The 1780s was a critical period for certain conservative business men who believed that the decentralized political structure of the republic threatened their financial positions.  The Constitution, an economic document, was written and ratified by men whose property interests were endangered despite the objections of a majority of the population. The Articles of Confederation might have formed a satisfactory government had it not been for the Founding Fathers' impatience and determination to have the Constitution ratified.

By examining the debate between the Federalists and Antifederalists, one can find no consistent relationship between wealth and property and support for the  Constitution. Instead, support or opposition for the new system was more likely a reflection of  local or regional interests. Areas suffering from social and economic distress often supported the Constitution, while the more prosperous and stable regions opposed it. There was no interstate group of wealthy men who operated in concert to produce the Constitution.

The debates over state constitutions, which took place during the 1770s and 1780s, reflected deep social tensions. Those tensions helped shape the argument over the federal Constitution. The Federalists, traditionally aristocratic men, were deeply concerned by the instability of life under the Articles of Confederation and alarmed by the decline in popular deference toward the social elite. The creation of the Constitution was part of a larger attempt to create  legitimate political leadership based on social hierarchy. The Constitution reflects the elitist efforts to contain the excesses of democracy.