Changes

==Attack on Beard==

==Attack on Beard==

Historian Carl Becker in ''History of Political Parties in the Province of New York, 1760-1776'' (1909) formulated the Progressive interpretation of the American Revolution. He said there were two revolutions: one against Britain to obtain home rule, and the other to determine who should rule at home. Charles A. Beard in ''An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States'' (1913) and ''An Economic Interpretation of Jeffersonian Democracy'' (1915) extended Becker's thesis down to 1800 in terms of class conflict.  To Beard, the Constitution was a counter-revolution, set up by rich bond holders (bonds were "personal property"), in opposition to the farmers and planters (land was "real property.") The Constitution, beard argued, was designed to reverse the radical democratic tendencies unleashed by the Revolution among the common people, especially farmers and debtors (people who owed money to the rich). In 1800, said beard, the farmers and debtors, led by plantation slaveowners, owverthrew the capitalists and established [[Jeffersonian democracy]]. Other historians supported the class-conflict interpretation noting the states confiscated great semifeudal landholdings of Loyalists and gave them out in small parcels to ordinary farmers. Conservatives, such as [[William Howard Taft]] were shocked at the Progressive interpretation because it seem to belittle the Constitution. Scholars, however, adopted it and by 1930 it became the standard interpetation of the era among academic historians, but was largely ignored by lawyers and jurists. Beginning about 1950 revisionist historians demonstrated that the progressive intewrpretation was factually incorrect, led by Charles A. Barker, Philip Crowl, Richard P. McCormick, William Pool, Robert Thomas, John Munroe, Robert E. and B. Kathryn Brown, and above all McDonald. Controversy raged, but by 1970 the Progressive interpretation of the era was dead. It was largely replaced by the intellectual history approach that stressed the power of ideas, especially [[republicanism]] in stimulating the Revolution.<ref> See McDonald (1997)</ref>  

Historian Carl Becker in ''History of Political Parties in the Province of New York, 1760-1776'' (1909) formulated the Progressive interpretation of the American Revolution. He said there were two revolutions: one against Britain to obtain home rule, and the other to determine who should rule at home. [[Charles A. Beard]] in ''An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States'' (1913) and ''An Economic Interpretation of Jeffersonian Democracy'' (1915) extended Becker's thesis down to 1800 in terms of class conflict.  To Beard, the Constitution was a counter-revolution, set up by rich bond holders (bonds were "personal property"), in opposition to the farmers and planters (land was "real property.") The Constitution, beard argued, was designed to reverse the radical democratic tendencies unleashed by the Revolution among the common people, especially farmers and debtors (people who owed money to the rich). In 1800, said beard, the farmers and debtors, led by plantation slaveowners, owverthrew the capitalists and established [[Jeffersonian Democracy]]. Other historians supported the class-conflict interpretation noting the states confiscated great semifeudal landholdings of Loyalists and gave them out in small parcels to ordinary farmers. Conservatives, such as [[William Howard Taft]] were shocked at the Progressive interpretation because it seem to belittle the Constitution. Scholars, however, adopted it and by 1930 it became the standard interpetation of the era among academic historians, but was largely ignored by lawyers and jurists. Beginning about 1950 revisionist historians demonstrated that the progressive intewrpretation was factually incorrect, led by Charles A. Barker, Philip Crowl, Richard P. McCormick, William Pool, Robert Thomas, John Munroe, Robert E. and B. Kathryn Brown, and above all McDonald. Controversy raged, but by 1970 the Progressive interpretation of the era was dead. It was largely replaced by the intellectual history approach that stressed the power of ideas, especially [[republicanism]] in stimulating the Revolution.<ref> See McDonald (1997)</ref>  

In ''We The People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution'' (1958) McDonald used microscopic research in naional, state and local archives to demonstrate that Beard had misinterpreted the economic interests involved in writing the Constitution.  Instead of just two interests, landed and mercantile interests, which conflicted, there were three dozen identifiable interests that forced the delegates to bargain.  

In ''We The People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution'' (1958) McDonald used microscopic research in naional, state and local archives to demonstrate that Beard had misinterpreted the economic interests involved in writing the Constitution.  Instead of just two interests, landed and mercantile interests, which conflicted, there were three dozen identifiable interests that forced the delegates to bargain.