"A Republic ... if you can keep it."  Those were the famous words of Ben Franklin in response to the question posed to him at the end of the quite closed 1787 Constitutional Convention, called to construct a political system designed to continue the unity of the 13 newly independent American states now that the war with Britain had passed.

A "republic" drawn from the Latin res publica or "thing of the people."  Okay.  That was hardly surprising, because America had long been governed not by some king, royal bureaucracy, or privileged aristocracy but by the people themselves directly, or through their regularly elected representatives.

But ... "if you can keep it."  What did he mean by that?  Although his questioners were probably aware of the fact that societies rise and fall in history, they were probably not as well informed as the highly educated Franklin about how that process actually works.  Franklin was undoubtedly well aware of the writings of the ancient Greek Aristotle, who made it very clear that societies thrive solely on the moral foundations that direct the thoughts and actions of any people ... regardless of how their society is shaped politically, whether governed by a single individual, a small group of people, or the people themselves.  He was also well aware of how the ancient Romans lost sight of the rule of law and their Republic thus turned into an Empire ruled by ambitious generals.   In short, he was very aware of how a successful republic depended heavily on the durability of its legal-moral foundations ... ones not to be messed with by ambitious political figures.

But why should Franklin have any doubts?  Weren't the Americans themselves exemplary moral creatures?

Look. He just went through a hot summer locked in conference with a group of politicians − mostly lawyers − who argued most cleverly and almost constantly as they defended their own states' particular interests in how this unity system should actually turn out.  The arguing became so bad that Franklin had to rise to the occasion and remind them of the higher moral obligations that they should be serving.  And he was very precise in mentioning that those came from God alone, through prayer and spiritual consultation, using Biblical text to make his point.  He reminded them that in the dark days of the recent war with England, the American leaders had every day looked to God in prayer to direct them.  If now they thought themselves better able than divine guidance to build this new political system ... they ought not to expect much of worth to result.  After all, weren't they tiring of this endless round of rational argument?

His challenge to go higher finally worked for them.  Thus resulted our Constitution.

So how do you think Franklin would feel if he could see how much "progressive lawmaking" by ambitious politicians, rather than the people's observance of the eternal laws of God revealed in a loving Christ, shapes the American Republic today?

Miles Hodges is a writer, historian and political analyst who explores the question of why societies behave as they do ... especially in this matter of their rise and fall.