“A republic madam, if you can keep it.” What did Ben Franklin mean by his famous retort at the close of the 1787 Federal Convention? Here’s a clue: Voting every two years is insufficient effort to keep a republic.

Franklin and his convention peers knew that unlike tyrannies and absolute monarchies, republics required the people’s active participation. This wasn’t a new concept; our Framers were well aware of Roman and Greek republics, all of which amended and improved their unwritten constitutions as changing times warranted. It was from their love of liberty and dread of consolidated power the Roman Republic spanned 450 years. They kept their republic.

While the Framers structured the best government they thought possible for their times, they knew their plan of 1787 must be likewise amenable to change. Article V provided for the peaceful change they envisioned for a free people. Make Ben smile.

Over the next one hundred forty plus years until the New Deal, Americans applied the Framers’ Article V gift to amend their constitution over twenty times. We refined existing national powers and expanded individual rights. We kept the republic.

Yet, with the New Deal, Washington DC increasingly assumed powers not remotely granted by the Sovereign People. So many wholesale judicial amendments to settled constitutional clauses were made that they required the new term, “living and breathing” be used to describe the Constitution...

"Franklin and his convention peers knew that unlike tyrannies and absolute monarchies, republics required the people’s active participation."

This was all summed up for me about 50 years ago in the phrase;

Never discuss politics, sex and religion

Which seemed like sage advice that most people took

except ....

As we look around EVERY ONE OF OUR PROBLEMS is centered around politics, sex and religion

We stopped talking about politics, sex and religion, and started talking about baseball and football and TV and a bunch of et cetera's

The beauty of FR is the constant discussion of pertinent matters to the Republic and even the religious caucusses .... we're talking.

We may not know our neighbors as well as we'd like, but we have a pretty good idea what kind of a whack job knarf is

An Enlightened, Committed People Who Understand The Principles Of Our Constitution

- The Most Effective Means Of Preserving Liberty

"Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant - they have been cheated; asleep - they have been surprised; divided - the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? ...the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it.... It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free." James Madison

America's Constitution is the means by which knowledgeable and free people, capable of self-government, can bind and control their elected representatives in government. In order to remain free, the Founders said, the people themselves must clearly understand the ideas and principles upon which their Constitutional government is based. Through such understanding, they will be able to prevent those in power from eroding their Constitutional protections.

The Founders established schools and seminaries for the distinct purpose of instilling in youth the lessons of history and the ideas of liberty. And, in their day, they were successful. Tocqueville, eminent French jurist, traveled America and in his 1830's work, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, wrote:

".every citizen ... is taught . the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution ... it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon."

On the frontier, he noted that "...no sort of comparison can be drawn between the pioneer and the dwelling that shelters him.... He wears the dress and speaks the language of the cities; he is acquainted with the past, curious about the future, and ready for argument about the present.... I do not think that so much intellectual activity exists in the most enlightened and populous districts of France' " He continued, "It cannot be doubted that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic; and such must always be the case...where the instruction which enlightens the understanding is not separated from the moral education.."

Possessing a clear understanding of the failure of previous civilizations to achieve and sustain freedom for individuals, our forefathers discovered some timeless truths about human nature, the struggle for individual liberty, the human tendency toward abuse of power, and the means for curbing that tendency through Constitutional self-government. Jefferson's Bill For The More General Diffusion Of Knowledge For Virginia declared:

"...experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government), those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate...the minds of the people...to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth. History, by apprizing them of the past, will enable them to judge of the future...it will qualify them judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.."

Education was not perceived by the Founders to be a mere process for teaching basic skills. It was much, much more. Education included the very process by which the people of America would understand and be able to preserve their liberty and secure their Creator-endowed rights. Understanding the nature and origin of their rights and the means of preserving them, the people would be capable of self government, for they would recognize any threats to liberty and "nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud." (Adams)

Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5

See, or, here.

Wow, that's how a liberal would react. With all due respect. There's no comparison between what the Roman dictators did and what people like Washington did, at all. Attempting to make such a comparison is tantamount to call the USA an extension of the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, especially the legs of iron and the feet of iron and clay—which ought to be an insult to any Christian who knows what that image means. Not to mention, Roman magistrates and Senators were elected for life, and separation of powers were not absolute, leading to internal rebellion between the castes from time to time, such as the Plebeian Secession of 494 BC. Roman dictators changed the republic's constitution and laws by fiat, ruled as the dictators of the twentieth century did, and only by abolishing the dictatorial system could Rome survive as a republic since said system was actually a remnant of the preceding Roman Kingdom. No leader of the US has ever done such a thing—until now. As for Thomas Nelson and Yorktown, he was not in any governmental position within Virginia at that time (or ever, that I could see—he was military commander however), and his very own house was occupied by the British commander Cornwallis, which he urged (depending on the source) either Washington or Lafayette to not withhold firing on. Foraging on the enemy (who occupied many parts of Virginia back then) is a normal procedure of war, not the act of a dictator in particular. You asked me to "educate (my)self", and that's what I have come up with.

(Sorry; don’t know how the paragraph breaks went away. I must have used some HTML character by accident. Mods, please remove post #9.)

Wow, that’s how a liberal would react. With all due respect.

There’s no comparison between what the Roman dictators did and what people like Washington, Lincoln or even Thomas Nelson Junior did, at all. Attempting to make such a comparison is tantamount to call the USA an extension of the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, especially the legs of iron and the feet of iron and clay—which ought to be an insult to any Christian who knows what that image means. Not to mention, Roman magistrates and Senators were elected for life, and separation of powers were not absolute, leading to internal rebellion between the castes from time to time, such as the Plebeian Secession of 494 BC.

Roman dictators changed the republic’s constitution and laws by fiat, ruled as the dictators of the twentieth century did, and only by abolishing the dictatorial system could Rome survive as a republic since said system was actually a remnant of the preceding Roman Kingdom. No leader of the US has ever done such a thing—until now.

As for Thomas Nelson and Yorktown, he was not in any governmental position within Virginia at that time (or ever, that I could see—he was military commander however), and his very own house was occupied by the British commander Cornwallis, which he urged (depending on the source) either Washington or Lafayette to not withhold firing on. Foraging on the enemy (who occupied many parts of Virginia back then) is a normal procedure of war, not the act of a dictator in particular.

You asked me to “educate (my)self”, and that’s what I have come up with.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.