“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”

views updated

“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”

THE LITERARY WORK

A speech delivered at St. John’s Church in Richmond. Virginia, at a revolutionary convention held on March 23, 1775.

SYNOPSIS

Patrick Henry urges his fellow Virginians to arm themselves and form a united military force to face the increasing tyranny of the British government.

Events in History at the Time of the Speech

The Speech in Focus

For More Information

Born in 1736 in Hanover County, Virginia, to a family of modest means, Patrick Henry became a self-educated lawyer with a gift for speechmaking. In 1775 he delivered his most famous speech, “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,” in which he encouraged the colonists of Virginia to use military force to defend individual freedom from British laws. His passionate speech ignited in many listeners a militant spirit that helped propel the colonists into the Revolutionary War.

Events in History at the Time of the Speech

Communication in colonial America

Speech served as the main means of communication in colonial America. Printed newspapers and pamphlets existed, but most of the population was unable to read and write. Speeches thus became a popular avenue for people to disseminate and receive information. A standard style of speech-making prevailed in legislatures and church services of the era. The style featured formal language and a roundabout rather than direct method of discussion. A flat tone of voice was often employed as well. Typically, speeches were not made up on the spot; instead, they were delivered from a prepared manuscript.

Another style of speechmaking appeared with the growth of a religious movement known as the Great Awakening, which lasted from about 1720 to 1760. The aim of this movement was to reform the Anglican Church from within and infuse new life into it. Speakers promoting the reform delivered emotionally charged sermons rather than the old flat-tone speeches of previous years.

The Great Awakening, inspired in large part by Reverend George Whitefield, reached out to all people at a time when organized churches involved only a minority of the American population. Whitefield, an Englishman, captivated audiences, calling on them to put their beliefs into action and live by their faith. In 1745 he visited Hanover County, Virginia, and roused colonists there with his fiery preaching.

Two years later, a Reverend Samuel Davies, who preached in the same style as Whitefield, arrived in Hanover County to stay. Sarah Henry, Patrick’s mother, attended his services regularly. She brought her son along on those occasions. Patrick delighted in Davies’s powerful speeches, and regarded the preacher as the finest orator he had ever heard. Davies’s style of preaching was direct and emotional, yet dignified. He and other experimental preachers delivered heart-touching sermons in plain style, peppering their speeches with references to the Bible and nature. As time passed, Henry seemed to adopt some of Davies’s characteristics in his own speeches about political issues.

Henry’s speechmaking

Henry, like other colonial leaders of his time, had been schooled in the writings of the Greeks and Romans. Tutored by his father after reaching the age of ten, Henry learned Latin, Greek, math, and ancient and modern history. In this manner, he became familiar with the works of the Greeks and Romans who had perfected the art of persuasive speech-making. Cato, to whom Patrick Henry was often compared, was one of the first to successfully use speech as a tool of persuasion in the Roman senate. Cato’s fellow Roman, Cicero, had an eloquent style that became the model upon which succeeding lawyers based their legal arguments.

Though he drew on his knowledge of the classics in creating his speeches, Henry was also willing to violate many rules of classical speech-making and to employ the techniques he had learned from the religious speakers of his time. Henry expressed himself in everyday language and made references to things that were familiar to his audience—the Bible, nature, and current events—thereby avoiding the most formal aspects of traditional speaking. He offended many Virginia aristocrats, who were taken aback by the unrestrained passion with which he spoke, his unrefined clothing, and his failure to mention Greek and Roman teachings. Another possible reason for his unpopularity with the Virginia aristocrats was his habit of delivering speeches not only to wealthier gentlemen in courts, legislatures, and conventions, but also informally to the general public as a spontaneous stump speaker, or traveling political speechmaker.

Henry was also influenced by the cultural movement known as the Enlightenment, which promoted reason and science as the way to truth. Practitioners felt they had an obligation to make the world a more perfect place. Henry applied the concept that people should behave in accordance with their beliefs to the political arena, contending that such a philosophy, when applied to government, could improve it. Henry spoke about political reform with as much passion as the new preachers of his day. He also utilized religious themes—such as the assurance that there is “a just God who presides over the destinies of nations” (Henry in McCants, p. 125)—to support his views.

