1. Essay Suggestions After all, I am the one grading it...

2. Thesis Statement What is your argument?

3. Not Good Ever since the Constitutional Convention, there has been debate about the motives of our founding fathers. Were they guided by principles or personal gain? In Beard’s essay, he says that our founders were motivated by self interest to create a government that would protect their place in society. On the other hand, Brown contends that the constitution was based on democratic ideals, and our founders looked to create a government that would better the whole of society.

4. OK Ever since the Constitutional Convention, there has been debate about the motives of our founding fathers. Were they guided by principles or personal gain? In Charles Beard’s essay, he argues that the founding fathers were motivated by self-interest, and created a Constitution that furthered their own self-interest. However, I agree with Robert Brown’s Conclusion that the founding fathers were motivated by higher principles rather than self-interest.

5. Better Ever since the Constitutional Convention, there has been debate about the motives of our founding fathers. Were they guided by principles or personal gain? Documents by Charles Beard and Robert Brown take opposing sides examining the intentions of our founders during the writing of the Constitution. After a careful examination of the evidence, it is clear the founders were guided by personal interest and self preservation in creating a Constitution that would remedy hardships they faced under the Articles of Confederation Government.

6. Supporting Paragraphs Defending your position

7. Not Good One of Beard’s claims is that the constitution was not representative of the whole people. The men at the convention were the wealthiest of their age as were the legislators how sent them there. He says the women, slaves, and property-less men were disenfranchised and therefore not represented at the convention. In addition, Beard points out that only one- sixth the adult population voted on ratification. However, the majority of the population was middle- class farmers who owned land and were represented in legislatures. Those who did not end up voting most likely were disinterested rather than disenfranchised.

8. OK Beard builds his argument on the issue of representation. According to Beard, common law prohibited voting rights to women, slaves, indentured servants, and property-less men, leaving them unrepresented at the Constitutional Convention. In addition, Beard points out that only one-sixth of the qualified population voted on ratification. Yet Brown counters by showing that the majority of the population was middle-class land owners and therefore would have been eligible to vote. Brown adds that the best evidence available from that era indicates that legislatures were fairly representative of the state populations

9. Better Beard builds his argument on the issue of representation. According to Beard, common law prohibited voting rights to women, slaves, indentured servants, and property-less men, leaving them unrepresented at the Constitutional Convention (Beard, p.58). Yet, their absence from the convention did not assure their interests would be ignored. After all, many of the delegates at the convention argued against slavery, resulting in the three-fifths compromise and the agreed upon termination of the Atlantic slave trade 20 years following ratification. In regard to the “property-less masses” included in Beard’s list of the disenfranchised, Brown points out, “Most men were middle-class farmers who owned realty and were qualified voters … we can assume that state legislatures were fairly representative at the time” (Brown, p.64). While the disenfranchisement of women and slaves is an undeniable sin committed by our founders, the assertion that convention was carried out through a wide spread conspiratorial disenfranchisement of the majority of Americans is not supported by sound evidence. If the state legislatures responsible for sending delegates were representative, then there is no reason to believe the Constitutional Convention would not also be representative of the American people.