A、They appreciated it very much. B、They thought it would lay down a solid foundation for the new republic. C、They all hated it.

Well, good morning. Last week we went through the beginning of the new republic. There are a number of myths we need to clear up. The first is that the legislators of the US Constitution saw the document as what it was. In fact, a lot of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention hated it. So many compromises had to be made in order to secure agreement that many participants viewed it, as Alexander Hamilton put it, "a weak and worthless fabric". Fifteen delegates refused to sign it, and even the Constitution’s biggest supporters saw it as little more than a makeshift measure—after a few years passed, the new delegates could meet at another convention and try to pass something better. Another myth that has been propagated in history was that the Founding Fathers believed in democracy. The truth is the Founding Fathers, that is, the men who framed the Constitution, disagreed about many things, but on one point they were in complete agreement: that democracy meant mass rule and if uncontrolled, it would pose a grave threat to life, liberty and property, and so on. There was nothing unusual in the Founding Fathers’ suspicion of democracy; it was conventional wisdom in the 18th century. Even well into the 19th century, in the United States as well as Western Europe, the word "democracy" had a boring connotation, especially among conservatives. The question then becomes "how did both the Constitution and democracy become so workable and sustainable?" And that’s what we’ll deal with in the next class.