Over the years, we delved very deeply into the "were America's founders Christians or Deists?" debate and one issue is "are all founders created equal?" (Because a disproportionate number of the religiously heterodox thinkers occupied prominent positions, and are termed "key founders," intimating their positions should be held with higher regard -- see below.)
Firstly, we must establish "what is a founder?" That definition is up for debate. Certainly, all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (but do its five authors have more weight?). And those at the Constitutional Convention. Well 39 out of the 55 delegates signed the document. What about the 16, like Patrick Henry, who did not? (Because he "smelt a rat.") Well, those Anti-Federalists played an important role in helping to deliver the Bill of Rights.
The "key Founders" -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin and a few others -- get most of the attention. And we also debate who are the "few others" who are entitled to this "first tier status"?
But should there even be a "first tier status"? That is, it's been argued that if one qualifies as a "founder" then they are entitled to some kind of equal status with regards to their authority as the others.
This is something that struck me: As much attention as we've paid to various founders, even those who don't qualify as "key founders," there are all sorts of ones that we've ignored.
There is one notable founder ignored in particular in the sense that he's NEVER cited authoritatively. Though, technically he qualifies as a "founding father." Indeed, arguably he's 2nd tier up there with John Jay, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush and others.
His name is Aaron Burr. The guy was, among other things, a Senator and then Vice President of the United States; he WAS a founder whose position "counts." But, again, almost never invoked authoritatively.
On the religious issues, it's been noted that Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin were "non orthodox Trinitarian Christians"; we could say "Deists," but that raises another can of worms because all three believed in Providence. And research has arguably demonstrated the term "Providential Deist" is actually NOT a contradiction. (But we may wish to use a different term anyway to describe such for other reasons.)
There are others too who perhaps belong in that heterodox box, though there's not as much evidence. John Marshall, for instance. George Wythe. Also James Madison, George Washington and G. Morris. Though as much scrutiny as we've put Madison and Washington under, there is still some doubt as to which way either of them should be categorized (other than both believing in a warm Providence at minimum).
I think Aaron Burr too was, despite his uber-orthodox family lineage, one of the "not orthodox Christian" types. I think I remember Christian Nationalist David Barton once call him a "Deist." Take this with a grain of salt. I'm going from memory and this was years ago. And Barton has been put through so much scrutiny (much arguably deserved). In fact, it may have been Benedict Arnold that I remember Barton categorizing as a Deist.
But the point is Burr may be presently invoked, but he's NOT cited authoritatively as a "founding father." I DO remember Barton narrating the Burr/Hamilton duel on a video production and when Burr's name was mentioned, the production played ominous music.
In other words, Burr wasn't a "real founder." Rather he was some kind of villainous anti-founder. You could legitimately categorize Benedict Arnold that way. Jacob Duche too (who is often portrayed as some kind of hero according to the Christian Nationalist narrative). Because both of them turned against "the cause."
But not Burr. He was a "real founder." If these bean counting citations matter, there's no reason for him not to score authoritative points for whatever positions or beliefs he held. If what he did to Hamilton could poison his authoritative well, Hamilton's affair could poison his. G. Morris' rampant promiscuous fornication and adultery (he was unmarried but had sex with married women) could poison his, James Wilson landing in debtor's prison could poison his, etc. etc.
I haven't looked closely into Burr's religious creed like I have the others. But we may wish to start with this piece from The Saturday Evening Post in 1868 which suggest he was a "freethinker" bucking conventional religious beliefs, but that he had an orthodox Christian death. Which if true would make his faith journey ironically similar to Hamilton's. (I'm convinced with most scholars that Hamilton didn't become a traditional orthodox Christian until after his son died in a duel.) Though the Post piece certainly needs to be "fact checked."
