Since you failed to grasp why Americans resist federal power so much, I gave you an analogy: originally, it was intended like the relationship between the EU member states and the EU, mostly a free trade zone with independent local control.
In response, you write:
There is a fundamental difference between how the UK relates to the EU and how US states relate to the US government: The UK issues it's own currency.
And what do you know, even if that mattered, for about a century, individual states did issue their own currency. Of course, it doesn't even matter, since the fact that the UK doesn't have the Euro isn't the result of great autonomy, it's a specific exemption.
Now you write :
while not understanding the significance of a constitution being written "by land owners for land owners" while the common modern interpretation is that it is "by the people for the people".
I clearly understand that there are stupid, uneducated people see a contradiction there. I don't see a contradiction. Constitutions are written by all sorts of groups; you have to evaluate them on their merits. So, what unfair bias or problem or rent seeking do you see in the US Constitution for land owners? I see none. If you accuse the Founders of nefarious purposes, be clear what you accuse them of and show evidence of their misdeeds.
Furthermore, the majority of Americans are land owners (we call them "home owners these days), and although the US Constitution doesn't favor land owners, federal, state, and local laws enacted by modern "we the people" most certainly do, because home owners are a powerful voting bloc and actually in the majority. Even in the UK, by the way.