EDIT: further, it's frequently forgotten that the "founding fathers", despite wanting to create a freer nation that those in Europe, didn't exactly intend on creating a true democracy either: you can take a look at Madison to get the point. Their idea was mostly to limit the power to landowners and other wealthy people, not the great mass of the population.
I don't know much about the US history. But are you saying that the founding fathers were against giving voting rights to all the citizens? If I remember correctly, then the US was one of the first countries to abolish slavery and give voting rights to the black people.
No, I don't believe they were against giving voting rights to a lot of the population (well, mostly free white males anyway), but that was to be kept in check by the Senate, which was to be constituted by the "betters of society" (read, the wealthy). So in this sense, other than simply keeping a hold on power, one of their main concerns was to avoid a land reform (a redistribution of wealth) that would follow from inequality in a democracy.
In Madison's own words:
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.
