Tuesday, October 14, 2014
A Kind of Revolution
In four to six sentences and using evidene from the reading reply to this prompt: In Chapter Five of A People's History, Zinn makes the assertion that the "Constitution serves the interest of the wealthy", support, modify or refute this statement. Then reply to one other person's post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Zinn saying that the Constitution was in favor of the wealthy. The Federalists, who were primarily rich aristocrats, were more influential on politics at the time and favored the Constitution, unlike the Jeffersonians or anti-federalists. Zinn states that most makers of the Constitution were lawyers, men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, etc.. He also said it contained economic interest. It is like I said in my previous post, men of power create rules that are fair, but are mostly in their favor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you James because I also believe that the constitution served the wealthy. Not only for that reason but you used evidence to support the idea.
DeleteI also agree, the constitution mainly benefited the wealthy. Power wants more power, correct men of power do create rules, but they mostly seek self-interest.
DeleteI agree with James because the fact that they were wealthy did give them more of an influential power among all things political. Also, with power comes selfishness and as Oscar stated, self-interest.
DeleteI agree with James because i believe that Constitution benefitted the ones with wealth because they were the ones that were ambitious about wealth and political power. It makes it obvious they would write that in the constitution
DeleteI agree with James specifically when he said "men of power create rules that are fair, but are mostly in their favor." These men rarely met the needs of the lower class. They were mostly fixed on fulfilling their own interests.
DeleteI agree with you James (no one else commented). The textbook also said this as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the zinn book because the constitution did serve the interest of the wealthy. They benefited from it economically while the poor did not. The wealthy were also political leaders and led the revolution even if they had no part in the fighting. It stated in the zinn book that the constitution didn't reflect the interest of these groups, " slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alexi's statement because the constitution did economically benefit the wealthier population. Also, The Founding Fathers, who most of them pertained to the upper class, had no intentions in the equality of all men. Such as slaves, women, and lower class white men.
DeleteThis is true the wealthy did gain more money and goods for the Constitution. The wealthy did not lay a finger on fighting in the battles however in the end became the leaders of America in the politic world. This is very unfair to the middle class and shows that money can buy its way to the top.
DeleteIn the eyes of the Constitution creators, they wanted to establish a government that would best serve the "Americans." When I say Americans I mean the men who held power, had money, and owned property.These "Americans" were greedy for both money and power because they knew the more powerful and richer they become then the more influence they will have on laws and the like.
DeleteI agree with Zinn's statement that the "Constitution serves the interest of the wealthy", because the wealthy, with the constitution in full effect would be granted a direct control over the federal government or would either control the laws by which the government operated. Thus, the wealthy would have complete, economic and political control. For example, Zinn states, "The makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slave owners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.". In other words, the constitution would serve the wealthy as a protector, by securing them economic stability and political power.
ReplyDelete"Nationwide taxation" by the wealthy would eventually cause the people to rebel. The people were poor and did not have money to spare. Also, if they did not own land they were not allowed to vote. This prevented the lower classes from voting against these taxes or electing their representative.
DeleteI agree with you Raul because at the end money makes the world go around. This can apply to different organizations all over the world.
DeleteJust how Sara put it is it exactly how things were. The wealthy only wanted to stay wealthy and did not care for the poor. Money controls everything. Therefore, the federalists created a world where they would win every time because they had money.
DeleteI agree with Raul that the constitution was in favor of the wealthy. It did not help the poor at all. The poor were the one's who mostly struggled in the revolution.
DeleteThe wealth wrote the Constitution to benefit themselves. The majority of it’s authors “were men of wealth” holding government bonds. “For governor one had to own 5,000 pounds of property; to run for state senator, 1,000 pounds. Thus, 90 percent of the of population were excluded for holding office.” Only the rich were allowed to run for office. “No one could hold state office without being quite wealth.” This put the power of the government, outlined in the Constitution, only in the hands of those that could afford it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou can compare this quote to O.J. Simpsons case during the 90s. "If the glove doesn't fit, then you must acquit."He had the money. The money to pay for the dream team(attorney's). To defend him and he was acquitted. I do agree with Zinns statement that the "Constitution serves the interest of the wealthy" , it really depends on how much money you have.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zinn as well, the constitution was written by the wealthy for the wealthy. With money comes power so of course the constitution would be in the wealthy peoples favor. Federalist, mostly wealthy or of higher class, had a great influence on the constitution because they were involved and interested in the politics in that time. They would benefit greatly economically and politically. Meanwhile, those who were poor or of a lower class did not have any say in the constitution because they were looked down upon and no one paid attention to them because they were irrelevant. If a poor person had something to say no one would take into consideration their saying because they had no power since they weren’t wealthy. Money controls everything. As Zinn states, “The continental congress, which governed the colonies through the war, was dominated by rich men, linked together in factions and compacts by business and family connections”, obviously those with money will dominate and take charge.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Kimberly. With money does come power. The federalist who were the ones who wrote the constitution of course would favor it.They would receive all the power since basically they were the only ones who could run for office and vote. Too much power can get to someone's head. The constitution granted that to the federalist which was a bad idea because no one could question them due to the sedition act.
