The framers of the Constitution were merely interested in safeguarding the rights of wealthy
white men'. Discuss.
‘No other topic in American history has been subject to so many differing interpretations as
the American Revolution.’1 As a result there is a great historiography surrounding the topic
with varying opinions as to the motivations of the Founding Fathers. There is also a bias in
the historiography that tends to beatify them instead of seeing them as the logical
businessmen that they were. The framers of the constitution were all wealthy white men,
they did not represent the average American at the time, all college educated and property
owning in a time when less than 1% of the population held a degree. Some of them were
slavers which meant they had no motivation to seek rights for the slave population that they
profited from. It is with this in mind that this essay will argue that the framers of the
Constitution were merely interested in safeguarding the rights of wealthy white men.
The Constitution was designed by its framers to safeguard the rights of wealthy white men.
At face value its focus on the protection of natural and civil rights may give the impression
that its intent was to cater for all Americans but it is evident that this was not the case. The
constitution laid the framework for congress, a body designed to act on the will of the
people which is a key notion proposed by John Locke in the two treatise of government. This
combined with the Montesquieu-esque fact that power was limited by introducing the three
branches of government led Neo Whigs like Bernard Bailyn to conclude that the true
purpose of the revolution and subsequent Constitution was about furthering enlightenment
ideals and limiting the power of leaders so as to avoid the tyranny which they faced under
the British protectorate. However, this was written at a time when only tax-paying or
property owning white men were allowed to vote, meaning that none of the congress
representatives could truly be representative when such a large proportion of the
population were disenfranchised. Non-property owning white males would gain suffrage in
1972, white women would not gain suffrage until 1920, the indigenous population until
1924 and blacks would not truly gain the unmitigated right to vote until 1965. Despite the
well-meaning enlightenment ideals that appear prevalent in the Constitution this makes it
evident that its framers were merely interested in safeguarding the rights of wealthy white
men who essentially took
The inclusion of the Bill of rights again makes the Constitution seem idealistic and inclusive
of all Americans but the exclusion again of ethnic minorities, poor whites and white women
again furthers the argument that the Constitution framers were only interested in
safeguarding the rights of wealthy white men. Enlightenment ideas can be seen throughout
the Bill of Rights, from the Rousseau inspired first amendment concerned with the
protection of freedom of speech to the Locke inspired tenth amendment focused on the
uninfringeable rights of man. These aforementioned rights were only applied to property
owning white men as they were the only ones at the time who were able to even vote. The
black population were not even seen as citizens at the time and the female population were
seen as extensions of their male relatives be it their husbands or their fathers. Despite the
1
Michael D. Hattem
egalitarian nature of Enlightenment ideas these rights were not extended to women and
non-whites.
Furthering the argument that the framers of the Constitution were merely interested in
safeguarding the rights of property owning white men is the progressive historiography.
Progressive historians such as Carl Becker, Merrill Jensen and Charles Beard. They agree
with the statement and believe that the Revolution was about self-interest and the
Founding Fathers merely used the ideas of liberty as a guise to hide their true motivations,
the revolution was a conservative one designed to safeguard the rights of wealthy white
men, to give themselves the means of control without being reliant on the will of the British
government. Beard analysed the articles of the constitution and views it as an economic
document designed to protect the personal property of the framers; this can be evidenced
by article six on the constitution, focused on national debts. The first clause states that ‘All
Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the
Confederation’, the inclusion of this clause seems unnecessary to a document designed to
create the foundation of the meritocratic republic of the United States, however its
inclusion becomes understandable when it is discovered that George Washington personally
credited the war. This shows that the Constitution was not only designed to protect the
rights of its wealthy white framers but it also aimed to protect their wealth. The inclusion of
such an article over other more pressing issues like women’s suffrage and the nationwide
abolition of slavery show the self-interest of the framers of the Constitution. Beard’s thesis
particularly looks at the economic background of each of the framers such as their
occupation and property ownership then cross references it with what they stood to gain
from each article in the constitution and found a correlation, showing that the
aforementioned article was not an anomaly but instead a pattern. This furthers the
argument that the framers of the Constitution were merely interested in safeguarding the
rights of wealthy white men.
Beard’s widely accepted thesis was eventually displaced by Neo-Whig Bernard Bailyn who
analysed documents published before the revolution and concluded that it was based on
discussion and debate of new enlightenment ideas as much as grievances or conditions. This
led him to conclude that the motivation for the revolution and in turn the constitution was
not economic or property based. Fellow Neo-Whig Gordon Wood argues that ‘[Americans']
belief in liberty, equality, constitutionalism and the well-being of ordinary people came out
