The US has historically resisted political, regulatory discipline to restrain its expansionist desires related to trade. In 1914 Charles Beard wrote An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Beard argues that the spirit of commerce was much stronger than the spirit of justice and fairness.
Government was conceived as driving capital and reinforcing private property even more than John Locke (who I tend to favour for reasons in a later post). The framers of the US constitution did not contextualize their notions of freedom and liberty in quite the same way Locke did. Locke had an appreciation of the Commons. The framers jettisoned the idea of a commons and opted for cementing privatized commercial interests and enshrining their rights to commerce within the new constitutional order. According to Beard, soaring rhetoric of shining city on hill, beacon of freedom, and other Puritan ideas are subsumed in private commercial interests.
James Madison in Federalist 10 reinforced and absolutized private property to an almost sacred character even more than principles of justice, equity, and fairness. Commercial interests needed to be codified and advanced. Referencing Madison’s article in the Federalist, Beard notes:
Here we have a masterly statement of the theory of economic determinism in politics. Different degrees and kinds of property inevitably exist in modern society; party doctrines and "principles" originate in the sentiments and views which the possession of various kinds of property creates in the minds of the possessors; class and group divisions based on property lie at the basis of modern government; and politics and constitutional law are inevitably a reflex of these contending interests.
The idea that the framers of the constitution were philosopher-kings concerned with the common good and creating a commons where people can exercise what we now understand as political, social, cultural, and religious rights is absent. Driving the constitution and the country is mercantile interests.
The colonies had been supressed (in their view) by the King and the colonists wanted to trade freely and engage in commerce within the colonies. Moral principles were not part of the union. The economic question loomed large. This is why slavery was tolerated in the Southern states and why they rejected King George’s Royal Proclamation that granted customary or prior occupancy rights to the Indigenous inhabitants. The Indian Removal Act was a genocidal act aimed at dispossessing Indigenous people of their land without remedy. And in fact, they now have no remedy or recourse under the constitution because that constitution reinforced the owners' mercantile interests.
Those who argue for a rethinking of American and the constitutional order are not wrong – and revisiting Charles Beard is useful in considering the greatness that America is undoubtedly capable of when it comes to economically, culturally, and spiritually supporting its people.
America can reinvent itself, but it must do so beyond just rhetoric but examine the deep structural problems that currently exist and refashion the republic to better correspond to workers' needs. Beard argued later on in 1930 that the USA should be a workers republic.
Government was conceived as driving capital and reinforcing private property even more than John Locke (who I tend to favour for reasons in a later post). The framers of the US constitution did not contextualize their notions of freedom and liberty in quite the same way Locke did. Locke had an appreciation of the Commons. The framers jettisoned the idea of a commons and opted for cementing privatized commercial interests and enshrining their rights to commerce within the new constitutional order. According to Beard, soaring rhetoric of shining city on hill, beacon of freedom, and other Puritan ideas are subsumed in private commercial interests.
James Madison in Federalist 10 reinforced and absolutized private property to an almost sacred character even more than principles of justice, equity, and fairness. Commercial interests needed to be codified and advanced. Referencing Madison’s article in the Federalist, Beard notes:
Here we have a masterly statement of the theory of economic determinism in politics. Different degrees and kinds of property inevitably exist in modern society; party doctrines and "principles" originate in the sentiments and views which the possession of various kinds of property creates in the minds of the possessors; class and group divisions based on property lie at the basis of modern government; and politics and constitutional law are inevitably a reflex of these contending interests.
The idea that the framers of the constitution were philosopher-kings concerned with the common good and creating a commons where people can exercise what we now understand as political, social, cultural, and religious rights is absent. Driving the constitution and the country is mercantile interests.
The colonies had been supressed (in their view) by the King and the colonists wanted to trade freely and engage in commerce within the colonies. Moral principles were not part of the union. The economic question loomed large. This is why slavery was tolerated in the Southern states and why they rejected King George’s Royal Proclamation that granted customary or prior occupancy rights to the Indigenous inhabitants. The Indian Removal Act was a genocidal act aimed at dispossessing Indigenous people of their land without remedy. And in fact, they now have no remedy or recourse under the constitution because that constitution reinforced the owners' mercantile interests.
Those who argue for a rethinking of American and the constitutional order are not wrong – and revisiting Charles Beard is useful in considering the greatness that America is undoubtedly capable of when it comes to economically, culturally, and spiritually supporting its people.
America can reinvent itself, but it must do so beyond just rhetoric but examine the deep structural problems that currently exist and refashion the republic to better correspond to workers' needs. Beard argued later on in 1930 that the USA should be a workers republic.
RSS Feed
