Beard examined the occupations and property holdings of the members of the convention from tax and census records, contemporaneous news accounts, and biographical sources, demonstrating the degree to which each stood to benefit from various Constitutional provisions.

Beard traces the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts to the desire of Washington and similarly situated lenders to have their costs refunded.

Other historians supported the class conflict interpretation, noting that the states confiscated great semifeudal landholdings of Loyalists and gave them out in small parcels to ordinary farmers.

Evaluating the debate, historian Peter Novick concluded: By the early 1960s it was generally accepted within the historical profession that [...] Beard’s Progressive version of the [...] framing of the Constitution had been decisively refuted.

American historians came to see [...] the framers of the Constitution, rather than having self-interested motives, were led by concern for political unity, national economic development, and diplomatic security.