Property owners such as merchants, bankers, large landowners, and slaveholders. These were the people who had political power and wanted a government that would protect their wealth and property. The people who were mostly excluded were slaves, women, Native Americans, indentured servants, and propertyless working class men. Beard refers to these groups as the disenfranchised because they had little or no say in the political process.

I think the social class structure of early America was more similar to today than different. Back then, society was divided between wealthy people who owned property and ordinary people who had to work for a living. While many more people have the right to vote today regardless of race, gender, or property ownership, there is still a clear divide between those who own most of the wealth and those who work for wages.

The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of democracy because they worried that ordinary people would gain enough political power to challenge the interests of the wealthy. As discussed in the readings, they were concerned about the propertyless majority having too much influence over government decisions. That is why they favored a republic with elected representatives instead of a direct democracy, believing it would better protect property and the interests of the wealthy class.

1. Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings.
2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.
3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.

1. Which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded?
   The Constitution was primarily written by the propertied elite—wealthy landowners, merchants, and businessmen who had significant economic resources and political power. For example, many framers owned large estates or were involved in commerce and finance, giving them a vested interest in protecting property and maintaining social order. In contrast, working-class people, small farmers without significant land, indentured servants, and enslaved people were excluded from the process. These groups had little or no political voice because voting rights were tied to property ownership, effectively barring them from participation.
2. Was the social class structure of early United States society the same as ours today, or different?
   The social class structure then was both similar and different from today. Like now, a wealthy elite controlled most economic and political power, while a larger working class had limited influence. However, the scale and nature of the economy have changed dramatically—early America was mostly agrarian with a smaller industrial base, and property ownership was a strict requirement for political participation. Today’s economy is more complex, with diverse industries and somewhat broader, though still unequal, political participation. But the underlying dynamic of concentrated wealth and power versus a larger, less powerful working class remains.
3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy?
   The framers feared pure democracy because they believed the majority—often poorer, less-educated people—might act against the interests of the propertied class. They worried about “tyranny of the majority,” where democratic rule could lead to redistributing property or challenging the existing social hierarchy. Protecting property rights and social stability was paramount for the elite, so they designed a government with checks, balances, and limited voting rights to restrict popular influence and maintain their control.

1.According to Michael Parenti in “Class Power in Early America”, the Constitution was primarily written by members of the wealthy elite landowners, merchants, and creditors-who wanted to create a strong central government that would protect their property and economic interests. Parenti argues that these elites were wary of popular influence and democracy, believing that the government should serve to protect the rich against the poor. Similarly, Charles Beard, in “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States”, reinforces this by analyzing the economic interests of those who crafted the Constitution. He describes how those without property, the working class, and the disenfranchised were excluded from the process. These individuals had no say in the new system because voting and participation were often tied to property ownership.

2.While the exact forms of social classes have changed, the core structure of inequality remains similar. In both early U.S. society and today, those with economic power and property often have more political influence and access to decision making institutions. Then, power was concentrated in the hands of a few elite white men with land and wealth. Today, while there is more legal equality, wealth and influence are still disproportionately held by a small upper class, and systemic barriers continue to limit political and economic opportunities for lower-income groups.

3.The Founding Fathers, according to both Parenti and Beard, feared democracy because it threatened their economic interests and social status. True democratic participation by the broader population-especially the poor and propertyless-could lead to redistribution of wealth or policies that challenged elite power.

1. From my understanding, both authors say that the rich, property-owning men wrote the Constitution. These were men who were owners of land, ran businesses, held government positions or were lawyers or slaver owners. In the readings they are called the economic elites, who were determined to protect their wealth and social positions. The people that were not allowed to take part were the working class and the poor, like small farmers, workers and those who didn’t own land or property, enslaved people,Native American who were not seen as a part of the political system and women who were not allowed to vote. For example, Parenti explains, that the wealthy men who wrote the Constitution were worried that poor people might try to change the rules to help themselves, like cancelling debts.
2. Today we still have upper, middle and lower classes of people living in the U.S. Even though the wealthy people still hold most of the power, and the economic system remains a big issue with equality, today more people on the other hand, have rights and opportunities. Only white and male property owners had rights, today women, black immigrants and other groups have the legal right to vote.
3. Those who wrote the Constitution were mainly the upper class and they were afraid that they would lose a lot if the poor people gained power through a true democracy. They believed if the workers and debtors voted they would pass laws to cancel debts and therefore take their wealth. They limited voting to keep the elites in power and to protect their property.

1. Who wrote the Constitution, and who was excluded?

The people who wrote the Constitution were rich white men from the upper class. Most of them were landowners, bankers, or businessmen. They wanted to protect their money and property. Poor people, women, Black people, Native Americans, and men without land were not allowed to be part of this process.

2. Is the social class structure the same today?

It’s similar but not exactly the same. Back then, only rich white men had power and rights. Today, more people can vote and have rights, no matter how rich they are. But still, rich people and big companies have more power in politics, like before.

3. Why were the writers of the Constitution afraid of democracy?

They were afraid that if poor people had more say, they would vote to change the system and take money and power from the rich. So, the elites made sure the government protected their interests and kept the poor from having too much control.

After reading both Parenti and Beard, its clear the constitution wasn’t made for everybody it was made by the wealthy, for the wealthy. The people who wrote it were mostly rich white men like landowners, slaveholders, bankers, and merchants. They were trying to protect their money and property, not giving power to regular people. Poor people, women, enslaved people, and even most white men who didn’t own land were not included or allowed to participate.

Parenti points out how scared they were of real democracy. They didn’t want everyday people having control so they created systems like the senate and electoral college to limit that. Beard shows how the people who supported the constitution were mostly trying to protect their business interests, not help the poor or fix debt. What sucks is the working class had no say in the process at all.

To be real the class system back then and now is still very similar. Rich people still run things and working class people are still fighting just to survive. We say we live in a democracy, but when you look at who actually has power not much has changed. The constitution was created to protect the rich and it still works that way today.

6.1

1. Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings.

The social class that wrote the constitution was exclusively the upper class, and even with voting you needed to be a white man who owned land-no more than 10 percent of the population. An example would be that of what James Madison said when he wrote in Federalist 10 how “the most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property [that is, wealth].” Here by stating its “durable” he claims that the inequality is what would help the nation sustain.

2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

This is not a yes or no question. I would break it into two parts and say that economically it is similar to such a large income inequality, however in terms of social status there has been a slight difference in that slavery no longer exists and thus all humans are (supposed) to have equal rights, even those that are poor. However, this system is in many ways rigged, with many police officers showing prejudice and people wrongfully sent to jail and stripped of their rights. Still, progress, whereas I would say economically we still have a major wealth gap. 

3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.

They were afraid of Democracy because they did not trust the common people, and felt that they swayed too much with common political movements. Alexander Hamilton noted this when he stated that “the people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”

6.2

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?

Personally, faction reminds me the most of the workers when we discussed the relationship between owners and workers, as the founding fathers, a wealthier class, expressed it to represent the general community, in a way that seemed below them or that they owned them. Owners held this power over workers with elements such as surplus value. To me, the founding fathers were the owners and the factions represent the workers.

2. According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….”

I think that with his words before this of  “As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves” he/the authors thought that a man’s faculty was values and interests dictated where and what he pursued and what land or assets he would seek out, and thus diversity in the faculties means that different men have different interests that lead them to what property, or no property, they own. Thus, I think they are saying that men are responsible for the social class they belong to.

3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

In my opinion, tying people to social class based upon their interests and pursuits is discrediting the biased and nepotistic aspects of socioeconomic inequality. Many, some would argue most, of those not owning land or owning only small farm land were born into families in these positions and did not have the time, money or status to pursue another option. Furthermore, there were the biased aspects such as men who were Irish or Scottish being written off for their ethnicity, and of course those that were Black having no status due to the color of their skin. Thus, Madison and the Federalists do not take accountability for the systemic aspects that lead to a lack of social mobility.

4. What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.

The core mission of the US government was to create a society that was attached to popular opinion, but to keep the social class system (factions) intact with some at the top and many at the bottom. James Madison writes “To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction and at the same time preserve the spirit and form of popular government is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.” He found that disrupting factions would hurt the people, but I think we can infer he also worried it would hurt himself in the upper class. No, it does not surprise me, as I do not think that at that time they were striving for an equal society, but rather a society closer to equality than the monarchy that existed in England. It also does not surprise me considering the founding fathers enjoyed the privileges of their social status, and would not want to create a government that could take that away from them. Today, I think there is more discourse and nuance about this, with the terms of equity and equality, however due to the power and influence the rich have over our senators and representatives I would say the factions are still very much alive.

5. Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

Similar to my answer above, I think that I am not surprised as I knew that two things were true: the founding fathers did not fully trust the American people and found that a popular opinion was not necessarily a correct opinion, and that they knew giving too much power to the people could risk them losing their higher social status when the upper class was only a fraction of the population. (Most of them were rich and of higher status, and James Madison was certainly of wealth and land owning.) Furthermore, the founding fathers made the representative government still powered by those of wealth and status considering the only ones who could vote for the representatives were white men that owned land-keeping the interests in that of the social class they were in.

7.1

1. Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.

This is a blanket term, but in the context of what we are reading it is the difference between power depending upon only the central government (one government that applies to the entire nation regardless of the different local areas) power depending upon only local governments (each region of the nation holds separate legislation over their domain) and where power is split between the central government and the local government.

2. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.

In a confederation system, the government is controlled by a synthesis of the different local governments, and thus people have the most power. In a federal system, people have some, but less power as the local government shares power with the central government. On the other end, in a unitary system the power is directed only to the central government and thus the needs that vary depending on the location of the citizens may be disregarded, so perhaps citizens have the least power.

3. How does the federal government shape the actions of state and local governments? Write your answer based on doing a bit of research on how the federal government has influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Governor Andrew Cuomo stated that he felt the federal government had failed to act on COVID despite the actions of the people, and so when the delta variant emerged he exercised local power in creating a statewide New York mandate for people to take vaccines that worked in any aspect of healthcare in an attempt to prevent the spread. Thus, at times neglect from the federal government may push local governments to take more charge in shaping the lives of the citizens living within their region. This is seen on another major scale when the federal legalization of abortions in Roe v. Wade was lifted and it was left up to the states, as we now have 19 states that now ban or restrict abortions.

1. The social class that wrote the constitution was the delegates, and the class that was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process were the Native Americans, Persons of Africain descent, Women, indentured servants, and white males lacking sufficient property.

2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

No, the social class structure of the early united states was different from modern society because, the early American class structure was more focused on the interest of the wealthy class who held power and influence while a large majority were peasant class who were not allowed to vote unless they were a white male with property and wealth and social mobility was more restricted in early America. In modern society no matter the social class an individual has, they have the right to vote. Individuals have more economic opportunities, that can move them up social classes. There are no longer two classes that were only the wealthy and peasants but now are called upper, middle and lower class

3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy?

The Delegates were afraid of democracy because People would speak out against the government. They were concerned about tyranny of the majority and the potential for instability.