| In John P. Roche's essay "A Reform Caucus in | | | | selfish notions, and undoubtedly many states |
| Action", he suggests that the constitutional | | | | would not have gone through the trouble of |
| framing process was a highly democratic process | | | | sending delegates to a convention that intended |
| involving the interests of each state of in the | | | | to not reform the Constitution, but to mold it in |
| Union. The paper was written as a response to | | | | order to maintain the status quo. Roche’s |
| those who believed the framing of the document | | | | argument is supported by the simple fact that |
| was a reflection of the elitist views of its framers. | | | | politics of the time would not have permitted such |
| The Constitution of the United States has been | | | | a whimsical change to the law of the land, no |
| one of the most hotly debated topics in American | | | | matter how influential the core members of the |
| history since its inception in 1787. Charles Beard | | | | Constitutional Convention were. |
| attempted to characterize the delegates of the | | | | John Roche attempts to debunk Charles |
| Constitutional Convention as money grubbing | | | | Beard’s historical idea that the founding |
| landowners who intended nothing more than the | | | | fathers were only rich, white, influential, landowning |
| protection of their most valuable asset, | | | | men who intended to change the Constitution only |
| property. Other writers have argued the | | | | to maintain the status quo and keep the rights to |
| abstract and converse nature of the founding | | | | their lucrative property investments and their |
| fathers political ideals, and thus have characterized | | | | land. Roche instead characterizes the framers of |
| the Constitutional convention as somewhat | | | | the Constitution, not as scheming rich men, but as |
| arbitrary. In his essay "A Reform Caucus in | | | | men genuinely dedicated to the creation of a |
| Action", however, John Roche argues a | | | | functional democratic government. Roche |
| completely different perspective on the creation | | | | acknowledges that the founding fathers may |
| of the constitution, claiming the constitution to be | | | | have had many motives that factored into their |
| a great compromise between states, and that | | | | creation of a Constitution, but that though some |
| the final result was not one of greed or arbitrary | | | | of these motives may have been entirely impure, |
| thought, but of specific compromise between the | | | | they did not dictate the atmosphere of the |
| small and large states of the union. Roche begins | | | | convention, nor did these impure motives drive |
| by describing the Constitutional Convention as a | | | | the intentions of all of the founding fathers. |
| democratic reform caucus. This plainly means | | | | Roche also claims that there are no immaculate |
| that the founding fathers specifically intended to | | | | conceptions in history, and that the founding |
| create a document that would preserve the | | | | fathers obviously had their own agenda when it |
| nation as a whole without sacrificing the | | | | came to the topic of national government, |
| democracy that the revolution of 1776 had | | | | however, these agendas were not the impetus of |
| created. Roche continues by elaborating on the | | | | the convention, and that the sole and pure |
| extreme political constraints of the convention, | | | | intention of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 |
| noting that the legislation and tedium that | | | | was to create a functional democratic |
| surrounded forming the caucus was great and | | | | government. He characterizes the framers of |
| lengthy. Roche attempts to characterize the | | | | the Constitution as men who were obviously bias |
| framers of the constitution as elitists, but in a | | | | toward their own personal needs, but entirely |
| markly different way from the way Charles | | | | willing to compromise if it appeared to be for the |
| Beard does so, claiming that though the authors | | | | greater good of the United States of America. |
| of the Constitution did have many biases toward | | | | He argues that the Constitution could never be |
| their respective states and ideologies, that they | | | | created by purely selfish motives because it was |
| were more than willing to compromise their views | | | | much greater than the men who created it. |
| for what they perceived to be the greater | | | | There is no possible way for men with entirely |
| good. Roche comments that the political theory | | | | divergent interests on the economy, global affairs, |
| of the time was not so much a barrier between | | | | and domestic issues to have created a document |
| the founding fathers, but a uniting factor, dispelling | | | | that suited them and only them. Compromise |
| the long perceived notion that there were strict | | | | was the only way to create a government that |
| states rights advocates and strict nationalist | | | | was support any of their interests, and thus their |
