IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/afc/cliome/v4y2010i2p207-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personalty interests at the Constitutional Convention: new tests of the Beard thesis

Author

Listed:
  • Jac C. Heckelman

    (Department of Economics, Wake Forest University, 110 Carswell Hall, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA)

  • Keith L. Dougherty

    (Department of Political Science, Baldwin Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA)

Abstract

Charles Beard ([1913] 2004) argued that the U.S. Constitution was created to advance the interests of people who owned personalty, particularly those at the Constitutional Convention. Because delegate votes on individual clauses at the Constitutional Convention were not publicly recorded, prior empirical analyses have been limited to inferred votes on a specific set of unrelated clauses. We extend this inquiry by inferring votes related to currency and debt issues which Beard put forth as the prime issues for those who owned personalty. Our analysis on these votes generates little support for a narrow version of the Beard thesis, which states that all personalty groups voted in a unified coalition at the Convention and supported the Constitution. Our analysis provides some support, however, for a broader interpretation that personalty and realty interests affected delegate voting behavior at the margin.

Suggested Citation

  • Jac C. Heckelman & Keith L. Dougherty, 2010. "Personalty interests at the Constitutional Convention: new tests of the Beard thesis," Cliometrica, Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), vol. 4(2), pages 207-228, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:afc:cliome:v:4:y:2010:i:2:p:207-228
    DOI: 10.1007/s11698-009-0042-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11698-009-0042-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to journal subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11698-009-0042-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul D. Carlsen & Jac C. Heckelman, 2016. "State bloc versus individual delegate voting at the constitutional convention: Did it make a difference?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 781-800, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    US Constitution; Constitutional Convention; Money creation; Debt; Fiscal federalism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:afc:cliome:v:4:y:2010:i:2:p:207-228. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/afcccea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.