I do believe the most all of the founders of this nation were of similar mold. It is much why there was effort to reduce or limit powers of government.
Though I cannot prove it, I've been told that among the earliest conversations in the first Continental congress (held somewhat in secret at that point, to evade detection by Tory tattle-tales) was agreement to an unnamed person expressing sentiment that "all men are evil" or similar. They knew that whatever they did produce, there would always be those whom would strive to subvert it for their own ends. That much, has been known from the beginning. I dare say that most then realized also, that no amount of "law" would overturn the capacity for evil in the heart of man, so a wary eye should be turned towards not providing simply another avenue for an individual or group of persons to use powers of government to unduly oppress others. Oppressing certain behaviours or tendencies, was another matter entirely. For that was part of the very thing they needed to do.
Is there some other model elsewhere, which does this better? In the end, what are we left with regardless, other than a center of gravity reliant upon how well a majority follows the teachings of God, seen through the lens of Christ?
What nation is that? Where is it? What is it's name? There was none other at the time...for other efforts were by "king's prerogative", or by diktat.
Is there some superior model (to our original U.S. Constitution)? If so ---where?
While searching for this governmental nirvana, please do not allow yourself to be confused as to the founding father's considering the form of government eventually settled upon (as distasteful as it was to more than a few, even then) as being considered perfect. Rather, remarking upon it today, it could be much as what Churchill is attributed to having said of "capitalism". It is the worst system in the world ---except for all the others.
The Founders and Framers were well informed, by Protestant tradition, classical learning, and alertness to what surrounded them..
I'm a Dominican. I fancy myself pretty good at philosophy and theology, though I am an amateur. Kolokotronis is no slouch at his tradition and his view of ultimate Truth. By the demanding standards of our avocations (once, when I thought myself an Episcopal priest, my profession) there are meaningful things we can say about the theological defects of the vision of the founders.
I do not think it a blanket, a total condemnation and rejection when Kolokotronis implies that we Dominicans are doing it ALL WRONG! I am pretty confident that he does not think I am rejecting him when I (entirely correctly, by the way) describe him as an Attic imbecile who couldn't put together a coherent theological system if a case of ouzo depended on it.
In other words, among us extremely old school Xtians, a profound respect for the thinking and acts of people with whom we disagree in no way excludes a protracted and vicious argument against some small part of it. If I were in Kolokotronis's league, I would throw down against him. That would in no way interfere with my reliance on him for spiritual advice and even wisdom.
In our tradition, it is important that God once moved an ass to speak truth. (YES, Kolokotronis, I'm talking about you.)
So we feel free to highlight the errors of the founders and framers AS we also revere them.
Some Protestants don't get this. Their loss.
:-)