| advocates. Finally, Roche confronts the influence | | | | personal biases, while influential, were put aside in |
| of the Federalist on common interpretations of | | | | the hope that the Constitution they created would |
| the Constitution, and argues that though the | | | | serve all the states as a whole, and govern the |
| Federalist displays a remarkable amount of | | | | country in an effective and efficient way, the likes |
| retrospective symmetry, it is not the only, nor | | | | of which the world had never seen before. The |
| the complete interpretation of the Constitution. | | | | framers of the Constitution were far too wise to |
| The United States Constitution is the most basic | | | | conform to the strict Beard interpretation of their |
| of all constructs of American government, and in | | | | motives, and thus, nothing would have ever been |
| understanding its usefulness, one must as | | | | accomplished. |
| thoroughly as possible analyze the intentions of its | | | | Political theory also played a great role in |
| creators. | | | | determining the purpose and effectiveness of the |
| Roche begins his essay by describing the | | | | Constitution and ultimately asserted itself as |
| Constitutional Convention as a democratic reform | | | | deliberation occurred between the states. John |
| caucus. This is central to Roche’s | | | | Roche comments that the political intentions of |
| argument regarding the intentions of the founding | | | | the founding fathers were not as starkly different |
| fathers. The key word in understanding this | | | | from each other as previous interpretations of |
| characterization of the creators of the | | | | the motives of the framers had implied. He |
| constitution is the word reform. Roche starts by | | | | dispels the notion that there were strict |
| explicitly stating the founding fathers intended to | | | | states’ rights advocates at the convention |
| reform the government, not manipulate it | | | | and strict national government advocates. Roche |
| according to their personal needs. The Articles | | | | claims that had the men’s political |
| of Confederation were weak and unenforceable | | | | philosophies been so different as to divide them |
| as a governing body, and lacked the true | | | | into two opposing factions, the Constitutional |
| legislative power necessary to support a functional | | | | Convention would have floundered from the |
| democracy. The United States hadn’t the | | | | start. Many interpretations of the Constitutional |
| power to compete in the global economic climate | | | | Convention cite the absence of influential |
| because it lacked the power to enforce its own | | | | members of the United States such as Thomas |
| laws and decrees. This was an important factor | | | | Jefferson from the convention as proof of this |
| in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Though | | | | dissent within the country. However, Roche |
| the founding fathers plainly understood that a | | | | paints a distinctly different portrait of the founding |
| national government would no doubt limit the | | | | fathers, claiming that the political ideals that they |
| power of total democracy in the country, the also | | | | held did not do as much to divide them as they |
| understood that without a strong central | | | | did unite them, and that the Constitutional |
| government, no democracy was possible at all | | | | Convention could not have survived if the men |
| and the country was doomed to failure. States | | | | did not agree on a common goal. The states |
| were at the verge of breaking off into factions | | | | that advocated their rights heavily could have |
| and developing their own standing armies to | | | | easily left the convention and doomed it to |
| protect their own interests. This description of a | | | | failure. Roche argues that the fact that even |
| democratic caucus is in stark contrast to Charles | | | | the most disagreeable states stayed at the |
| Beard’s description of the intentions of the | | | | convention illustrates that the men truly intended |
| founding fathers, in which he argues that the | | | | to reform the Constitution. Most striking yet is |
| authors of the constitution did not particularly care | | | | the notion that the states that strongly disagreed |
| for the notion of democracy and that they | | | | could have easily voted down any measure that |
| intended to preserve it only to placate the | | | | threatened their rights, but they did not. The |
| people. Roche strongly favors the argument | | | | states, large and small, with populations great and |
| that the founding fathers intended to preserve as | | | | little, though they hotly debated the issue of |
| much democracy as humanly possible in the | | | | representation, stayed at the convention and |
| government under the sole pretext that it | | | | eventually compromised on a government that |
| produced a functional governing body. Only as a | | | | could serve all of them effectively. This |