DeleteI agree with you kimberly, the constitution was written by the wealthy therefore, it would benefit them. Such as federalist, thus the men kept power between themselves.Given these reasons, the men did not look at the poor they simply ignored them.
DeleteI second that agreement, the wealthy developed the constitution for the wealthy. George Washington, a federalist, was the wealthiest man at the time. However, the poor weren't as much as ignored in the process, they put in the most effort to create a new nation and it's rights. You are correct in the way the poor's rights were ultimately ignored. Just as the rich got richer, they also controlled how strong they were also.
DeleteAccording to Kimbo, she also like many others agree that the statement is true and Zinn realized that in his novel. As for Kim's post she states that power was held with mostly Federalists for one because the Constitution was in favor for them and not the other ethnic groups.
DeleteI agree with Zinn that the constitution was in the favor of the wealthy. The creators of the constitution were made up of the Federalists. The Federalists were men that were aristocrats, lawyers, and men that were very wealthy. Zinn states “The makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government” that way they could create laws and enforce what was in their favor. The lower class were not given a chance to speak about their views and therefore the constitution was written with nothing in their favor leaving them with nothing but unfair rules.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view on the lower class and how they were not given a chance to speak about their views. This made the wealthy even more above them since they had control. If they had any beliefs, it was more probable that they would be heard since Federalists overruled at that time.
DeleteI am in agreement with Zinn that the constitution favored the wealthy. The biggest example that is key is the fact that Federalists had the advantage of power. The Federalist party was composed of the wealthy, and most of the political leaders were Federalists. Some policies that were issued also proved to be unconstitutional which outraged the Democratic Republicans (Anti-Federalists). Zinn says the southern lower classes "saw themselves under the rule of a political elite, win or lose against the British". p 82 This helps support how the political elite (rich/wealthy) held the upperhand and caused the lower classes to live in an outraged state.
ReplyDeleteI agree aylene the federalist had a big advantage being the wealthier party.they usually had more power and were mainly the ones who established the constitution
DeleteIn the same way the American revolution was in the best interest of the wealthy elite, the American Constitution was in their best interest also, therefore Howard Zinn was correct when he argues "Constitution serves the interest of the wealthy." It was written by Federalists who supported the constitution, who were also always wealthy. The Constitution was used in order to help sustain the wealthy with their power and by providing the middle class with liberty and rights, the wealthy elite would gain their base of support. An example of how the Constitution is for the wealthy is when Zinn mentions how the property qualifications for voting increased. Also one could not hold office without being wealthy.
ReplyDeleteLilahh I agree with you that the constitution was used to sustain the power of the wealthy. Like you said they wanted to keep their power and to do so they used the middle class as a base yet always required a rich person to be in office leaving all the poor colonists out in the cold with no say. The federalist looked out for themselves and made it seemed like they were thinking off all.
DeleteI totally agree with your comment and loved how you included evidence. It was very well written. Don't you just hate how selfish the federalists were? I wish I would've read Zinn before I did the social media project because some of our leaders were dumbheads and I didn't see them that way until now. History is crazy. Ugh, I am so upset.
DeleteI agree with Zinn's point of the Constitution serving those who are wealthy. As stated before, the writers of the Constitution came from wealthy backgrounds. The main reason they wrote the Constitution is because, unlike the rest of America, they had a high education meaning they knew how not only how politics worked, but they knew how to somewhat establish a government, however, they were unsuccessful in establishing a government that was fair for all people. Due to them having obtained a higher education, they were able to establish a government that seemed as if it made every American equal, but really they found loopholes so it would put the wealthy just one level higher than the rest.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement because the constitution only helped the wealthy. Also that the wealthy had more power because they were more educated.
DeleteI agree with Zinn on this, the wealthy did benefit from the Constitution. The wealthy can benefit from almost anything political because of their high power due to money. Plus, the wealthy always turn things into their advantage. The poor almost never benefited from political issues back in those days so therefore I believe that the wealthy did benefit from the Constitution like Zinn had stated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point of view because the poor hardly helped political issues back in the day.
