John P Roche V. Howard Zinn

In 1780, the post-revolutionary society of America formed into a democratic nation controlled by a group of American patriots who essentially constructed and shaped the Constitution on behalf of their ideals and beliefs. Most Americans during this time could easily argue that the framers, or founding fathers, initially created a democratic republic and established ideological goals for the country. One of these individuals are John P Roche who proceeds to contend on behalf of the men who signed the oldest constitution in history. However, a man named Howard Zinn would strongly disagree with this view and claim that the founding fathers were strictly concerned with their own economic interests and forming a government that substantially benefitted the wealthy elite. Through strong evidence and equally as rhetoric opinion, Zinn convinces the reader that the founding fathers were absolutely not radicals nor democratic reformers.

John P. Roche initially acknowledges the Framers as superior self-governing politicians that were essentially interested in the popular support of the people. Through his eyes, this group of men were seen as radicals who more importantly wanted to appeal to each individual state’s best interest. Although the states delegates were incredibly divergent and narrow-minded to the welfare of their own governing state, they eventually formed a compromise that best suited the national interest. In section I, Roche continues to say that the founding fathers had several reasons why the Constitutional Convention accomplished its goals following the American Revolution; Under the influence of George Washington, the leadership implemented by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the ability to keep those not in favor away from the decisions, and the new nationalistic feeling evoked by the American victory. (pg.116) The central government under the Articles included members of the national Congress, and therefore did not appeal to each state considering individual representation was needed in order to satisfy the public. However, since each of the state legislatures appointed every member of the Congress, fair representation was given to each state and only had interest in the popular opinion. Section II goes into detail about the proposals made in the Virginia plan. State delegates were starting to become discouraged when similar leaders did not share similar opinions. Despite the ongoing difference between this group of men, they came together repeatedly influenced by a common goal, not a common structure. (pg. 117) Madison was one constitutionalist that drafted the Virginia Plan with the help of Virginia’s delegation. Under the Virginia plan, two branches would be established appointed by the state legislatures and would be represented in proportion to each states size. In response to the Virginia plan was the New Jersey plan that was in favor of a single chamber and wanted each state to be given one vote. Most small states