| functional governing body could the United States | | | | presence at the convention distinctly shows that |
| effectively protect the freedoms that it so dearly | | | | all the representatives knew that the Articles of |
| fought for in the Revolution of 1776. | | | | Confederation were weak and did nothing to |
| Roche’s notion of a democratic reform | | | | protect their rights, and had they not |
| caucus accurately sums up his entire argument | | | | compromised at all, their states would soon be |
| regarding the founding fathers. They intended to | | | | reduced to nothing. |
| protect democracy and reform the Articles in a | | | | Finally, Roche confronts the common |
| way that worked efficiently and smoothly, not in | | | | interpretation of the Federalist Papers as the |
| their own interests, but in the interests of a | | | | great interpreter and explainer of the purpose of |
| greater good. | | | | the Constitution. Throughout history, The |
| Roche acknowledges that the political constraints | | | | Federalist has been used without hesitation in |
| of the day greatly limited the efforts of the | | | | blatant examination of the United States |
| reforming founding fathers in their quest to | | | | Constitution. Roche concedes that the main |
| amend and create a functional Constitution. He | | | | components of the Federalist Papers, James |
| uses the example of New York, a known | | | | Madison and Alexander Hamilton, had a distinct |
| advocate of states’ rights as an example | | | | talent for retrospective symmetry, and did |
| of this great problem that was confronted. | | | | accurately portray the events of the |
| Roche comments that the absence of New York | | | | Constitutional Convention. However, Roche |
| from the convention would be disastrous and thus | | | | argues, that a strict interpretation of the |
| doom the project to failure, and severely tedious | | | | Constitution in the context of the Federalist |
| steps were taken in order to ensure their | | | | Papers would be unwise because the Federalist |
| presence at the convention. He lists these steps, | | | | was undoubtedly, for lack of a better word, |
| briefly, but in detail in order to further his | | | | complete propaganda. It is impossible to deduce |
| argument. First, New York had to agree to even | | | | the motives of the Constitutional Convention from |
| send delegates to the Constitutional Convention. | | | | the Federalist Papers because they did not reflect |
| Second, New York had to provide maintenance | | | | the political ideals of the convention, but merely |
| for the delegates as they traveled to Philadelphia, | | | | reflected the political ideals that the convention |
| a step that was also taken by many others | | | | created. Roche comments that the Federalist |
| states such as New Hampshire, which did not | | | | was merely an improvisational piece of |
| provide maintenance for its delegates until long | | | | propaganda that detailed how the government |
| after they initially decided to attend the | | | | was to work under the new Constitution rather |
| convention. Third, New York had to create a | | | | than why the Constitution was created in the first |
| convention of their own within their state with the | | | | place. This completely debunks the idea that The |
| purpose of ratification of the document which | | | | Federalist ideas were the driving force behind the |
| would be created at the Constitutional | | | | Constitutional Convention, and rather portrays the |
| Convention. Finally, New York had to concede to | | | | document as a piece of reactionary literature, |
| and accept the decision of their convention that | | | | detailing the ideas that came from the convention, |
| their state should participate in the Constitutional | | | | rather than the ideas that went into it. This |
| Convention at all. Roche attempts to expose the | | | | supports Roche’s argument that the |
| great political blockage that prevented the | | | | founding fathers did not have their own personal |
| founding fathers from swiftly reforming the | | | | interests in mind when drafting the Constitution of |
| constitution. As well as describing the tedium of | | | | the United States. Charles Beard relies heavily on |
| eighteenth century politics, Roche also succeeds in | | | | the Federalist in his essays regarding the |
| exposing the reasons why the Constitutional | | | | motivations of the framers. Had the document |
| Convention could not have been solely convened | | | | been strictly a reactionary piece of literature full |
| on the pretext of retooling the Constitution to | | | | of new ideas, it would not have accurately |
| their personal needs. In consideration of the | | | | reflected the political climate before the ratification |
| politics of the time, such an effort would have | | | | of the Constitution, and thus becomes useless in |
| been impossible had it been made for completely | | | | an argument regarding motivation. |