The speaker in action

One of Henry’s first law cases established the young lawyer as an orator to be reckoned with. In 1763 Anglican church officials had challenged Virginia’s right to impose laws and determine the officials’ salaries. The parsons contended that the British government alone had authority in such matters and that British law superseded Virginia law. The church officials won their case, and a final hearing was scheduled to determine the amount of back pay due the parsons. At this point, Henry took the place of the defeated lawyer who had earlier argued the case against the parsons. Henry argued at the hearing that Virginia did have the sole right to impose laws on her citizens. He further charged that the church officials’ requests for salary increases at a time when the colony could not afford it was an affront to the common good.

As a result of Henry’s powerful argument, the parsons—though they had won the initial judgment—were awarded just one penny in compensation. The case set a precedent for colonial independence from the Crown and made Henry the most prominent lawyer in Virginia. Though Henry’s speech in the case proved effective, no record of it exists. In fact, many of his early speeches were not preserved. Only the reports of others convey the contents of these works.

Stamp Act rebellion

While American colonists were obliged to pay taxes to the distant British government, they had no say in the policies their taxes helped to finance. It was a situation that bred discontent, yet the colonists mostly complied with British policies through 1763. Only when the British Parliament started imposing limits on personal freedom, tighter trade restrictions, and heavier taxes did the colonists begin to revolt.

Open rebellion erupted in 1765 when the Stamp Act was passed. The Stamp Act affected nearly every segment of the colonial population, for it required the purchase of stamps for newspapers, games, marriage licenses, and other common goods. It raised the price of commodities and services and further offended the colonists because the income from selling the stamps was used to pay for the continued presence of British troops in America. The presence of British soldiers was already a source of frustration to colonists since their purpose after the French and Indian war was to enforce the laws of the Crown and suppress rebellion in the colonies.

Recently elected to serve in Virginia’s assembly, which was known as the House of Burgesses, Henry entered into the thick of the Stamp Act debate. He drafted a series of resolutions condemning the British Parliament for enacting the legislation. Laying the foundation for his future call to arms against the Crown, Henry blasted the measure as “illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust” (Henry in Wirt, p. 92). In a fiery speech—the first of several he would deliver on the subject—he insisted that only the colonists themselves had the right to determine and enforce laws in America. Henry argued that “the inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance whatever, designed to impose any taxation whatsoever upon them, other than the laws or ordinances of [its own] General Assembly” (Henry in Wirt, p. 93).

Henry’s words were treasonous. He had attacked the supremacy of the British Parliament and the king. Marked as a traitor in the eyes of the British Crown, Henry would come to view the delivery of the speech as one of his proudest moments. Later, in preparation for his death, he included a sealed copy of his Stamp-Act resolutions with his will, along with the following comment:

The within resolutions ... formed the first opposition to the stamp-act... Violent debates ensued... The great point of resistance to British taxation was universally established in the colonies. This brought on the war, which finally separated the two countries, and gave independence to ours.
(Henry in McCants, p. 46)

Galvanized by Henry’s words, the Virginia Assembly passed his resolutions declaring the Stamp Act illegal, and the American colonists launched a campaign to repeal it. In October 1765 they formed the Stamp Act Congress, which led to a boycott of British goods. British manufacturers, crippled by the boycott, also called for repeal of the legislation. Yielding to all this protest, the British Parliament abolished the Stamp Act in March 1766.

Parliament, however, passed other restrictive measures, including a Tea Act that actually reduced the price of British tea sold to the Americans. Great Britain’s intent, however, was to edge out the competition—Dutch tea—and gain even tighter control of the American colonies. The legislation gave certain tea merchants monopolies while unfairly excluding other merchants. In the end the Tea Act backfired. Colonists dumped British tea into Boston Harbor, an action that became known as the Boston Tea Party. In response the British sent more troops to Boston, halted imports of food and other goods, outlawed public gatherings, and replaced locally named officials with their own British appointments. The colonists, in turn, formed the Continental Congress to decide how to stop British tyranny once and for all.