DeleteThat's exactly it, the wealthy wrote the constitution so they would naturally write it to their advantage. It's silly how they referred to America as if they included everyone, they were only including the rich, excluding just about everyone else as their focus.
DeleteI agree with Zinn with the constitution favoring the wealthy. The constitution were made up of federalists. The federalist party were made up from the wealthy. This was not beneficial for the poor in an way. Also the poor were looked down upon and no one payed attention to them. An example of how the Constitution is for the wealthy is when Zinn mentions how the property qualifications for voting increased.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you view on how the Constitution benefited the wealthy only. The wealthy always accounted themeselves
DeleteI agree with you. The federalists wanted to over power the poor so supporting the constitution would give them this.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree, in how the poor were not payed attention to. Zinn evidently believes this too, Zinn even takes it to such extent and compares it to the Britain, "It seems that the rebellion against British rule allowed a certain group of the colonial elite to replace those loyal to England, give some benefits to small landholders, and leave poor white working people and tenant farmers in very much their old situation." Zinn portrayed his perspective on how the poor were subsided and the wealthy were empowered.
DeleteI wholeheartedly agree that the constitution prioritizes in serving the wealthy than those of lower class. They like to say that they are interested in giving everyone in America equality, but they're just sugar-coating it. In actuality they are only serving rich, land owning white males, and are not giving representation to "slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property."(91). There was no chance that these groups of people were going to get representation, because,"The inferior position of blacks, the exclusion of Indians from the new society, the establishment of supremacy for the rich and powerful in the new nation-all this was already settled in the colonies by the time of the Revolution"(89). The rich were the ones who wrote the constitution, so it was only natural that they prioritized their class above others, even though in doing that would exclude most of the American population.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Adrian because they did sugar coat the fact that they wanted to help the poor when they were just fighting for themselves. The rich did make up the constitution not the people so that shows how selfish they were and how much they wanted to stay in power.
DeleteI agree with Zinn's assertion that the "constitution serves the interest of the wealth." The constitution was mainly written by wealthy individuals whose interests were in mind. "As many as half the people were not even considered by the Founding Fathers ..." wrote Zinn. Like the wealthy were the ones who mainly benefited from the Revolution they needed a document to match and state their power. The needs of the poor colonists were not even considered on the making of the constitution since no one to represent them was included. The wealthy had major control over the laws passed,like only giving white male landowners the right vote leaving a majority of colonists without that right and so on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with zinn that the constitution was written for the wealthy. The federalist were wealthy British men who wanted to give power to the people. They wrote the constitution which is why it was written for the wealthy. The wealthy we're educated men who knew more about politics than any other men and because of that they knew what was going on with the constitution and only put rules that was going to help them in good ways and affect the poor. The poor weren't allowed to speak their minds because they weren't wealthy enough for the federalist to actually listen to what they have to say.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your main statement wen you say that the constitution was in favor of the rich. A few statements are kind of on the rough side but overall I agree with you.
DeleteI also agree with Zinn, the constitution was mostly in favor of the wealthy. Power calls out for power no matter the process. Federalist were the one s who mostly benefited, they were rich and educated. Federalist wrote the constitution in the first place who better to run it than the ones who created it. The lower class in the other hand, they were ignored by the upper class, they were poor and uneducated" slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property." Basically if you had money and owned land you had a say in the constitution, but otherwise, the wealthy made it look like they cared but they really only seek self-interest.
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree with Oscar that the constitution was mostly in favor of the wealthy people. I also agree that only wealthy people where actually educated.
DeleteI agree with Zinn that the constitution is more for the rich and wealth people. The wealthy British men were the ones to write the constitution, that's why is was mean for the rich. The rich people where educated men that had more knowledge than anyone since the constitution was written by them. This effected the poor since they weren't wealthy enough for the federalist.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Zinn book that the Constitution serves the interest of the wealthy mostly because the Revolutionary War was fought by the poor for the sake of the rich. Howard Zinn argues about how the war was led by the rich people but how they didn't actually fight in the war even though they were the political leaders.The rich were benefiting economically from the war while the poor were not getting anything. The Federalists wanted to keep themselves in power so they had to make up laws for the new nation which kept them in power. They made the people think they actually would keep all of the peoples interest into account but in reality they were just doing things for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Zinn on his views that the constitution was written to benefit the wealthy.Federalists, the founders who supported a centralized government practically wrote the constitution. The war had brought glory for the generals, death to the privates, wealth for the merchants, ... I believe this statement represents that privates the poor) were less important that the General( wealthy). Thus everybody turned there heads at the poor and focused on the rich.
ReplyDeleteI agree with MIguel because the Constitution payed more attention to the wealthy group of people. Therefore, it benefited them a lot more that the poor people.
DeleteI agree with Miguel since mostly it was only the poor put out to risk. The rich had the power to control what the low class did and the low class couldn't do much since now with the presidency rebellions could be controlled. Any decision the wealthy took affected the poor.
DeleteI agree with Zinn's statement that the Constitution was largely in favor of the wealthy because the Federalists had the advantage of power over the Democratic-Republicans (Anti-Federalists). "As many as half the people were not even considered by the Founding Fathers." The Constitution was created by wealthy political leaders and that obviously meant that they were going to modify it to their benefit. The Anti-Federalist weren't even brought into consideration when writing the Constitution. They were just used by the wealthy to fight the Revolutionary War, while the Federalists just sat around insinuating the lower class to fight.
ReplyDeleteI support Zinn's assertion on the constitution primarily serving the interest of the wealthy because it was written by men of wealth and power. The writers don't care about blacks, Indians, or women so what makes you think they would care about serving the interests of the poor people? or if poor people can afford taxation? It's not like poor people were struggling to survive before taxation, what is a 7 cent tax going to do, am I right? Let's just ignore the fact that rich people can afford taxes but still complain about paying them and let us just create more taxes for the poor. Also, let us just make a few amendments stating that freedom of speech and press are some of your rights but then create a sedition act to TOTALLY BE HYPOCRITICAL. WOW WHAT A BRILLIANT IDEA. WHO CARES ANYWAYS, RIGHT?????? (this Zinn book makes me so angry and just so pumped up, sorry) If you were not wealthy and a white male, you were literally considered a nobody with just about zero rights. Governments are not neutral and represent dominant economics interests which is why they supported the wealthy. The wealthy had power because they obviously have money which puts them more at stake and gives them a reason to care about the government debts and the future of our country. The constitution literally is just "the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support". (that is so bogus ussjshaftaagshhwuwuaiowhwhwhshhsgsgshshshsb, zinn makes me see everything differently, i love this book)
ReplyDeleteI love your enthusiasm and I agree with your speculation that the government was hypocritical. It also frustrates me that the wealthy was mainly looking out for their own selfish interests.
DeleteI agree with Zinn's assertion because the constitution did part sides with the wealthy. Zinn stated that the creators of the constitution were lawyers and men of wealth. These men of wealth were the federalists that wanted to have full control. Money and power together would then bring the federalists to overpower the poor.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Zinn when he states that the constitution was in favor of the wealthy. The rich were the only ones that wrote the constitution because of their higher education and skill at the craft in literature. Specific it favored rich white males and Zinn states this by writing “ slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property." This goes in direct connection with the revolution, since the revolution mainly was in favor of the constitution? The rich wrote the constitution so of course they would write it you their favor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zinn that the Constitution was significantly in favor of the wealthy people. As Zinn stated, the people who primarily constructed the Constitution, were the rich Federalists, and aristocrats as well. They were educated men, and wanted to make sure it was written in their favor. They also wanted to make sure that they had the most power when it came to the government and the nation's economy. For that reason, the Constitution was greatly in favor of the wealthy people.
ReplyDeletei agree with Zinn saying the constitution being in favor of the wealthy. To start off, the federalist were mostly rich wealthy, they were mostly aristocrats, and thats what was wanted to lead/rule. Also the constitution benefited the ones with wealth do to them having political knowledge the Anti- Federalist didn't have.The example Zinn provides is that the wealthy were secured wealth and political power. "; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slave owners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.".
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Reyna. The wealthy aristocrats did make the Constitution for their own benefit. I never thought of it that way, that the Federalists took advantage of the knowledge the Anti-Federalists didn't have. That is probably why they took the power to their heads, underestimating them, thinking they wouldn't have the power to fight back.
DeleteI agree with Zinn's assertion, that the Constitution serves the interest of the wealthy. The government consisted of aristocratic authorities: they controlled the Revolutionary War yet the poor were the ones who had to fight. They agreed to such brutal matters for the sake of themselves. As Zinn stated, "…study of the Peterborough (a town in New Hampshire) contingent shows that the prominent and substantial citizens of the town had served only briefly in the war." proving that the political leaders, the wealthy people that were the only ones considered citizens, only served in the war as officers, in comparison to the poor risking their lives for the sake of the rich. The wealthy made the Constitution in favor for themselves. Because after all, who would make rules against themselves, right?
