There evidence showing that the
convention created a constitution that favored America's ruling class.
The constitution created at the Constitutional convention favored
America's ruling class.
None of the delegates to the constitutional convention profited from
the new constitution.
Maverick is wrong.
Actually, April says that Maverick's argument is silly. The question is,
what part of it is silly? For this, we must look at April's premise. Does
it say anything at all about statistical or documentary evidence? No it doesn't,
so her conclusion cannot be that Maverick is silly to rely on statistical
and documentary evidence. (Nor can it be that Maverick is silly to rely on
James Beard, because she doesn't say anything about Beard either.) No, April
talks about what happened to the delegates after they created the constitution,
which I suppose is sort of relevant to what they did at the convention,
which makes this an opposing argument. Now the question is, is what
happens to a person after he does something a better guide to his intentions
at that time that statistical and documentary evidence from the time he did
it. If Beard didn't have his evidence, a lack of profit after the convention
would be a reason to think that the delegates weren't after profit. But
it's not a compelling reason. And the delegates might have unconsciously favored
the ruling class, or might have thought "what's good for us is good for
everyone," and so on, which means they could have acted to serve their
social class without having any personal profit motive. So April's counter-example
is actually consistent with Maverick's conclusion, so Maverick's argument is
Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly