Talk:Charles A. Beard

message: I'm curious if you should be using the term "isolationism" to describe Beard's outlook on foreign affairs.  Is he a true isolationist (he doesn't want to trade with other countries, in addition to being a non-interventionist)- or does he just believe in non-interventionism?  I don't believe their one-in-the-same.  Being non-interventionist just means you don't want to get involved in other people's wars, it doesn't mean you don't want to be friendly and diplomatic toward another nations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.162.207 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep it. McPherson is the only historian in the group and he rarely cites Beard; the others are from politics and recycle ideas 50 years old. In his Battle Cry McPherson does quote one non-controversial line from Beard ("the capitalists, laborers, and farmers of the North and West drove from power in the national government the planting aristocracy of the South . . .making vast changes in the arrangement of classes, in the accumulation and distribution of wealth, in the course of industrial development, and in the Constitution inherited from the Fathers.") but that's about it. Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a sign of success, not oblivion; it wasn't uncontroversial when written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That passage was written around 1927 (Rise of Am. Civlization) & basically it says the plantation South got whipped by the agrarian Midwest and the industrial East, and the latter sections grew enormously after the war, and the Constitution changed. All true enough and I don't believe was ever controversial. The controversial stuff (about foreign policy for example) is rarely cited by historians though you do find elderly scholars in other fields (like Chomsky and Zinn) still holding on after 50 years. Bacevich (a scholar in International relations and military strategy) is indeed a convert (he first wrote about Beard in mid 1990s) --the only such I can recall, and he admits that Beard now belongs mostly to "crackpots and conspiracy theorists" [Bacevich American empire p 12]; Bacevich for example concedes that Beard was blind to the evil of Hitler Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The Ruskin names can be confusing.  I changed the reference from Ruskin House (which is London and which Beard was not formally involved) to Ruskin College which is in Oxford.  I also changed the collaborator from John Ruskin to Walter Vrooman.  Ruskin was never involved with the institutions that bore his name.  I hope to post an article on Vrooman this weekend (among his accomplishments were getting the first playgrounds in NYC!).  Americasroof 18:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ruskin College]]

message: Beard did indeed publish "President Roosevelt and the Coming of War" but the correct title is President Roosevelt and the Coming of War 1941."Image:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,779847,00.html--Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Isolationist foreign policy

message: "He published hundreds of monographs, textbooks and interpretive studies in both history and political science. He was so young. His works included radical re-evaluation of the founding fathers of the United States, who he believed were more motivated by economics than by philosophical principles." Doesn't really make sense, I doubt it should be there? Mathmo Talk 11:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Paragraph: He was so young. 

message: The article tracks the acceptance and dismissal of Beard's economic theory regarding the voting of the delegates fairly well, but it's lacking in mentions of attempts since the 60s to revisit this theory.  Much of McDonald's own work has been questioned, and even repurposed to give support for Beard's theory.  See: McGuire and Ohsfeldt, Economic Interests and the American Constitution: A Quantitative Rehabilitation of Charles A. Beard, for instance.  I don't know exactly how well-received this effort has been or if anyone still actively pursues it; is it substantive enough to merit mention?  76.109.241.82 (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is that no one reads Beard on the topic anymore. It's "Beardian" --that is in the tradition of Beard-- but not Beard. Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution 

message: Under the Economic Interpretation, the line reads "Academics and politicians denounced the book, but it was well respected by scholars until the 1950s." Aren't academics the same thing as scholars, and thus they either denounced the book or respected it? If different groups of academics/scholars respected or denounced it, the article should talk about those differing groups. Or if academics once respected it, but have since denounced it, the shift in historiography should be mentioned.Koothrappali (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholars vs Academics 

message: I added a section about his death and legacy, but don't have time to research it very much. IMHO, Beard's more than a polemicist, and more than an intellectual historian, which seems the gist of the substantial end of the article as it previously stood. It seems his intellectual heirs weren't disciples, per se, which is OK in my book. Have any awards been named to honor him, or the Beards jointly? I'm sure the AHA has one, but googling the name produces lots of results. FYI, I noticed a Beard School in Chicago, but that's apparently to honor a very different midwest-born guy, founder of the Boy Scouts. BTW, were they related, cousins or something? The current article says Beard came from a wealthy family, but not how/from where they got their $$, which IMHO might've led to his economic history viewpoint. But all this shows why this article about one of the U.S.'s most influential historians is still start class. Hint. Hint.Jweaver28 (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  legacy 

message: FWIW Beard exposed forgery of statements of Benjamin Franklin against the Jews. 
https://archive.org/details/dudeman5685_yahoo_BF1
71.163.117.143 (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  exposed forgery of B. Franklin 

message: There is a discussion about the redirect and former article Charles and Mary Beard, which currently points to this article, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Charles and Mary Beard. You are invited to contribute there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles and Mary Beard