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!

31 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!

    • Michael says:

      Someone please correct me if I’m wrong or misunderstanding something, but since Franklin’s re-use of the quote in 1775 was referencing Massachusetts’ right to not have charters and laws changed by Parliament, wouldn’t that mean Franklin was talking about “liberty” in the sense of self-government apart from England and not individual liberty like we think of today? He seems to be advocating for their own freedom as a system of government and not directly referencing the liberties of individual people. For context, here’s a link for the original documents that I could find: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-21-02-0269

      Franklin does seem to use his quotes opportunistically, but it just felt like a stretch to me to say that his second quote about Massachusetts’s ability to self-govern should automatically negate how he used the quote originally in 1755, even if that quote might be slightly ambiguous to us today.

      But again, if I’m missing something, I would sincerely like to know. Thanks!

      • Leya Delray says:

        Thanks for your feedback, Michael!

        It was never my intention to argue that the way Franklin used the quote in 1775 “negated” the way he used it 20 years earlier. I was simply pointing out that he probably used it somewhat similarly in both cases.

        I think the immediate paragraph context of the 1755 use (as opposed to the wider context of the entire letter) indicates he was talking about the individual liberties of the frontiersmen being important (vs the local Pennsylvania government infringing on them). And you are correct that the 1775 context is referencing the freedom of local government vs the power of national government (Parliament).

        I don’t think either of these uses negate the other. They are complimentary and I think both indicate that overall, he believed freedom (of multiple kinds) was worth preserving even at the cost of safety. That is the general idea he was putting forward in both cases.

        Wittes tries to argue, from the wider context of the letter, that that’s not really what Franklin was talking about, but I think the way Franklin uses the quote in both cases goes against Wittes argument.

        Thanks for contributing to the conversation!

  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.

  13. Victoria says:

    Thank you! Great article. I was trying to find info on this because I kept hearing people, usually those against liberty and freedom, say that it was out of “context”, but couldn’t find the proof. Like you, I found people explaining it with nothing to back it up. Thank you for finding the info and explaining it plainly for others to see. God bless you.

  14. Michael says:

    I accidentally replied to someone else’s post instead of starting a new comment so I am reposting it here (hopefully it works lol). I also added some new information at the end about some of Franklin’s other writings that I found:

    “Someone please correct me if I’m wrong or misunderstanding something, but since Franklin’s re-use of the quote in 1775 was referencing Massachusetts’ right to not have charters and laws changed by Parliament, wouldn’t that mean Franklin was talking about “liberty” in the sense of self-government apart from England and not individual liberty like we think of today? He seemed to be advocating for their own freedom as a system of government and not directly referencing the liberties of individual people. For context, here’s a link for the original documents that I could find: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-21-02-0269

    Franklin does seem to use his quotes opportunistically, but it just felt like a stretch to me to say that his second quote about Massachusetts’s ability to self-govern should automatically negate how he used the quote originally in 1755, even if that quote might be slightly ambiguous to us today.
    But again, if I’m missing something, I would sincerely like to know. Thanks!”

    Since my original post, I also found a free book that includes a lot of Franklin’s writings, which can be found here: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Writings_of_Benjamin_Franklin.html?id=jmfaceHkyKcC&printsec=frontcover&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_entity

    On page 318, Franklin writes to his son about the negotiations in London between England and America. Based on Franklin’s letter, the complicated nature of politics at that time is enough to make your head spin lol, but page 328 includes the 17 discussion points that Franklin was bringing up to England to resolve their disagreements. Page 382 also includes the second time he used the quote about liberty and safety. While it can be a challenge to read at times, I couldn’t find anything in those 70 pages that was directly related to individual liberties like we think of today. Everything that I read focused much more on the self-governing issues.

    Maybe I’m missing something, and I would gladly like to know if I am. But based on what I’m seeing right now in his writings at the time, I think the modern use of Franklin’s quote is being used a little out of context b/c we use it to talk about our individual freedoms, whereas Franklin was using it to discuss the role of government in the colonies in 1755 and 1775.

    I think one of the key phrases in Franklin’s quote is “essential liberty”. The next question is what Franklin would consider to be “essential”. Because Franklin supported the Constitution (which shifted more power from the states to a federal government), I doubt he would consider ALL liberty “essential”. It’s a balance of how much we’re willing to give up and receive in return.

    The spirit of the quote can be used to mirror our concerns about individual liberties today, but it doesn’t look like Franklin was making a direct connection to our modern sense of individual liberties based on the context of when he used that quote in 1755 and 1775. This would make sense because his primary concerns at the time were different than ours today, which is why I said it does appear that the quote is taken a little out of context when used today.

    I would gladly like to hear other opinions though.

    • Leya Delray says:

      I just posted a reply to your original comment. I’d like to add here that I’m very impressed with your depth of research! And I also appreciate your kind and cordial tone. To answer a couple of things you add here…

      Most people I’ve heard use this quote are not arguing that we should have NO government at all (and neither would Franklin have done so. We all know he supported SOME liberty being given up for SOME safety, it’s just a question of how much and when). I usually hear the quote used in context of people arguing that the government (usually the State or Federal government) is overreaching it’s proper boundaries. And that is something Franklin was definitely concerned about in multiple different contexts. That’s why I believe that saying the quote is being taken “completely out of context” or “butchered” when it’s used today is incorrect. Franklin clearly WAS concerned about potential overreach of both national government (1775) and more local government (1755), and in both cases used that pithy quote to point out that there times and places where we cannot give up our freedom, even if it means we must live in a less “safe” world in order to preserve it.

      So I think when people use it today they are (usually) getting Franklin’s general idea correct, though he may or may not have personally supported whatever issue they are concerned about.

      Thanks again for your thoughtful and well-reasearched comments!

      • Michael says:

        Thank you for taking the time to respond to both of my comments so cordially (sorry for messing up my first post!). In all honesty, I think your second response here provides a more balanced, insightful, and nuanced perspective about your opinion than the end of the original article. If you thought it would be beneficial, I would encourage you to incorporate those thoughts a little more clearly into your original article to provide additional context for your readers. When I read the original article, my impression was that you were taking a stronger stance against those who would think that the quote’s modern use is technically not within the context of how Franklin used it. That might just be me though! Feel free to take my suggestion with a grain of salt.

        After reading Franklin’s statement to the governor several times, I’m still leaning a little more towards Wittes’ perspective that Franklin’s original use of the quote was probably not about what we think of as liberty today. This is mainly because the vast majority of the original statement from 1755 was concerned with Assembly vs. the governor and proprietor of Pennsylvania, rather than focusing on the liberties of the frontier families.

        I do strongly agree with you though that one of the main sources of ambiguity resides in the phrase “…do not wish us to go farther”. Franklin doesn’t really elaborate on what that means exactly, which makes that part of the paragraph difficult to interpret. I have seen several people imply that Franklin is describing the the freedom of the frontier families. However, this doesn’t make as much sense to me because Franklin spent so much time in his statement highlighting the Assembly’s complaints about the governor. To me, it makes more sense that Franklin is talking about the Assembly giving up their taxing capabilities (which included taxing the proprietor) in order protect the frontier families, rather than the frontier families themselves giving up their liberties. This is potentially highlighted towards the end of that paragraph when Franklin compares the situation in Pennsylvania with Virginia, which Franklin implies had actually received more funding to better protect frontier families. Throughout the statement, Franklin and the Assembly seem to be fighting more for their right to tax the proprietor’s lands, which then can indirectly protect the families. That being said, I have not found anyone who directly addresses this point so unfortunately this is based on my own limited understandings of the text.

        As I am finishing this, I had one other thought that came to mind after re-reading what you said about whether the quote is “butchered” when it is used today. I would agree with you that people today are probably getting Franklin’s general idea; however, I think the slippery slope is when the quote is paraphrased or re-worded. Long-story-short, I ended up down this rabbit hole after seeing someone reference this quote, but after looking at it again, the quote was completely reworded and missing important context, such as the phrase “essential liberty”, which ignores the nuance of how we balance what liberties we are okay with giving up for some level of safety. I think removing the word “essential” and changing other parts of the quote for today’s use would fall more in that category taking the quote out of its original context too much and possibly even “butchering” important context. Just a thought that I had in retrospect.

    • Jack says:

      Like you Leya, I make it an annual event to watch 1776 every 4th of July. While entertaining, and possibly taking a lot of poetic license, it does give an insight to the people that founded our nation.

      Thank you for making this post. Perhaps it can help those who are on the fence determine which side to hop off.

      I too was frustrated that so many “sources” regarding this quote were merely opinions, and took Wittes commentary as BS. Upon reading the actual 1755 document, it was clear to me that Franklin was presenting the mindset of the frontier families, identifying their non-want for support . That mindset is in the conservative use of the phrase today. I believe the “ambiguity” that so many speak of comes from the core beliefs of the reader. An individualist thinks of their abilities and what they can achieve. They do not consider the assistance of others, unlike a collectivist. The individualist thinks: “I will do this myself, because I do not wish to be indebted to another, especially a much greater power of which I do not fully understand or trust.” The collectivist thinks: “Together we can accomplish this, because our abilities are augmented, and our numbers give us power.” But does the collectivist consider “at what price?” or do they believe that because their cause is just, it follows that the consequences will be just as well? What follows is the “common good” argument. Post-Covid, you can have a lot of “fun” with that.

      When the quote is supposedly “butchered” by some conservative voice, it is in fact being reiterated in a contemporary way. The spirit behind its use is the same mindset as identified by Franklin in 1755.

  15. Hanzo says:

    First, to Leya – Thanks for all of this… I followed exactly the same path you did, and faced the same frustrations, digging into the lineage of this quote once I found the Wittes statements… I reached much the same conclusions, and was frustrated that I had not found anyone else stating this, that I had concluded I would need to sit down and do it myself — before I finally dug deep enough and discovered your bright nugget of truth here. Thus far, I believe this article and discussion is truly a seminal piece in the research around Franklin’s repeated usage of this particular quote. It is truly unfortunate it is not more prominent in current internet search results.

    I would add one small addition to the discussion, that speaks a bit to Michael’s comments above: In the 1755 letter, it was fairly obvious to me that the “ambiguous” section where the quote appears is actually Franklin’s describing an understanding of the perspective of those frontier families, rather than him stating his own beliefs/perspectives there. (A wise writer seeking to convince a course of action lays out their understanding of those on all sides of a disagreement, to demonstrate understanding of the differing perspectives, before seeking to arbitrate between them.)

    • Leya Delray says:

      Thanks for contributing to the discussion, Hanzo! I’m glad my post was helpful to you. It puzzles me that there aren’t more people discussing the subject from this angle.

  16. Djon Smyth says:

    The appropriate and proper role of government is to, on behalf of the governed, deter and suppress threats to security. It is not the appropriate and proper role of government to indoctrinate. Promoting community fire prevention and suppression such as Benjamin Franklin did; volunteer fire response organizations and lightening rods are salient examples.

    James Mason and other founders sagely refused to endorse the 1789 U. S. Constitution because it lacked the provisions of the 1791 Bill of Rights. With the U. S. Constitution 3rd Amendment the the founders anticipated that a government might intend to quarter soldiers in homes against the will of the home owners and occupants.

    The founders did not anticipate that the society they were founding would allow the government to forcibly house the contagious with the vulnerable elderly, the very segment of the population most mortally vulnerable contagion, and prevent families from tending to their elderly, such as was done by several U. S. Constitution Article IV entities, and with the backing of the U. S. Constitution Article I-III entities. Ongoing for 3 years, there is no whispers about the ongoing violations of the U. S. Constitution being perpetrated under the guise of a COVID emergency. The same society and government elements are doing their utmost to instill a climate of fear of daring to utter a thought of whispering about the U. S. Constitution violations.

    All the 20th century and prior totalitarian despotic regimes could not imagine the mass continuance surveillance capabilities and other Creator endowment violations being wielded by governments in the 21st century. Of the 8+ billion global population, there is barely a vestigial awareness that anyone in society had any reservations or raised any objections to the ongoing totalitarian government takeover.

    The totalitarian government regimes and allies have orchestrated a disinformation operation that allows it to superficially appear that the global society approves of the totalitarian government takeover. No surprise of course, most all totalitarian government regime takeovers do the same disinformation operation; [ we are only doing what society insist that we do, in order for the greater good – all the evils, of which of course there is none, but even if there were, are all justified because the ends justify the means – it is compassionate to euthanize the unfit misfits ]

    Some people in society are incontinent; the very young, the very elderly, some under duress, some suffering other physiological and psychiatric maladies. It is not proper governments’ role to impose on society that just become some are incontinent, all must wear diapers nor even that all must provide for the diapering of those needing diapering.

  17. Dave says:

    I doubt that the true context of what Franklin wrote in 1755 can be gleaned just from reading the letter. In fact, I’d say that the letter employs some measure of brevity, as Franklin, the governor, and the assembly by extension were aware of the issues covered (and not necessarily obvious to someone reading the letter hundreds of years later).

    I recall that part of the “problem” involved the colony’s gov’t urging people to “go west” and settle, in order to grow the size Pennsylvania. This left the settlers isolated and subject to attack by various groups. One aspect of the objection to funding arms and possibly a small militia was that the assembly was controlled to an extent by Quakers, I believe, who were morally opposed to direct violent action (or direct financial support of such things).

    So, when (some of) the settlers didn’t want to “go farther”, it may have had to do with no wanting to force or coerce the Quakers into going against their beliefs. Perhaps, it was a bit of an issue surrounding religious freedom. 

  18. Yanagi Tennen says:

    First, I love that this article keeps getting necro’d as it makes me feel way less bad at adding yet another comment almost 4 years later.

    Moving forward, after also doing a fair amount of research (which generally felt like whack-a-mole), I noticed patterns in a lot of the commentary that led to continued confusion.

    1.) Not being clear on the “essential liberty”
    2.) Not being clear on the “safety”
    3.) Not being clear on “purchase”
    4.) Continued use of “terms of art” (e.g. proprietary ruler, which requires readers to have an understanding of English Overseas Colonies at the time to fully appreciate)

    My new-ish understanding of the quote, then, comes from a desire to try to clarify and *translate* the older language into “today’s” English. Here is what I came up with, and I hope others have wisdom, insight, or knowledge to adjust, alter, or correct my interpretation:

    First, understanding that a proprietary rule is essentially a company that rules the land. The British government & Monarchy (“The Crown”) would allow a company to take over land by buying government resources such that it was effectively a British colony. However, the company could select the governor, which was part of the government structure British colonies were to have. Here, the Penn family was to pay the costs of soldiers, transportation, etc. in establishing “their” colony (though, to be clear, it is my historical understanding that the Crown was actually already heavily in debt to the Penn family, so in this case, the use of British resources was likely more a form of balancing the books).

    The “essential liberty”, which most sources seem to agree on, is the ability of a government to tax all peoples and lands in its jurisdiction. In this case, that included the land owned by the company that was owned by/synonymous with the Penn family.

    Here, the “temporary safety” seems obvious: defense against the French until the war ends. The emphasis, though, is that the relinquishment of the essential liberty was NOT temporary, while the safety WAS temporary.

    Enter: “purchase”. Here, it seems to me that the Penn family was quite literally saying “we’ll buy off your ability to, as a colonial government, tax *our* lands in exchange for money you can use for defense”. The Penn family wanted to put the ability tax into a shopping cart and pay for it with a “no return” policy*.

    The resulting equation? Give up legal/governmental power to tax (essential liberty) an entity forever in exchange for money (purchase) that would be used for defense in the current war (temporary safety).

    That’s a HUGE tradeoff. Even if the Penn family was willing to contribute to future defense, there was no guarantee they would do so (and it likely would have been self-serving anyway). Plus, even if there was an understanding they would do so later, the ask was for the people in that colony to allow the company to make all security decisions potentially ad infinitum.

    Franklin, for all his faults, was a brilliant person, and he knew that once this war was over, another would eventually arise. When that happened (and happen it did), the colony would be unable to gather necessary defense funds from what was likely a huge source. It seems to me that for Franklin, it was worth the political fight to find a way to get the money to pay soldiers to defend the territory/colony without that kind of forever sacrifice.

    *From a historical perspective, it was unclear whether the amount they offered would have been enough to provide adequate defense. After all, hindsight is 20/20; 270 years later we know when and how the war played out, but those caught up in it at that time certainly had no idea what would happen.

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