Continental Congress

Delegates from every colony except Georgia met at Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774. One of the most prestigious gatherings of leaders ever assembled, the first Continental Congress included Patrick Henry, George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, John and Samuel Adams, and Joseph Galloway. Along with Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry was singled out as the most effective speaker in the group. It was here, at a gathering in which the colonies struggled to protect their separate interests yet act cooperatively, that Henry informed his fellow countrymen that “distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American” (Henry in Willison, p. 245). A delegate from Connecticut, Silas Deane, predicted that if Henry’s future speeches were equal to the small samples he delivered at the Continental Congress, they would indeed be remarkable. “I can give you no idea of the music of his voice, or the high-wrought yet natural elegance of his style and manner” (Deane in Willison, p. 246).

The first Continental Congress endorsed another boycott of British goods and agreed not to export any American products to Great Britain or her territories. The representatives also drafted a list of grievances against the British Crown and set a timetable of six months for the Congress to meet again and prepare for war if colonial demands were not met by the British government.

Birth of Virginia’s army

In November 1774, two months after the first Continental Congress, Patrick Henry called a meeting in Hanover County, Virginia, to discuss the formation of an army. With British troops flowing into Boston and New England, he saw the need to prepare for the forthcoming military conflict with Great Britain. In another of his animated speeches, Henry urged the formation of a volunteer army organized into independent companies. Hearing of his efforts in Hanover, other counties followed his lead; by the end of 1774, there were at least seven independent companies in Virginia and dozens more throughout the other colonies.

VARIETY OF LEADERSHIP

The success of the American Revolution can be attributed in targe part to a variety of extraordinary leaders. Thomas Jefferson provided the philosophical basis; George Washington the military expertise; and Patrick Henry the powerful oratory that roused the colonists to action. He swayed people with forceful speech: “We have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned—we have remonstrated—we have supplicated—we have prostrated ourselves before the throne... we must fight!... An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us!” Even colonists previously opposed to fighting the British were moved to Henry’s side by such fiery speech (Henry in McCants, pp.124-25).

Henry’s rallying cry

Four months later, in March 1775, the colony of Virginia assembled delegates to meet in a Convention of the People. It was the second such convention to be held in the colony. The delegates met at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia. After three days they had made no definite progress in regard to the rebellion against England. Then, on March 23, 1775, Henry made his move. Convinced that the newly formed independent companies needed to consolidate into a united colonial army, he drafted resolutions to that effect. Departing from traditional rules of protocol, Henry delivered his most famous speech in support of his motion to organize a colonial army and prepare for war. The church was filled to capacity, and spectators flowed into the streets. Others peered through windows to catch a glimpse of the proceedings and hear the inspiring oratory.

A PATRIOT’S VIEW OF SLAVERY

In his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, Patrick Henry compared the plight of the colonists to that of black slaves, proclaiming that peace should never be “purchased at the price of chains and slavery” (Henry in Willison, p. 267). He personally found slavery a miserable practice, “inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty,” yet Henry, like so many of his fellow Virginians, owned slaves. He remarked that he could not justify this, and noted that the practice could bring trouble in the future: “I could say many things on the subject, a serious view of which gives a gloomy perspective to future times” (Henry in Willison, p. 267).

The Speech in Focus

The contents

Henry brought before the assembly of convention delegates three resolutions:

That Virginia form a militia of gentlemen and yeoman (farmers).
That such a militia is necessary to protect Virginians from further violations of their freedoms.
That the militia be formed immediately and that a committee be established to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.

Other colonies had already passed similar proposals, yet Henry’s met with heated objection by men who considered such a move premature. There was a great deal of debate among the delegates. While Thomas Jefferson sided with Henry immediately, Richard Henry Lee opposed the measure. George Washington remained silent in pensive deliberation, presumably waiting for further argument to sway him one way or another. Realizing he needed to prove his case, Henry stood up and delivered his most famous and rousing speech. He relied on sudden inspiration, for his remarks were delivered off the cuff, without preparation. As a result, no official transcript of the speech exists. The speech was instead pieced together later through eyewitness accounts.

Henry addressed the entire convention at St. John’s Church, but he specifically appealed to its president, Peyton Randolph. Arguing that the occasion was no time for ceremony, Henry asked that he might openly address the assembly out of turn. After a brief apology for daring to disagree with some of his distinguished fellows, Henry launched into his speech.

