What Is The Difference Between The Founding Fathers And The Creation Of The Constitution

1704 Words 7 Pages
By 1787 it was clear that the Articles of Confederation were not working. Fifty-five men met in Philadelphia in what became known as the Philadelphia Convention to fix the Articles, or so they thought. Instead they realized that the Articles needed to be completely thrown out and a new form of government needed to be created, which turned out to be the Constitution. However, not everyone had the same ideas or wants for the new government. In the articles A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn and A Constitution for the Few by Michael Parenti, both argue that the Constitution was created by the privileged and for the benefit of the privileged. Jack Rakove in The Philadelphia Story: The Founding Fathers and the Myth of Constitutional …show more content…
In The Philadelphia Story: The Founding Fathers and the Myth of Constitutional Intent, Jack Rakove tries to show us that the Convention did what they believed was best even though not everyone might see it. All men at the Convention arrived with different ideas and expectations but had to be reasonable and put the nation first. James Madison wanted the Virginia Plan to be passed because it meant that representation was based on population. However, the small states did not agree and presented the New Jersey plan which consisted of equal representation. To appease both the large and the small states the Great Compromise was created. The Great Compromise stated that the Senate would have equal representation while the House of Representatives would be based on population. The Constitution was meant for everyone as Rakove also points out “the Framers were patriotic men of varied capacities who rose above their passions and self-interest to forge a grand document.” People are going to interpret the Constitution differently but that is reasonable because it was created by different people who knew not everyone was going to see things their …show more content…
He clearly stated how the Philadelphia Convention was made up of people in good economic, social, and political positions which ultimately influenced and made their way into the Constitution. A great number of people were left unrepresented and a small number of people had all the power. Even though they may not have placed property qualifications, people such as women and African Americans could not exercise their votes until much later when other amendments were passed. The Constitution was supposed to be for the good of the people but failed to include about half of them. It only gave people something like the Bill of Rights because it would get the people’s approval and not because they cared about the people. Many at the Convention felt that only the prosperous should be involved in politics because the common people were not trusted to make important decisions. The Electoral College was created to ensure that the general public would not elect the president through popular vote because they did not have the best judgement and were the “most ready to lament and condemn” (Zinn) when they got what they asked for and it turned out to be not what they wanted. Despite John Roche’s view that the Framers mainly thought of the people when creating the Constitution, he had weak arguments and did not really give a convincing

Related Documents