of the Revolutionary Era... so did the idea that we Americans are special people with a
special destiny to lead the world towards liberty and democracy. Americans were the
protectors of liberty; they had a greater obligation and destiny to assert republican virtue.’
and that is was this thinking that underpinned the motivations of the framers of the
Constitution. This is an exceptionally idealistic way of viewing the framers of the
Constitution but one that is popular amongst historians- particularly American ones who
often take their national identity and sense of nationalist pride from the Founding Fathers.
As such there is a bias in the historiography to view these men in an idealised manner.
However, this is not the main issue with the historiography surrounding the topic, the
biggest issue is that historians tend to divorce motivations from one another instead of
looking at them as a whole. Progressive historians use such a limited and cynical economic
approach and ignore other influences like the transmission of Enlightenment ideas. Whigs
and Neo-Whigs are too idealistic and focus solely on the transmission of enlightenment
ideals and the notion of American exceptionalism. In their own way both perspectives are
correct in their viewing of the founding father’s motivations; they were greatly inspired to
protect their economic interests and this is evident from looking at the articles of the
constitution but they were also greatly inspired by Enlightenment ideas such as liberty, free
speech and republicanism. However, they were inspired to spread this ideals in a way that
only profited them, property owning white men and did not care to extend this ideals in a
way that would benefit, women, blacks and poor white men.
Further evidence of the framers of the constitution only being concerned with the rights of
wealthy white men comes from an analysis by economic historians Gary Walton and James
Shepard who compared the difference between the Constitution and the articles of
federation. They found that the most important differences were the ones which
‘strengthened the framework for protection of private property’ as they believe that under
the Constitution the thirteen states became interconnected and economically reliant on one
another, increasing the benefits of trade and creating a market economy which served to
protect the rights of the wealthy white men who could afford to participate in them. Market
economies benefit those who are already wealthy and the promotion of such an economy in
the Constitution, in section nine article three, which created a free-market economy free,
from government regulation made economic activity more secure for wealthy white men
who had specific interest in such a clause. This furthers the argument that the framers of
the constitution were merely interested in the safeguarding of the rights of wealthy white
men.
Further evidence that the framers of the constitution were merely interested in
safeguarding the rights of wealthy white men is that eight of the twelve states represented
at its conception and ratification were states in which slavery was still legal. This is evidence
that the delegates that represented these states could not possibly care about the enslaved
black population especially not enough to see that their rights were represented in the
constitution, thus lending to the argument that the framers merely cared about whites. It
can even be argued that those in free states did not truly care about the rights of the
enslaved black population as evidenced by Article four, section two clause three colloquially
known as the fugitive slave clause. Under this act a runaway slave who flees to a free state
will be returned to the state from which they escaped; this shows that even free states are
willing to overlook the natural and civil rights of the enslaved black population while still
making a point to include acts such as section eight, act seven which establishes ‘post
offices and Post Roads’. This can also be used as evidence that the framers of the
constitution did not care about the rights of the poor white population as this clause could
also be extended to indentured servants and would not be nullified until the passing of the
Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. This act lends to the argument that the framers only cared
about safeguarding the rights of wealthy white men.
From the plethora of evidence available it is obvious that the framers of the constitution
merely cared about safeguarding the rights of wealthy white men and this is because they
themselves were all wealthy white men. Whilst diversity of people does not necessarily
equate to diversity of thought, it helps to offer different perspectives which can influence
ideas, and give a voice to underrepresented groups. The governments that gave equal rights
to women and ethnic minorities were still predominately white and male but they were
influenced by protest from these groups who fought for their rights against a government
who had failed to even account for them. It is with this in mind that led to the framers of the
Constitution creating a document that merely safeguarded the rights of wealthy white men.
Bibliography

Bailyn, Bernard. "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution". 1992.

Beard, Charles. A. "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United
States". 1913 .
Hattem, M. D. (2017, May 28). The Historiography of the American Revolution.
Retrieved from https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/historiography-of-americanrevolution/


Powell, J. (1996, August 01). John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property |
Jim Powell. Retrieved October 30, 2017, from https://fee.org/articles/john-lockenatural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/

Walton, Gary M., and James F. Shepherd. The Economic Rise of Early America. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Wood, Gordon S.
—"Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815." 2009 .
— "Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States" 2011.
—"The American Revolution: A History." 2002