According to one listener, the judge St. George Tucker, Henry began with the warning that the times called for him to speak his mind without concern for whom he might offend. He proceeded to address the gentlemen who hesitated to take up arms and begin the fight. He used riveting words to rebuke these gentlemen, whom Henry felt had fooled themselves into thinking that the conflict could be resolved through means other than war:

Were we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
(Henry in McCants, p. 124)

Henry asked them to open their eyes to the warlike preparations that Great Britain was already making, noting that the colonists had been trying to settle their differences with England through peaceful means for the previous ten years. He pointed to the presence of British troops in New England and contended that they would soon launch a full-scale attack on the colonists: “Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other” (Henry in McCants, p. 124). Henry informed the assembly of colonists that they had already petitioned, boycotted, and pleaded, and all in vain. He compared the British to slavers trying to cast the Americans in chains and declared that the colonists could no longer rely on wishful hopes for peaceful solutions: “If we wish to be free ... we must fight!—I repeat it, sir, we must fight!!!” (Henry in McCants, p. 125).

Anticipating objections that the colonies were too weak to defeat Britain, Henry pointed to their advantages—their numbers, resources, and the likelihood that other nations would come to their aid: “Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible.... Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us” (Henry in McCants, p. 125). Henry insisted that the Americans would also not be fighting alone because they would have the aid of a just God. “The battle, sir,” he continued, “is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave” (Henry in McCants, p. 125). Henry’s speech rose to a feverish climax when he stated his own preference for death over political enslavement to the British. His appeal was an implicit exhortation to listeners to follow his example and prepare to put their lives on the line in a desperate struggle for liberty:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what other course others may take.
But as for me—give me liberty, or give me death!
          (Henry in Willison, p. 266-67)

According to reports by another listener, John Roane, Henry’s speech showed a mastery not only of words, but also of gestures, delivery, and facial expressions.

When he said, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” he stood in the attitude of a condemned galley slave.... His form was bowed, his wrists were crossed.... He turned toward the timid Loyalists in the house, who were quaking with terror at... participating in proceedings which would be visited with the penalties of treason by the British crown, and he slowly bent his form nearer to the earth and said, “I know not what course others may take”.... After remaining in this posture of humiliation long enough... he arose proudly and exclaimed, “But as for me”... then the loud, clear, triumphant note, “Give me liberty”... and as each syllable of the word “liberty” echoed through the building, his fetters were shivered, his arms were hurled apart... his hands were open, and his arms elevated and extended.... He let his left hand fall powerless to his side, and clenched his right hand firmly, as if holding a dagger with the point aimed at his breast.... He closed the grand appeal with the solemn words, “or give me death”.... And he suited the action to the word by a blow upon the left breast with his right hand, which seemed to drive the dagger to the patriot’s heart.
(Roane in Willison, p. 267-68)

At the conclusion of Henry’s speech, the convention exploded with enthusiastic support. Henry’s resolutions to create a Virginia militia passed by five votes, and war preparations began. As time passed, it became clear that Henry’s words continued to linger in the minds of those who heard them. One man, Colonel Edward Carrington, was so moved by the oratory that he asked to be buried at the spot where he heard the speech, just outside St. John’s Church (he was in fact buried there in 1810). Another listener called the speech “one of the most vehement and animated pieces of eloquence that ever had been delivered,” while another listener commented that Henry created a “tempest” with his oration, and compared Henry to Cato addressing the Roman senate. When the Virginia assembly officially convened three months later, in June 1775, every member dressed in homespun rather than imported clothing and had “Liberty or Death” sewed or painted on the breast of his coat. Henry’s words became a rallying cry and helped ensure that the unplanned speech would be remembered as one of the finest in history.

A REBEL TRIUMPHS

Initially opposed to Henry’s resolution to arm the colonists, Edmond Randolph changed his mind after hearing Henry’s powerful speech. “Henry trampled on rules,” observed Randolph, “yet triumphed... perhaps beyond his own expectation” (Randolph in Wirt, p. 260).

Years later, the American leader Thomas Jefferson would look back and say of Henry, “He left all of us far behind.... He gave the first impulse to the ball of Revolution.... He was the idol of the country beyond anyone that ever lived” (Jefferson in Willison, p. 9).