Essential Liberty Vs. Temporary Safety

Authored by Carl M. Cannon via RealClearPolitics,

This article was originally published on Friday, Sept. 27, 2024 – with the election in 40 days, which in the Judeo-Christian tradition is a number of profound significance. It signals, among other things, the difficulty of maintaining one’s spiritual faith in the face of adversity.

The Bible tells us that the rains of the “great flood” lasted 40 days and 40 nights. Moses fasted for 40 days – and spent 40 days and nights atop Mount Sinai waiting to receive the Lord’s law. The New Testament tells us that Jesus fasted for 40 days and nights in preparation for his ministry – and ascended to heaven 40 days after his crucifixion.

Is it merely a metaphor? Perhaps. But a comforting one, as the number 40 also suggests that God has patience with us. This year, in America, He will need it.

Friday is also the day of the week when I reprise a quotation intended to be uplifting or educational. Today’s words of wisdom concern the secular issue of criminal justice policy, as rendered not in the Old Testament, but in the Old West – by none other than Wild Bill Hickok.

But first, some context: Eight years ago this week Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump held their first debate. More than midway through the session – by then they were openly contemptuous of one another – the pair sparred over criminal justice policy. The context was rising homicide rates, particularly in Chicago and several other large cities.

The two candidates talked past one another. Trump tried to pin the violent crime increase on progressive Democratic Party reforms such as getting rid of “stop and frisk” in New York City. Clinton denied crime was really increasing and, with an assist from NBC anchorman Lester Holt, tried to pivot the discussion into a conversation about race.

Suffice it to say that nothing enlightening was uttered that night. But, in fairness, criminal justice policy is complicated. It’s difficult to even know the basic facts. In 2024, for example, despite assurances from Kamala Harris and her fellow Democrats (repeated word-for-word by the press) that violent crime is declining in this country, the picture isn’t that simple.

The source for the Democrats’ claim is the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report, which does show declining homicide rates. But the FBI numbers aren’t as solid as they once were. The reasons vary. For one thing, not every major police department even reports their numbers to the FBI anymore. Also, there is some evidence that more crimes, even serious felonies, are going unreported.

Another government metric, which comes from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, is the National Crime Victimization Survey. It’s not perfect, either, but it shows an increase in crime. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, as it often is, but I will say this: When someone smugly assures you that crime is going down, check and see if you still have your wallet in your pocket or purse.

Which brings me (at long last) to Wild Bill Hickok.

Crime, a perennial political hot potato in this country, was the main issue in a local election held in central Kansas more than a century and a half ago. Tired of being brutalized by itinerant cowboys and local roughnecks who liquored up in the saloons in the county seat of Hays City, the citizens of Ellis County turned to an outsider in a special election on August 23, 1869.

The results were disputed, but ultimately Wild Bill Hickok was installed as sheriff. It didn’t take long for people to notice a difference.

Just a few days later, a bad hombre from Missouri named Bill Mulvey showed up in town. Mulvey’s reputation as a mean drunk preceded him, and the journey to Hays hadn’t mellowed him out. When informed that Wild Bill was the new law in town, Mulvey shot out the mirrors in the saloon where he was drinking whilst using bad language and issuing menacing warnings.

They were not veiled threats. Mulvey went so far as to boast that he’d come to Kansas to kill Bill Hickok. This may have just been whiskey talk, but as events unfolded it happened the other way around.

According to one eyewitness account, Mulvey rode up the street on his gray horse, rifle at the ready. Wild Bill strode out to meet him. Hickok broke the ominous silence by suddenly calling out to an imaginary gunman behind Mulvey.

“Don’t shoot him in the back!” Hickok shouted. “He is drunk.”

When Mulvey turned around, Hickok drew his pistol and shot him in the head.

A few weeks later, at 1 a.m. on September 27 – 155 years ago today – Hickok and his deputy came upon a gang of drunken cowboys tearing the hell out of John Bitter’s Beer Saloon. When Hickok ordered them to desist, one of the men, Samuel Strawhun, turned as if to rush the sheriff. Hickok quickly shot and killed him, quelling the melee.

The city fathers of Hays were left to contemplate that after only five weeks in office, Wild Bill Hickok had killed two men in the name of restoring order. Voters mulled it over, too, and in the regular November election that year, Hickok was voted out of office in favor of his deputy.

This tension between freedom and law and order is not a new one.

Benjamin Franklin referenced it in the context of frontier strife between settlers and Native Americans in 1755. Twenty years later at a conference in Boston intended to forestall war between the colonists and the British, Ben Franklin reprised a slightly different version of his aphorism. The Massachusetts Conference, as it was called, was in vain. War was coming. And Franklin’s comment explains why: “They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety,” he wrote, “deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

And that is our quote of the week.

Carl M. Cannon is the Washington bureau chief for RealClearPolitics and executive editor of RealClearMedia Group. Reach him on X @CarlCannon.