Despite creating a then radical new form of government, the Constitutional Convention that resulted in the U.S. Constitution is characterized more as elitist than as pluralist in nature. One of the most significant reasons for this is that the members to the convention were all European, wealthy members of the upper-class that sought a strong central government to solidify their own power. While the Convention was allegedly held to modify the Articles of Confederation, which had been guiding government, individuals like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison fought for a totally new form of government. Janda, Berry, and Goldman (2006) describe the different plans for the new government offered by Virginia and New Jersey. The Virginia plan was most elitist, calling for a powerful central government with two legislatures, the lower one being chosen by popular vote and the upper one being chosen by the elected members of the lower house. Fearing efforts at monarchy were being undertaken at the convention, Patrick Henry failed to attend. Despite these concerns, the convention resulted in the Constitution, forged the office of the presidency, defined Congress, and made plans for a national judiciary (Janda, Berry, and Goldman, 2006). Because a relatively small group of powerful and wealthy individuals controlled the convention and the shape of the new government, the Constitutional Convention can be best characterized as elitist.
There are many who argue that because the Constitutional Convention was attended by white, wealthy, and powerful men from the upper classes, it is best characterized as an elitist rather than a pluralistic event in American history, though this is far from the truth. While the call for a powerful central government and the shaping of our Constitution stemmed from the aims of members of the upper-class to protect their own rights and interests, pluralism characteriz
...