One of the main differences of interpretation between Charles Beard and Carol Berkin is their point of view on the Constitution and the founding fathers.
Charles Beard is the author of An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. In this work published in 1913, the author argued that the Constitution of the United States was formulated to serve the interests of wealthy members of the upper class of society.
One of his most controversial statements is his claim about the Founding Fathers, whom he points out as belonging to the upper-class group and who wrote the Constitution to defend their rights and interests.
On the other hand, Carol Berkin is the author of the book The Bill of Rights: The Fight to Secure America's Liberties, published in 2015. In this book, she exposes her interpretation of the process of creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights.
Her interpretation of these historical events is framed in a vision of the founding fathers as mere mortals who ignored the possibility that the new government they were building would last for many years.
Based on the above, it can be inferred that Carol Berkin and Charles Beard have different views of the Constitution and the founding fathers such as:
- Charles considers that they wrote the constitution for their convenience.
- Carol describes them as ordinary people who wanted to change their situation and establish a government for all.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/1992478
Manifest destiny was the idea that the United States would stretch from sea to sea as a beacon of liberty. Texas had lots of American immigrants at the time and had a lot of slave plantations that could of extended the south. Texas also had recently broken free from Mexico, and was made by American settlers who made their government based on the US. So, because of all this, America decided to annex Texas and incorporate it into the Union.
The statement in Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream Speech" is trying to point out South's racial problems. But the sad part is that it is ignored racial injustice that you can find in the North is not true. Nevertheless, the whole speech is focused more on the South's injustices that is also recognized in the South.
