I like your view of history. Indeed, I like anyone who can so blindly ignore all the countervailing evidence. It's special, and I applaud it.
Not to point out the obvious, but the states didn't actually have the right secede. Though some thought they did, it turned out they were wrong. Moreover, the federal government wasn't designed to be rather powerless; it was designed such that what powers it required would be diffuse and disparate among three co-equal branches to avoid the pooling of power into one mere branch. That we frequently send opposing parties to the White House and the Congress tends, as I said, to frustrate the process of efficiency. But while doing so, it at least, presumably, restricts the amount of power either can hold. It isn't a perfect system, but we've somehow managed not implode yet.
Not to take issue with your definitions, but a populist, social oligarchy. If I understand the term, it's anathema to an oligarchy. And doesn't socialism tend to distribute power of the "elite" to the greater population as a whole? I think many wouldn't disagree with the idea that in our country, money is frequently a driving force behind one's power. Redistributing that wealth would seem to cut against the power remaining in the hands of the few.
Also, and this is a minor note, the people are free at any time to dissolve the government and start anew. That we choose not to says to me that on level, the government is working how the majority generally want it to. Since the power ultimately is in the hands of the citizenry who merely loan it to the representatives, it would seem that if we truly are an oligarchy, it's one of massive proportions - which stands in opposition to an oligarchy.
Maybe I've missed something in your diatribe

