In “A Constitution for the New”, Michael Parenti’s thesis was that the Constitution was made in favor of the Founding Fathers and the rich, and that the Constitution would make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. To start off, one point he argued was that the Founding Fathers were supposed to meet in Philadelphia to revise and improve the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they decided to get rid of the Articles of Confederation and start from scratch without the approval from anybody or anybody knowing what they were doing.
Secondly, when people first heard about the new government, “the wealthy looked to the national government as a means of protecting their interests. ” (Parenti). This basically means that the rich will get richer and the poor will become poorer. Thirdly, small farmers had to pay heavy rent and taxes with low incomes and often had to borrow money in order to pay those fees. This led to Daniel Shay’s Rebellion, where angry farmers intended to march to the Capital, but were stopped by the state militia.
Lastly, “the most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property. (Madison). Many poor farmers were denied land because they could not afford it and without ownership of property, they were denied the right to vote. To conclude Parenti’s thoughts, “The Constitution, then, was a product not only of class of privilege, but of class of struggle that continued and intensified as the corporate economy and the government grew. ” (Parenti). But in truth, The Founding Fathers did not write the Constitution just for the rich or just for the poor, they wrote it for the benefit of our entire country.