Yes or No to the Constitution

I think the "No" article got its point accross better. This article brought up some very interesting points, like, how the Constitution was written by mostly men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping, that half of them had money loaned out at interest, and that forty of the fifty-five held government bonds. "The makers had some direct economic interest for establishing a strong central governtment: the manufacturerss needed protective tariffs; the money lenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners neeed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to rais money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds."
So, the Constitution was written by the rich and supposed to provide a government for everyone, but it left out the women, slaves, indentured servents, and men without property. In fact women were left out of the Constitution, it stated that all MEN are created equal. Then the slaves were also left out, they were considered property. Indentured servents were considered property until they were free then they were men without property. Finally men wihout property were not mentioned because you had to own property to vote.
Now, the article also talks about Shays rebellion, which was started for what I think are good reasons. A veteran was put in debtors prison, and selling farmers cattle for less then their worth to take their land, and lastly he was not paid for his work in the army and was now about to be put in debtors prison.
Also, this article talks about the first amendment and how it was broken with the Sedition Act just seven years after the amendment became part of the Constitution.