to balance the need to unify and place barriers on intertestine strife, by creating a powerful central authority, with a government that is geographically larger than it ought to be, by not making the central authority too powerful and too expansive.”

And presumably citizens in various regions should have the right to exempt themselves from too powerful a central authority. In other words, the right of secession, which, by the way, Ayn Rand supported.

[non-contradictor]

In regards to the Beard/McDonald discussion, I would reccommend the book Taking Sides, Vol. 1 On pages 138-144 it has the arguments of both Beard and McDonald on why the Constitution was formed. Here is a quote from Beard:

Propositions to establish property restrictions were defeated, not because they were believed to be inherently opposed to the genius of American government, but for economic reasons--strange as it may seem.

Beard'e thesis was basically that most delegates were mercahants or manufacturers and that they had an economic interest in the constitution. He argues that this is why it was ratified. MacDonald contends that it is not that simple, and provides substantial statistical data for his point. For example:

In New Jersey 64.1 percent of the delegates were farmers, 23.1 percent were professional men (physicians, lawyers, and college presidents), and only 12.8 percent were men having personalty interests (one merchant, three iron manufacturers, and one capitalist with diversified investments).

He goes on to say that

...it is abundantly evident that there are no more grounds for considering the holding of public securities the dynamic element in the ratification...

I did not find either of their arguments particularly pro or anti capitalist. Beard is merely saying (in simple terms) that he thinks that the people who had property were more interested in getting the property rights section of the constitution ratified than people who had little or no property. MacDonald spent all of his time saying why Beard was wrong. Anyway, that's my two cents from 10th Grade American History.

edited to add a link to a website about the book Taking Sides

Edited April 20, 2005 by non-contradictor