Meritocracy vs Aristocracy in the time of the founders. (dropped in GD, cross posted here)

[Ed Suspicious]

I was just reading a biography of 2nd President John Adams, by David C. Whitney, when I came across a curious line that seemed odd to me given the idea, that seems to be held by many staunch libertarian conservatives that surrounds the founding of our country. An idea which regards early America as a great meritocracy. That is to say, if a man worked hard and had a bit of talent, he could rise and make whatever he wanted of himself. He was only limited by his own ambition and ability. America, the land of opportunity.

". . . John Adams entered Harvard at the age of sixteen. He was regarded as one of the best students of his class of twenty-four, but was ranked fourteenth in the class according to his social position."

So it was only vaguely noted that he was thought to be ranked somewhere around the top of his class academically, but his social status was so important that they had an impressively specific quantification and recording of his 14th place in the much more important contest of social position. This suggests to me that social class and inherited wealth were much more valuable to the Founders than any meritocratic ideal at our country's founding. I think the founder's views of America, as influenced by their social position, are to be far less idealized by everyday working men and women, such as those who compose the Tea Party, than they realize.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. We tend to forget...

that the Founders were British citizens at the time and held close to the cherished ideals of the British class system.