Reddit mentions of Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (Published by the Omohundro Institute of Early ... and the University of North Carolina Press)

Unfortunately your entire ideology is based on a factual misunderstanding of American history and the purpose of the American revolution which was not to "fight off tyranny" but a coalition of slave owners seeking to expand the slave territories in opposition to limits imposed by European politics and British fear of American slave power, early industrial and merchant capitalists seeking to increase American economic protectionism, and white settlers who wanted to steal the land and wealth of the native Americans. Of course these groups conflicted at various times, leading to the mercantilist character of the Articles of Confederation clashing with the yeoman settler rebellions (Shay's rebellion being the most famous) which led to the American constitution becoming less democratic.

Obviously democratic here refers to white people, native americans and slaves were the prize of the American revolution which is why the majority of natives and blacks supported the British until the Continental army promised blacks freedom if they fought (which was a lie) while America used the war as an excuse to wipe out the remnants of the Iroquois confederacy (which was far more democratic than the American constitution).

Thus, even by the standards of the time, the founding fathers were more tyrannical than the British they were fighting, let alone the standards of today which presume blacks and natives are human beings. Thomas Jefferson understood this perfectly well and opposed the elitists like Hamilton, Washington and Adams who not only opposed democracy but opposed British parliamentary republicanism.

It's not entirely your fault you don't know your own history, the version of American history taught in schools is simply propaganda with no relation to reality. But you need to do a lot of work before you even begin to think about having 'informed' political opinions. There are countless books to choose from, here are a few which I personally enjoy or have heard good things about:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674735347

https://www.amazon.com/Half-Has-Never-Been-Told/dp/046500296X

https://www.amazon.com/Forced-Founders-Revolution-Published-Williamsburg/dp/0807847844/ref=pd_sim_14_11?ie=UTF8&dpID=51cov1ob19L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR106%2C160_&psc=1&refRID=ZBQ3M98VY4DG35H71GXS

I may be presuming too much of your abilities, in which case Zinn's A People's History of the United States is a perfectly acceptable work for laymen written in a popular style.

Restricting voting to property owners is cited as an attempt to have only those vote that have a demonstrated interest in improving society. The thought is that if you have investments in the community, then you have a greater interest in protecting those investments and will be a informed, dutiful citizen as a result.

Woody Holton in Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (The University of North Carolina Press, 1999), p. 218 briefly dives into enfranchisement in his analysis of revolutionary-era Virginia, and he argues that this was more of an excuse concocted by the gentry class than anything else. While George Mason voiced his concern about the influx of what he referred to as "ignorant or obscure" men winning elections and gaining seats on the legislature, he had very little reason to fear that the gentry class was going to be pushed out of power. Holton notes that the steps toward democracy in the state's 1776 constitution were relatively limited. The aristocratic-controlled legislature chose the Governor, the county Justices served life terms with vacancies being filled by their peers, and they even continued some vestigial traditions from the colonial period with the Governor appointing new Justices directly based on the recommendations of those currently sitting Justices. He concludes that limited voting rights simply came from the Virginia gentry's attempt to stay in firm control of the political system.

In this section, Holton cites Robert Beeman, The Old Dominion and the New Nation, 1788-1801 (Lexington, Ky., 1972) p. 33, 35. I wasn't able to find a digital copy online, but here is a review of the book that you might be able to access to determine if it will be helpful for you.

This is not an issue that was soon resolved in Virginia. This debate played out when forming their 1830 Constitution, when they were one of the few states in the nation to have such limited suffrage. I imagine that constitutional convention would be ripe for research on this topic.

Colonial Williamsburg Journal has a nice summary of the era's voting rights that may give you some ideas as well.

Be wary of using Google in searching this topic as this has recently become a re-politicized issue. Always confirm that your sources are good.

> had the gumption to buck centuries-old notions of social divisions and government in exchange for ideas based on crackpot liberal theories from continental fringe political theorists.

Yes and no. This is a very traditional, what we would call "whiggish" interpretation of the American Revolution. There are plenty of theories that portray Virginia's founders as acting as "revolutionaries" only to maintain their traditional social and political hierarchies. My favorite, that I assign all the time, is:

https://www.amazon.com/Forced-Founders-Revolution-Published-University/dp/0807847844

I've had this book recommended to me, which was shockingly published by a cultural institute at my university. Though I have not read it I do trust the person it was recommended by.

https://www.amazon.com/Forced-Founders-Revolution-Published-Williamsburg/dp/0807847844/ref=pd_sim_14_11?ie=UTF8&dpID=51cov1ob19L&dpSrc=sims&preST=AC_UL160_SR106%2C160&psc=1&refRID=ZBQ3M98VY4DG35H71GXS