Compare And Contrast Thurgood Marshall And James Michener

874 Words4 Pages
Grayson Batti-Mullen 10/8/12 History p.4 Zinn Novelist James Michener had different beliefs than Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and Historian Leon Litwack. James Michener believed that the creation of the constitution was genius. He said it was a, “nearly perfect instrument of government.” He praised the idea of the division of three government parts. Thurgood Marshall on the other hand believed that the constitution made certain promises and never fulfilled them. Marshall believed the document was flawed and was nowhere near perfect unlike Michener. Leon Litwack believed that the Founding Fathers were not genius to reinforce the enslavement of black men and women. He was very anti-slavery. The Founding Fathers thought that…show more content…
He means that the government represents the elite economic interest, and that their constitutions are there in fact to serve these interests. He thinks the Constitution is not favoring everybody, just one side more than the other. According to Zinn and Beard, self-interest motivated the fifty-five signers of the Constitution to support the Constitution because they wanted to make sure they had the best rights and gained the most financially. The people felt they had a stake in the stability of a new and improved government. Zinn argued the Bill of Rights in winning public support for the Constitution was a bad thing. He thought it was put in just to make the poor and middle class feel better. Zinn said it manipulated them saying that the Constitution was on their side so they would stand behind it. The Bill of Rights is essentially only helpful for those who already have power. Zinn’s view on how governments use patriotism and unity is that patriotism came from American workers who wanted protection from foreign competition. Laws were said to create a more broad level of support. He said that the Bill of Rights was trying to say it would be serving the interests of wealthy elite, and also doing enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers. Zinn did not believe it one bit. Zinn’s analysis has excellent points. In order for the Bill of Rights to pass, it needed to convince everyone…show more content…
One argument of theirs is that they agree he is correct to identify the Anti-Federalist as middle class working men and farmers, but this certain definition makes for a vast range of the population. Schweikart and Allen believed that Beard’s definitions and the constant complaints by Zinn wrongly assume that people are incapable of acting outside of self interest, in other words, all people are selfish. Schweikart and Allen said you have to look at George Washington for example. He was in position to gain a highly noble job in the British army. Instead of doing this, he decided to toss that away and instead, lead an army through rough conditions with no benefits to himself. Schweikart and Allen wanted to make it clear that no matter which way Beard, Zinn, and their successors twisted around the statistics, they cannot make the Constitutional Convention about a class struggle between the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy. Schweikart and Allen believed that the debate was truly genuine, and men took positions for what they thought was the truth. Unlike Beard and Allen, who thought men took positions for only what they would gain financially. The historians have a good position on this argument is Schweikart and Allen. There are so many examples in history showing that people are capable of outing outside of self interest. Take Judge Richard Stockton for example. He dared sign the
Open Document