A Comparison of Opinions on the Founding Fathers by John Roche and Richard Hofstadter

Since the beginnings of the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers of our great country and their motives, during the time of the writing of the constitution, have been questioned and analyzed. This still holds true to this century. Two historians, John P. Roche and Richard Hofstadter, have both published essays giving their interpretations of what happened during that time in our countries history. Although both of thee essays were written within twenty years of each other the historians give two very different views on the events of the Constitutional Convention.

Richard Hofstadters The American Political Tradition and The Men Who Made It shows a history of our nation that we do not usually see interpreted. He believes that the Constitution was written by men who were not looking to create a government for the people, they looked to create a good political constitution to control him [the people]. This idea is only further proven by the words of the Founding Fathers themselves.

The people of the newly founded United States wanted a democratic government. However, according to Hofstadter:

Order custom essay A Comparison of Opinions on the Founding Fathers by John Roche and Richard Hofstadter with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Democratic ideas are most likely to take root among discontented and oppressed classes, rising middle classes, or perhaps some sections of an old alienated and partially disinherited aristocracy, but they do not appeal to a privileged class that is still amplifying it privileges

This idea that democracy is only meant for the classes whom do not have much power is one that affected the ideas of the convention greatly. It was due to the fact that of all the men present only half a dozen were not sons of men who had considerable position and wealth. Even though these wealthy would have considerable power in a non-democratic government they agreed that the people should not be without a voice in the government. Hofstadter concludes with the idea that the men of the convention pushed for a centralized government that did not give much power to the common man, but is however, derived from the needs of the common man.

John Roches article The Founding Fathers: A Reform Article gives a view of the convention that most students learn in a classroom. He speaks largely of the plans that were offered as a solution to the problem faced by representation in government. The Virginia Plan proposed by James Madison, and the New Jersey Plan proposed by William Patterson, are both equally written about in Roches essay. Although it is not directly stated this shows the reader that, unlike Hofstadter, Roche does not focus on the men themselves but what these men did.

Roche does, without taking sides by writing his own opinion, split the constitutionalists into two groups, those who were for states rights and those who are for the idea of a centralized government. People who were for states backed the New Jersey Plan and believed that it Virginia Plan put the big states in the saddle according to W. Patterson. Those who backed the Virginia Plan were ones who looked out for the interest of the states as a whole not the common person. This is the basic theme of his article. He does go on to state the compromise reached in both the problem of representation and the problem of governments right to taxation.

The ideas of both these men have sufficient evidence to back them up. Much of what is known about the Constitutional Convention is taken from the notes of James Madison. The writings of each man show how historians have interpreted how the constitution was conceived. Neither of these outlooks is wrong. I believe the combinations of the two are the actual events of that fateful summer.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer