Essay on Corrupt Nature Of The Founding Fathers

The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the

“From their vast knowledge of history, the American Founding Fathers knew that unlimited political power cannot safely be trusted to anyone - not to appointed officials of government, not to elected representatives of the people, not to the people themselves,” says

Chapter one of The American Political Tradition by Richard Hofstadter is centered on the Founding Fathers. The very beginning of the chapter says that the Constitutional Convention was trying to create a government that would pay debts and avoid currency inflation. The Democratic ideas that the Founding Fathers were so against appealed mostly to less privileged classes, and not at all to the higher classes. This chapter says that the Founding Fathers thought that if no constitutional balance were achieved, one specific class or would take over others. Three advantages of a good constitutional government were listed in this chapter as well. One: keep order against majority rule. Two: a representative government. Three: aristocracy and democracy

The founding Fathers also tried to make the representation equal in the two houses of legislature. However, the makeup of the senate doesn’t agree with this because large states and small states had the same amount of representation rather than the house that has representatives equal to the ratio of the people. While John P. Roche gave his argument that the founding Fathers were best suited for their position, he never gave concrete evidence to support his statement. On the contrary, Howard Zinn gives his opinion that the founding Fathers were not democratic reformers; rather, they were making decisions that protected their power.

The United States would lose its name and stand divided if the Constitution did not bring the thirteen colonies into one body. Within this governing body, fears arise from the difficulty of controlling power in a central government, while still trying to keep unity between the states. Understanding that the United States was formed based on the people’s irritation with the corruption of the control of power in England, the Constitution reassured the people that their freedoms were going to be kept, but it required their trust. The founders of the United States Constitution established a just government through encompassing equal representation, with the people as the foundation, and protecting the injustices that could arise with the misuse of power.

Did you ever wonder how the United States’ founders envisioned America to be in the years to come? America’s founding fathers were tasked with the difficult challenge of finding a balance between preserving individual rights and forming a strong, long-lasting union. There are many examples of how the founding fathers found a balance. Some examples of this are showcased in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and A New American Nation.

Richard Hofstadter examines the political beliefs of the founding fathers in the first chapter of the American Political Tradition. Ideas thought about by most Americans to be the center of our organization, our founders viewed liberty, democracy, and property, as evil. The composition can be depicted to be vicious as well, because liberty, democracy, and property are linked to the United States Constitution.

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

The founding fathers envisioned and brought to life a system of checks and balances to prevent an over-concentrated power in a central government. They wanted to preserve and protect American

The Founding Brothers tells the tales of the ordinary lives and challenges that the founders or framers of the United States faced. One of the challenges was the common goal to ensure that the nation that the forefathers helped build would stand the test of time. The author, Joseph Ellis, wants the reader to understand better that the founders were more than just men, that were all white and male. Instead, the founders were men that knew the problems that the country was facing after its gaining independence from the British in the American Revolutionary War. They all fought each other tooth and nail over things that they felt were essential for this new republic to survive. Nevertheless, they all met each other to form political compromises that would aid in building the strength and future position of the new republic. These compromises would help settle many disputes that threatened to divide the new nation in half. Even though, they dealt with issues -like slavery, they understood that the entire world was watching and waiting to see what would become of this new government system that.

​The United States Constitution was carefully crafted by a group of deliberate and thoughtful individuals; each having their own unique and particular ideas about government, and the people it may govern. As this supreme foundation for government was molded, each founding father put forth their learned beliefs and philosophies to be integrated into this modern document. All of the crafting members were both well-read and thoroughly educated, allowing for deep and extended discussions on past governments, their efficiencies, and their deficiencies. Through their readings and philosophical discussions, it became apparent that two previously governing bodies stood, in their opinions, above the rest: The Greek and Roman empires. Their governmental practices and virtues were key in the development of the Constitution, as they were dissected, and eventually, emulated by this country’s founding members.

When America’s founding fathers broke away from England, they weren’t the first colonial Englishmen on the American continent, there were plenty of French, Spanish, Dutch and even Russian colonial outposts established before them. What makes the English colonies along the Eastern seaboard story so important, was the fact that 13 colonies joined together to form what is now known as the United States. Furthermore, this 13 colonies New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to start a new nation free from Great Britain’s rule. In the mist of declaring independence from the most powerful nation on earth, America’s founding fathers created a governmental system that was unfamiliar during their era. America’s founding fathers created a government designed to protect civil liberties and encourage independence, a complex yet young and evolving system.

The founding fathers may have been smart but they were lacking of important human qualities. Compared to some of the world leaders we have today, that's no question. Despite being that smart, you would think they would try not to be hypocritical, when writing one of the most important document in the history of the United States. The constitution's preamble is hypocritical, it was then and it is now, but more so in 1789. The Preamble was hypocritical in 1789 because of the voting system that the US had, when the Preamble says “Insure domestic Tranquility”, and when the Preamble says “We the people.”

Whose side would you have been on in the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson’s or Alexander Hamilton’s? Both of these men served under George Washington in the first presidential cabinet, yet they had very different views of what government should be (Davis 86). My objective in this research essay is to inform the reader of why there was so much controversy between these two founding fathers, and to determine which side had the better views for our newly forming country.

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions