Quote:Liberty for Security
Franklin first used it in that form in: Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor circa 11.11.1775
A leftist Historian (Benjamin Wittes) in his outlet (NPR) claims that in that context, he meant it in the opposite way it is applied today: since he was talking about funding for the French-Indian wars and taxation. And he repeated it at Standford's Hoover institute, and Lawfare Blog and Hoover Institute. Ingnore the words and meaning, he meant something else.
That's more than a little dishonest -- because immediately preceeding that Franklin was saying, "In fine, 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"... which means he's saying that the poor taxpayers have funded this as far as they will allow, and they don't want to be taxed any more for "Security". Thus get your funding somewhere else. Meaning the context is exactly how people use it today.
More than that, it wasn't one and done. Franklin didn't say it once and leave it ambiquous, he kept using his own pithy quote, to the same point.And those contexts are as we use it today.
- Franklin used an earlier version of the same thing in Poor Richards Almanac, "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power". Where it obviously means what we use it to mean today.
- It was motto on the title page of "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania" (1759); the book was published by Franklin -- so he knew what it was being used to mean, and he didn't have a problem with it.
- 1775 Franklin again used this phrase in his contribution to Massachusetts Conference. Basically, this was grievances to the King about punishments for the Boston Tea Party, and he was discouraging paying off the King for sake of security -- exactly how we use it today.
So those that would try to twist one context, and bury the other three, are not Historians, but propagandists. Which is what one expects from the left leaning Brookings Institute.
