In "The Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution," historian Woody Holton chronicles the sausage-making that led to the ratification of our nation's founding document in 1789.

The common people who only manage to make cameo appearances in the massively laudatory tomes about the Founding Fathers rose up in disgust when it looked as if the interests of We, the People would take a back seat to the fledgling republic's commercial interests.

As Mr. Holton convincingly demonstrates in his 2007 book, a cohort of the Founding Fathers feared "an excess of democracy" that could detract from America's potential as an investment opportunity for the great maritime powers of Western Europe.

Though they may have recently emerged from a bloody revolution against the British, they were interested in making the country a haven for the world's rich to park their excess cash.

The framers of the Constitution believed emphasizing federal power at the expense of individual liberty was the most efficient way to ensure the "pursuit of happiness" that they, the landed gentry, could get behind.

But, We, the People proved to be a rowdy bunch. We demanded specific and enumerated rights left out of the trial balloon version of the Constitution. After all, we were the 99.9 percent. We were suckers for all that lofty rhetoric about liberty that filled our taverns in the months and years before the revolution.

So, We, the People made loud noises, agitated and rebelled, sometimes violently, against attempts to enshrine a form of government that protected property and investment, but not civil liberties.

The result of this bottom-up revolution was the grafting of the Bill of Rights to what had been the original version of the Constitution, a document judged unacceptable by We, the People.

It was a pragmatic response to what had become a contentious process of reconciling liberty with the demands of capital. Still, the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was a ragged compromise that left many burning issues -- most prominently slavery -- unresolved.

Though imperfect, the fight to expand the protections of the Constitution was a uniquely American howl of discontent by the people against those who would presume to rule us.

Though it goes against the prevailing fairy-tale narrative we're taught in school, the men we venerate as the founders of our republic originally wanted to build a country that was less free in every way that matters to us today. But ordinary people stood up to them by insisting on their right to share in the spoils of the American dream.

If the framers of the Constitution harbored undemocratic instincts that favored the rich, is it really surprising that the men and women who followed them into public service two centuries later have a similar moral gyroscope?

For nearly a month, citizens protesting the unseemly disparity in wealth and political influence in this country have gathered in cities across this country in a movement known by the shorthand "Occupy Wall Street."

These Americans haven't allowed the cynicism of the self-satisfied in the media or politics to diminish the urgency of their protests. Like their 18th century predecessors who dared to oppose men who embodied the Enlightenment, the protesters in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement believe their voices can be heard over the cacophony of money.

This is shocking to those who snicker and gawk from the sidelines. It is "unfashionable" and even unpatriotic to believe in one's ability, through individual or collective action, to affect history.

Two centuries later, it is considered "American" to accept the brutal facts of modern capitalism with equanimity. So what if 1 percent of the population controls a quarter of the wealth? So what if politicians in both parties are dedicated to perpetuating this evil status quo? As long as you have an opportunity to get rich in theory, what's the problem?

Citizens who gather to make their voices heard over the cacophony of money in this country are routinely ridiculed as dreamers, anarchists and communists when all they're doing is participating in a tradition as old as America itself. If this is communism, then we need more of it.

Tomorrow, this city enters the fray with an Occupy Pittsburgh march that begins at Freedom Corner in the Hill District at 11 a.m. before wending its way Downtown. It may look ragged at times, but contrary to the scoffers, this is exactly what democracy looks like.