Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Profit Essay

The question which stands before is whether the foot Fathers were parlia mentary reformers. It is an excruciating and complicated task to come to a culture upon this inquisition. To unwrap this answer it posterior be readily simplified by taking a look at two contending arguments gear up inscribed in the book Taking Sides Clashing Views in United States narration. In the text lies the puzzle of Howard Zinn and John P. Roche who are great historians bingle(a) writes controversially and radically, and the other writes in conformity to government, and conservatively. The position of Howard Zinn is that the founding fathers were non what they have been illustrated to be. That is that they were non concerned with democracy but were really just concerned in their prosperity, in their property, their currency, and their freedom, but not concerned with the massess liberties. Freedom was a new word at the time, which umpteen knew little of, it was but the elite who had an unde rstanding of this sort of philanthropy. What was not made clear-it was a time when the expression of freedom was new and its reality untested-was the shakiness of eitherones liberty when entrusted to a government of the rich and powerful(Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States P. 99).John P. Roche dedicates his attention to the giving the founding fathers their veil of liberators and egalitarian reformers, and depicts them as gentlemen of good nature, and of having the highest intrinsic values he portrays them as benevolent wise men, which based the nature on the needs of the people. They were first and fore well-nigh superb republican politiciansthey were committed (perhaps willy-nilly) to working within the classless framework, within a universe of public approval (Wikispaces.com, Taking Sides Issue S in time Were the Founding Fathers elective Reformers, P. 3). Between the two representations of the issue in question, the more persuading argument 10is towards H oward Zinn who viewed the founding fathers to not have been republican reformers. The Founding Fathers were notdemocratic reformers kind of they were an elite group of men who came up with the Constitution to find compromise between the slave holding interest of the south and the money interest of north (Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States P. 98), their true motives for uniting the thirteen states was to create a wide market for commerce and not to create a democracy.The Founding Fathers always depicted the bulk of men as ignorant and irresponsible. For them to be democratic reformers they would have needed to add literacy and education as necessary for the creation of a democracy in the publications of the Constitution. Instead they persisted to argue that the populous was ignorant, Federalist Paper 63 argued the necessity of a well-constructed Senate as roughtimes necessary as defence to the people against their take in irregular errors and delusions Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States P. 98) rather than adding that citizenry should be educated and sure so that they would be able to take part in the democratic processes of political and economic policy making, therefore they were not democratic reformers. John P. Roche tends to be overly conservative, to actually make a oblige argument, and Howard Zinn might appear to be radical but he is factual and presents some(prenominal) sides to an argument and does not rely solely on emotions and in his political idealism as does Roche. Howard Zinn assigns the more profound argument.Howard Zinn rather than making statements based on issueism or patriotism brings up pellucid inferences and although it is impossible to give an unbiased approach to the question, Zinn gives the less bias approach of the two. When he presents his reasoning he tends to bring up both sides to an argument, one at to the lowest degree opposed to what he wants to represent and one at least supp ortive of what he is more in favor to represent. As when he mentions Robert E. Br consumes point that the Constitution omitted the give voice life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration of Independence to life, liberty, or property to the Constitution, he presents the acknowledgement that people did have property, but stands to say that it was misleading to make this statement for only 3 percent of the state had enough land to be considered soused (Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States P. 98). On the other hand John P. Roche presents most of his views by using words such as national interest, public approbation, and always tends to give reason to why some of the things they did that werenot democratic were indeed democratic.Although the drafting and signing of the constitution was held in secrecy, according to Roche, They were practical politicians in a democratic society(Wikispaces.com, Taking Sides Issue Seven Were the Founding Fathers Democra tic Reformers, P. 8). The Founding Fathers did not have it in their interests to be democratic reformers. They had in their interests to create a new nation which would create a reliable order to keep the nations wealth in the hands of a hardly a(prenominal) and to concur their privileges, Charles Beard warned us that government-including the government of the United States-are not neutral, that they represent the dominant economic interests, and their constitutions are mean to serve their interests (Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States P. 98).The Founding Fathers were afraid of a majority faction and opted for a Republican form of government to keep the country divided so that the man could not come to the same conclusion and unite to fight against the tyranny of the minority, they had to make it possible for the cosmea of minority factions to prevent from a future insurrection. This can be noted in Federalist Paper 10 in which James Madison makes the followin g statement, it will be more difficult for all who find it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each otherThe influence of factious leadership may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable(p) to spread a general conflagration through the other states ( Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States P. 97). They also had to make the Constitution spelling to the people. It needed to give a few rights and liberties to the citizenry to keep a revolution from arising from the monopolization of wealth that they were creating. It needed a Bill of Rights, The Constitution became even more acceptable to the public at large after the first congress, responding to criticism, passed a series of amendments cognise as the Bill of Rights Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United State, P. 99).They needed soldiers for the revolution they had to appeal to the people, they used the words freedom, liberty and equality to get them to fight. It is has been the history of revolution through the ages that a few educated men can persuade a majority to fight for liberty or for a common goal and after the revolution is over they put into place a government for their own privilege. The United States has not been the exception. They used the same pretexts asthe revolutionaries of anytime to create a society after their own image based on their principles, privileges and their ruling ideas, The ideas of the ruling class are in every time the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling capable force (Marx, Karl, The German Ideology, P. 64). Their ideas were not ideas for the founding of a democracy. Still the mythology around the Founding Fathers persists. To say, as one historian (Bernard Bailyn) has done recently the destruction of privilege and the creation of a political system that demanded its leaders the responsible and humane use of power were their highest a spirations is to ignore what really happened in the America of those these Founding Fathers( Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States P. 101)Zinn then states that the Founding Fathers wanted to create a counterweight between the forces which were dominant to that time, and not a balance between slaves and masters, property less and property holder, Indians and purity ( Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States P. 101). His arguments continue to be reinforced by pitch into account many different views from other historians and by presenting documents from that time and by bringing into account the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves. He clearly reinforces the argument that the founding fathers were not democratic reformers. In reading both sides of the argument one can acquire an unbiased approach to the question, yet it is impossible to remain without any sort of bias, to be working class or being wealthy will play in the outcome of any given mens s tance to the question. The level of education that a someone may have acquired will also depend on his view, and also his or her susceptibility to what stands as a norm will also give his reasoning a bias approach. Just as well as a persons idealism being it political, economic or neighborly or even of the combined three will not allow an unbiased standpoint from him/her.Howard Zinn makes the most compelling argument, his answer to the question holds the most validity in the two clashing results, it is brought upon with great historical anecdotes, it is fairly easy to find the historic facts that he represents in his outlook of the issue and it is the more logical of the two. Zinn does not speak with emotions of nationalistic fervor, or political idealism, nor does he stay compelled to the narrowness of a one sided argument, but looks upon both sides. As Brown says about new America,practically everybody was interested in the trade protection of property because so many Americ ans owned property (A Peoples History of the United States P. 98). His response to Robert E. Brown (Charles Beard and the Constitution), who is a critic to Beards approach was, However, this is misleading. True, there were many property owners. But some people had much more than othersJackson Main found that one-third of the population in the Revolutionary period were small farmers, while 3 percent of the population had truly large holdings and could be considered wealthy (A Peoples History of the United States p. 98).The people of the Americas did not fight a revolution for their freedom, not for equality, they fought the revolution of the elite, they won them a political victory, handed them the wealth of the nation. The slaveholders of the South found compromise with the money interest of the North and the Founding Fathers were able to create the great market of commerce they envisioned when they came to the conclusion for independence from Great Britain. The People of America in that time fought a Revolution for the Founding Fathers who were not democratic reformers.