ReplyDeleteLike many others, I believe that the rich definitely abused of their power and most of these rich later benefitted since they could manage the United States however they pleased. It is possible to say that the poor were only being used since they were the ones affected by what the rich federalists and government officials did. It can be said that they were used as tools since they couldnt really change the government. In the American Pageant reading it also states that when they voted for the approval of the new constitution there was hardly any voters from each state. At the time even though there was a democracy, the rich had a lot more power than the low class workers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zinn that the wealthy wrote the Constitution in their favor. They did not care for the Indians, blacks, or women. Basically, if you weren't a wealthy white male you had no rights. They also were very dependent on the future of America so they cared about how the government would run.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zinn's assertion that the "Constitution serves the interest of the wealthy." In this time of history the ones with power were those who were wealthy, which were primarily the federalists. The federalist were of great influence to the constitution because they were the ones being voiced, the ones that had power. Zinn began his idea by stating, "The Continental Congress, which governed the colonies through the war, was dominated by rich men." Zinn is providing a perspective how the rich were the ones with power. For example, "The men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class." George Washington was the richest man in America. John Hancock was a prosperous Boston merchant. Benjamin Franklin was a wealthy printer. And so on." Then Zinn follows through with his idea and shows how the poor were subsided , "On the other hand, town mechanics, laborers, and seamen, as well as small farmers, were swept into "the people" by the rhetoric of the Revolution, by the camaraderie of military service, by the distribution of some land. Thus was created a substantial body of support, a national consensus, something that, even with the exclusion of ignored and oppressed people, could be called 'America.'," Zinn establishes how the wealthy had the voice which influences the constitution and therefore is why the constitution was written in favor of the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Zinn's opinion on the Constituion's statement that all the power is in the wealthy was 100% accurate. It is accurate because the power was mainly held within the federalist community. The people who wrote the Constitution did not take the minorities under consideration. The minorities being, the blacks, Native Americans etc. Zinn supports his claim by stating, "...found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity... United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British empire." Thus, Zinn's assertion are in favor for people such as the anti-federalists.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zinn's point of the constitution serves for those who are wealthy. The reason for that is because those who wrote the constitution came from a wealthy background. Those who were in charge of the constitution were educated and had a wise mind. For example, they knew how about politics and knew how to handle a storng leadership that helped create the constitution
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Brianda in saying that the constitution was in favor of the wealthy because it was written by them. The federalists obviously wrote the constitution knowing they would benefit from it. Also they knew that the lower class wouldn't do anything since they didn't have the same knowledge as them.
DeleteI personally agree with Zinn in stating that the Constitution was in the favor of the wealthy. Also that the Federalist were primarily rich aristocrats that were more influential policies. Lastly Zinn states that it contained the economic interest. The men of pervious power created rules that were fair.
ReplyDeleteHoward Zinn was correct when he said that the constitution served main interest of the wealthy. They gained more benefits from it such as more money. These people, federalists, usually just thought of themselves instead of the common folk. In chapter 5, he explains how the constitution was forged by wealthy land owning whites so it was going to serve them better than the Anti-Federalists.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zinn in saying that the constitution was in favor of the wealthier people. Zinn argues that the people who led the revolution were the rich, however they were not the ones that were actually fighting. The lower class felt as if they were being forced to fight in the war, while the rich were not. The rich tended to benefit from the war economically while the poor didn't, since the constitution did nothing to create equality between the whites, blacks, rich and poor. Like Zinn states "the men who established the revolt were mostly members of the ruling class.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zinn when he stated that the Constitution serves the interest of the wealthy based on the information he provided and my own knowledge beforehand. The political leaders of the United States were all wealthy, educated, and they belonged to a high social class.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Alexander Hamilton he believed that the talented and wealthy should run the country. Zinn stated that "For governor one had to own 5,000 pounds of property; to run for state senator, 1,000 pounds. Thus, 90 percent of the of population were excluded for holding office." This statement goes hand in hand with what Hamilton believed. It was unfair how the poor lower classes did not get much representation while the wealthy were fixed on their own self interests.
I believe that zinn was correct that the constitution was mainly meant to help and support the rich upper class. In the Revolution the lower class , which was the poor fought in the actual war. The wealthy did not actually participate, but paid to get out of fighting. The constitution was not in favor of the low class.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zinn The constitution was mainly to meet the needs of the wealthy.The constitution it's self was developt mainly buy wealthy educated me most federalist. Federalist were the wealthier political party while the anti-federalist were the more Por polital party. the wealthier people and for there needs.
ReplyDelete