The planters turned to the farmers to form an agrarian alliance, and for more than half a century this powerful coalition embraced the bulk of the articulate interests of the country. As time went on, therefore, the main stream of American political conviction deviated more and more from the antidemocratic position of the Constitution-makers. Yet, curiously, their general satisfaction with the Constitution together with their growing nationalism made Americans deeply reverent of the founding generation. . . (Hofstadter 33).
Even the Constitution was not as egalitarian as we might like to think. Many provisions did not apply to women, for instance, and slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation. Property owners were given greater power and more rights than those who did not own property. Charles A. Beard refers to the economic substructure of the Constitution and says that the way to understand the nature of the Constitution is not to examine the document itself but the arguments and correspondence of the period, including the arguments at the Convention and The Federalist Papers. Beard sees the Constitution as having been shaped to protect dominant interests in the society of the time, and he refers to The Federalist as "an economic interpretation of the Constitution by the men best fitted, through an intimate knowledge of the ideals of the framers, to expound the political science of the new government" (Beard 24).
Hofstadter, Richard. "The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism." In American Politics: Classic & Contemporary Readings. Ed. Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1992. 30-34.
Actually, the early nation was not as egalitarian as de Tocqueville assumed, and the earlier Articles of Confederation showed this by developing a system less centralized than under the Constitution later and more based around the idea of giving more power to certain states and certain classes.