A QUOTE IN CONTEXT – What did Franklin really think about Liberty and Safety?

I love Franklin quotes. He was a genius of a writer. The man himself was a mixed bag, and if I’d known him personally I would probably have had serious issues with some of his behavior. But there is no doubt that he left an astounding number of great quotes for posterity. So great, in fact, that over 200 years later, people still love to throw them around.

But do we really know what they mean?

Today, I want to talk about a quote that is very popular among libertarians and others who worry about government overreach:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Seems like a pretty straightforward quote, right? If you give up your liberties by trading them to purchase some kind of temporary safety, you don’t deserve either.

The quote is often used to argue against things like like government surveillance of citizens. And though I haven’t actually seen it, I’m sure somebody has used it to argue against the shelter-in-place orders in the current crises. But was that kind of meaning what Franklin actually had in mind?

Well, some people argue it wasn’t. Look what happened when I googled some key words to find the quote:

The top two results both quote Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, basically saying that the quote is being taking out of context and completely misused. The argument is roughly as follows:

The original quote comes from a 1755 letter about taxation and defense during the French and Indian war, in which Franklin is urging the governor to pass a bill sent to him by the legislature, and along the way arguing that the influential Penn family shouldn’t object to being taxed, along with everybody else, to raise funds for the defense of the frontier border of their state.

Wittes claims that this context means Franklin was not actually talking about liberty as we think of it, but about money and defense, and that the quote therefore doesn’t really apply to most of the causes it is commonly attached to. In fact, he implies, it is closer to the opposite. In the words of of Inigo from Princess Bride:

Wow. Is he right?

I immediately set off to find out. (As those of you who know me are probably aware, random research is basically what I do for fun.)

But I immediately encountered a far-too-common problem: NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

Oh yes, the articles (read them here and here if you want) certainly reference original documents. But they don’t let me SEE them. They paraphrase things in their own words and talk about what that the documents mean. Problem is, I’m not really all that interested in their personal opinions. I speak English. I’m literate. If you give me the actual letter, I can see the context quite well myself, thank you. But no. They don’t include the letter, or even a large quotation, in either article. Not even a link to where I could find it elsewhere.

Thankfully, after searching around a bit, I was able to find a digital version of it here. It’s rather long, but I dutifully read the whole thing, and finally found the section in question way down in the second-to-last paragraph. And it turns out, the context is somewhat ambiguous. After spending most of the letter talking about the taxation, the war, the Penn family, etc, we get a slight shift in subject and encounter this in the start of a fresh paragraph:

“…we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety…”

He then moves on to talk about arming the settlers, and getting ammunition to those who need it. So this key quote is almost an aside. He does not elaborate a lot on what he meant by “going further.” Apparently there is a line that ought not be crossed, even for the defense of the settlers (and they themselves would not wish the government to cross it) but what that line IS he does not really specify.

However, even this small amount of context make’s Wittes’s argument seem faulty. Yes, he’s right, the main point of the letter was about taxation and money. But this particular section was NOT.

However, I grant that there might be some room for confusion, because of the way the statement is just sort of thrown out there without a lot of explanation, in the middle of a letter that is mostly on a different subject. How do we know exactly what Franklin meant? How do we know if we are really interpreting the quote the way he intended?

Elementary my dear Watson. We ask Franklin himself.

It was not only future generations who found Franklin so wonderfully quotable. In fact, Franklin rather enjoyed quoting himself! (A quirk that was humorously mentioned in another one of my favorite movies, 1776.***)

I grew up watching this movie every Fourth of July.
The humor in it is absolutely priceless.

(Wow. I seem to be on a movie-quoting spree today.)

Anyway, as it turns out, the first person to recycle this famous statement about liberty and safety into a new context was….you guessed it…Benjamin Franklin. He used a slightly altered version of this quote 20 years later in 1775. At that point, he was part of a delegation that was still trying to achieve a peaceful reconciliation with the British crown. (*Spoiler Alert…they failed). Seventeen points were brought forward for discussion, some of which were rejected by each side. In making a report on the situation, Franklin admitted that some of the issues might be compromised on. But on others, specifically the ones about Parliament meddling in the internal political affairs of the colonies, and troops being quartered in the colonies without the consent of the local legislature, he was quite firm. The colonies could NOT compromise these without compromising their basic liberties. Even for the sake of “temporary safety.”

And here he is, quoting himself:

As to the other two acts, the Massachusetts must suffer all the hazards and mischiefs of war rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by Parliament. ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

In other words, their laws and liberties were too precious to be infringed upon, even for the sake of safety. And it would be better for them to risk a lot of death and suffering than to allow those liberties and laws to be trampled on. (Read the full context of his comments here.)

So. Although his first use of the phrase MIGHT be considered a bit ambiguous in it’s context, I’d say that its later use pretty clearly spells out what he meant. Anybody who claims that the modern use of the quote is “taking it out of context” or “butchering” it’s original meaning is, I politely maintain, just plain wrong. They might be very sincere. They might have the best of intentions. But they simply don’t have the facts straight.

Now, you don’t have to agree with Franklin. (I disagree with him on plenty of subjects myself.) You can say he got his priorities backward, that he blew things out of proportion, and didn’t value human life enough. You can say he was a lunatic for all I care. But please don’t try to tell me that the “original context” of the quote proves he was saying something totally unrelated to what we thought he was saying.

It doesn’t. And he wasn’t.

Franklin’s famous quote means pretty much exactly what we think it means.

(Sorry, Inigo.)


P.S. I know some of you are probably wondering what in the world this post had to do with my writing or costume designing. Well….nothing, actually. But sometimes I just get really interested in a random subject and assume somebody else might be too. Haha.

***Warning. This movie, although great fun, does have a significant amount of language. Lots of d–n, h–l, and taking God’s name in vain. I recommend using filtering technology of some kind if this bothers you. (I’ve had friends take my mention of the movie as a recommendation and then be horribly offended by the content. So. Fair warning.)

What do YOU think? Have you ever wondered where Franklin’s famous quote originally came from? Do you think it still applies today? Have you heard someone try to claim it doesn’t “mean what you think it means”? Also, does anybody else think Princess Bride is one of the most quotable movies ever? Let me know in the comments!

15 thoughts on “A QUOTE IN CONTEXT – What did Franklin really think about Liberty and Safety?

  1. Kellyn Roth says:

    I love this! I honestly had never thought about the context, but … it totally means exactly what I thought in context. 😛 Glad you dug into it a bit, though!

  2. Stuart says:

    Personally I think that Franklin woke up one morning with something of the sort in his head, wrote it down, liked the way it rolled out of his pen, and began using it opportunistically. It is just dropped into the letter to the governor. Benjamin Witte can say that it means one thing because he sees an application of it. Another reader can see another application involving the freemen of Pennsylvania unwilling to relinquish their self-determination for some overreaching act from the Assembly. Another reader can see another application involving the liberty of self-governance of all the colonies. Franklin may well have been carefully building a case for the American revolution. It really doesn’t matter. The logic of the relationship between essential liberty and security is the same. It is tautological. It is actually meaningless except as a reductio ad absurdum.

  3. Stuart says:

    It is worth noting however that in Franklin’s time the focus was on liberty as it concerns self-determination at the level of the body politic. The primary concern of anyone in Franklin’s position would be with the tensions and discord brought about by governance from afar. Only derivatively would there be concern for the civil liberties of individuals. The freemen of Pennsylvania are not free-standing. Their freedom derives from their body politic.

    The foundational belief was that a free people are self-governing. As a body they have jurisdiction over their internal affairs, which is to say that they have the power and the authority to direct their destiny. There is no suggestion that the individuals living within society are or should be self-governing, certainly not when it is taken to mean absence of internal constraint and disregard for the welfare of others. Self-governance cannot relieve itself of governance.

    While “live free or die” might be just the call for a people oppressed by a foreign power, “free” cannot be appropriated by individuals within a body politic to mean whatever they want it to mean. Nor is there any suggestion by Franklin that one body politic should have governance over the jurisdiction of another body politic. There are natural limits to the reach of jurisdiction. They apply equally to the peoples within a body politic – most visibly to the manifold oppressions at the root of our current social discord. Full and efficacious representation within a framework of clearly circumscribed jurisdiction is the remedy.

  4. Stuart says:

    To get to the point about the tautology within Franklin’s remark, essential liberty is a matter of self-determination. There is no overlord. It is in the operation of self-determination, realized within the jurisdiction of a body politic, to obtain safety through protection from outside powers and adventitious causes. This involves no loss of liberty. It is indeed safety that conduces to liberty and the realization of the aspirations of a people. Intrinsic to self-determination is the power to chart and take the considered course, and implement whatever safety measures are needed to ensure the destination is reached.

    On the other hand, safety obtained through the invitation of a power outside the jurisdiction of the body politic necessarily involves a loss of liberty. As long as there is Other in contradistinction to Self, self-determination is compromised. There are multiple cases in which this can occur.

    There is fear of the loss of liberty to an Other in consequence of merely the exercise of that liberty. This is a case in which liberty has already been lost. It is lost the moment fear becomes the constraint on what is done. It is lost to nothing other than fear. In its place is the semblance of safety.

    Then there is the supplication for safety. The supplication is not a directive. The supplicant has no jurisdiction over the power providing the safety. If the power responds, though it may appear to be a case of benevolence, it is a case in which a debt is owed. Despite the semblance of safety, there is no assurance that the power will withdraw from the area over which the body politic originally had jurisdiction.

    Then there is the business deal. The body politic makes some form of payment to the power in exchange for safety. Given the semblance of safety, this may appear to be an improvement. Yet there is nothing but a transactional and ultimately non-binding agreement that the power will withdraw from the area.

    Then there is the call for the power to provide safety. This can happen if the body politic is owed a debt by the power. While this is the unstable beginning of a measure of jurisdiction over the power, it does not extend to the expulsion of the power.

    In all these cases an outside power effectively occupies an area over which the body politic originally had jurisdiction – even in the first case in which there is only the threat of occupation. If the body politic had felt its jurisdiction to be adequate, it would have provided for its own safety and would not have felt the need to issue the invitation. In sum, this outside power that provides safety is the very power that imperils safety. Thus it is not temporary safety that is purchased. It is false safety. It is essentially a palliative for fear. True safety expands liberty. It provides a sure path to do what a people aspire to do.

    • Ben says:

      but in the original case there is no outside power providing safety – the dispute is originally around exice tax and later the taxation of Penn land. By rasing funds via taxation to raise a defence budget the outside power that you reference does not exist and hence the tautology is non existent. If i am wrong please let me know what outside power you are referencing.

  5. Stuart says:

    As what Franklin says is tautological, there’s no need to look around to identify an outside power. It’s all in the meaning of his words: “give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety”. Essential liberty is given by A to a something B, doesn’t matter what it is, in return for B providing A with “a little temporary safety”. B is the outside power. Essential liberty cannot be given up to anything other than an outside power. One cannot give up essential liberty to oneself.

  6. Brian Patrick says:

    This is how leftist mentality, along with the hard right, have used google and big tech (corporate fascism) to totally control even our history. The quote, “he who has the power writes the history books” also needs to add “re-writes the history books”. All google results showed the context being wrong until I finally found the original document. When I read it, it seemed he was saying liberty over defense, although you needed to know exactly what he meant to know WHY the “freemen” didn’t want them to go further. Your research, through other means, identifies his thinking. Interesting how this is hidden from us all. Satan is the father of lies and deception. Makes sense then that these corporate fascist would skew history in such a way!

  7. Monroe Quinn says:

    I’m so glad to have found this. I went looking for the original place of the quote and found your article. And I truly appreciate it, because it helped me get my research done a little faster. The reason that I went looking was because I opened a book that we had purchased several years ago by Cody Lundin that’s called “When All Hell Breaks Loose”, and the opening page before the contents says “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither And lose both”. – Benjamin Franklin. I was curious as I’ve never seen it with the “… and lose both.” at the end before.

  8. Amanda Wright says:

    I totally agree! I did the same as you; looked up the quote, saw the NPR article and others detailing how the quote has been misinterpreted, and then went and found the original document. I came the same conclusion you did – that Franklin had changed topics a bit and was NOT talking about the taxation at that point. And you went even further and found more evidence from what Franklin said later in life, so good on you! Thanks for this! We need to be people who don’t take the first result on Google – or the first 10 results – as truth. We need to be seekers of the truth. It is hard work!

  9. Beitzel says:

    I thought it quite funny that you mentioned Googling the quote and finding the top results being that the quote has been horrendously butchered and taken out of context :D. Not that Google, which is in the business of gathering and profiting off your information, has any vested interest in adjusting your perception of its meaning.

    Honestly, it doesn’t even make sense that Franklin would quip that freedom should not be given up for security while discussing the Penn family and taxation. It’s obvious when read in “context”–as the top Google results claim–that he is talking about those under attack on the frontier. It suggests that those people would rather suffer than to subject themselves to outside authority that, while providing aid and succor, may impose their own will.

    Franklin never said don’t seek security; that would be moronic. He only stated that you shouldn’t sacrifice that which makes you free to gain security. You’ll never stop paying the price…

  10. Dave (1465) says:

    People sometimes laugh out loud when they recognize themselves in the subject matter. I found this quite amusing because it describes my sentiments exactly:

    “Oh yes, the articles (read them here and here if you want) certainly reference original documents. But they don’t let me SEE them. They paraphrase things in their own words and talk about what that the documents mean. Problem is, I’m not really all that interested in their personal opinions. I speak English. I’m literate. If you give me the actual letter, I can see the context quite well myself, thank you. But no. They don’t include the letter, or even a large quotation, in either article. Not even a link to where I could find it elsewhere.”

    I do a lot of research in the field of history and the lack of quotable sources is astonishing. I can identify with your frustrations in this regard.

  11. Free Man says:

    Thanks for gathering this info! The Brookings Institute is sketchy, and I didn’t believe Wittes’ interpretation was made in good faith.

  12. Rachel says:

    I saw this quote on a chalkboard outside this cute country ice cream shop, and I think after looking up what the definition of essential liberty was ( lol i tend to have to know specifically what something means before i can even begin to think about what it could possibly mean) and after coming across your post on it, i think it makes sense. I couldnt figure out just what he was trying to say, because safety to me seems to be an essential liberty in itself, but i guess when it comes to privacy of self and safety of all, I honestly myself dont know if I would give up safety of all. You can always find privacy of true self inside you, where else safety of all, is kind of hard to enquire when you dont know when or where this safety has gone (basically saying in layman terms, you arent ever aware of safety until its no longer there). Sorry i went off on a tangent.

    Basically thank you for explaining the quote. Usually it takes awhile for me to understand such broad statements.

    Your wonderful.

Leave a Reply! I'd love to hear from you!