Today marks the 245th anniversary of one of the greatest speeches in American History, by perhaps our greatest speaker, Patrick Henry. On this date in 1775, the Second Virginia Convention met at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia to consider what action to take in the wake of armed insurrection in Boston. Henry was one of the first founders to call for independence and he had been making his case for a decade. His, famous “Liberty or Death” speech is often recited in schools and regularly reenacted at St. John’s and elsewhere. Many Americans would be surprised to learn that Henry’s speech may not actually be his words. The speech we know today did not appear in print until 1817, almost 20 years after Henry’s death. What we do know is that Henry electrified Virginians and propelled the largest English colony in North America into the American Revolution.

Patrick Henry rose to prominence as a backwoods lawyer in Virginia arguing a lost cause. He agreed to represent the defendants in a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Reverend James Maury. English law required all British subjects to pay taxes to the Church of England. Tobacco was the main source of revenue for many Virginian farmers in this era. The price rose significantly (6 pence/lb) in the 1750s even as bad weather reduced tobacco production significantly. As a result, Virginians faced higher taxes with less tobacco to generate revenue. In response, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed the Two Penny Act in 1758 setting the price of tobacco at 2 pence per pound for purposes of paying taxes easing the financial burden for small Virginia farmers. Holding a veto power over colonial laws, King George III’s King’s Council subsequently overturned the Two Penny Act. Reverend Maury sued for the difference and won a judgment leaving damages to be determined at a later hearing. Henry took on the case arguing that the king had no right overturn internal laws drafted by democratically elected colonial legislatures. He went further asserting that that in vetoing the act, King George had “degenerated into a Tyrant and forfeit[ing] all right to his subjects’ obedience.” 1 Henry won, the jury awarded Reverend Maury one penny.

The Parson’s Cause made Henry famous propelling him to the House of Burgesses the following year. Henry came into office at a tumultuous moment just after Parliament passed the 1765 Stamp Act and other taxes on American colonies. Even though a freshman delegate, he introduced resolves opposing the British acts as a violation of the colonists’ rights to be taxed without representation. Henry argued forcibly concluding with “Tarquin and Caesar had each his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third . . .” Henry paused as Speaker John Robinson and others cried “Treason!” before coolly concluding with “And George the Third may profit by their example!” 2 The Virginia Resolutions, also known as the Stamp Act Resolves, passed and for the first time, the American colonies began to show unity thanks to an upstart lawyer from Hanover County.

By 1775, conditions had worsened in Boston. Parliament passed what Americans termed the Intolerable Acts closing Boston Harbor and garrisoning more troops in the wake of the Boston Tea Party. Virginia and other colonies had to decide how to respond. Their rights were being trampled and if they sat idly by, they had no doubt Boston’s fate would become their own. Virginia’s English Governor Lord Dunmore suspended the House of Burgesses to prevent Virginia’s colonists from acting against the crown. The members congregated 45 miles away in Richmond at St. John’s Church to avoid Dunmore’s interference.

The Second Virginia Convention met ostensibly to review the acts of the First Continental Congress. Henry wanted to do more. He wanted to ensure the Convention took action. Ten years after the Stamp Act Resolves, Henry had cemented his place as a leader in the movement for American independence. He offered resolutions to fund, raise, and arm a permanent militia for every county as a defensive measure. More conservative elements viewed the proposal as unnecessarily provocative. Negotiations to repeal the Intolerable Acts were ongoing and some feared such an aggressive move would undermine the talks. They wanted to wait for an outcome to the negotiations before taking action.

On March 23rd, Henry rose before pews overflowing with convention members and the public to support his resolutions. Others who could not get into the church congregated around the windows to hear the proceedings

Henry had developed an evangelical style of speaking based on emotional appeals to reason and justice developed at an early age listening to the sermons of “New Light” minister Samuel Davies. He began speaking calmly at first laying out the British transgressions. As he reached the call for action, he became more animated, gesturing his voice steadily rising. He addressed the opponents of the resolutions:

“Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?”

Henry clasped his arms together as if shackled: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”

Raising his hands to the heavens Henry exclaimed: “Forbid it, Almighty God!”

Producing a knife for the audience to see above his head Henry offered a thunderous conclusion: “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Henry dramatically plunged the knife towards his heart.

As Henry fell silent, the crowd began shouting “To arms! To arms!” The resolution passed and Virginia set foot on the path to war.

At least that is how we are told the speech went.

In reality, Henry either did not write his speech down or did not save a copy. There are no known newspaper transcripts or other contemporaneous sources. So how do we know what happened?

In 1805, a young lawyer, and admirer of Henry named William Wirt decided to write his biography. Wirt quickly discovered that unlike other founders who saved everything they wrote for posterity, Henry left behind few private papers. Wirt sent out appeals for Henry’s friends and acquaintances for their recollections. The only source he received for the Liberty or Death speech came from Judge St. George Tucker who was present at St. John’s on that momentous day. It is worth noting that Tucker’s recollection was made six years after Henry’s death and thirty years after the event. Wirt also found bits and pieces from fragmentary accounts in newspaper stories and other sources.

So how reliable is Wirt’s account? Some historians concluded Wirt wrote much of the speech. Others doubt the accuracy of Judge Tucker’s memory so long removed from Henry’s speech. One of the few advantages of the lack of personal papers is that historians have spent a lot of time and effort trying to verify Wirt’s account. Henry’s Stamp Act speech drew similar criticisms. However, then William & Mary student Thomas Jefferson attended the proceedings and confirmed Henry’s words had drawn cries of “Treason!” to which Henry paused “at the name of George III, and the presence of mind with which he closed his sentence, and baffled the charge vociferated.” Even better, a French spy’s report on the state of the American colonies included an account of the Stamp Act speech. The spy happened to be in Williamsburg the day Henry spoke and recorded an account that matches Wirt’s description. The anonymous spy’s report was filed away and forgotten until re-discovered in French naval papers in 1921.

Several scholars have compared the accounts Wirt received to what he printed and concluded that he was faithful to his sources. Further, it is known that a Virginia militia company that volunteered for service immediately after the speech wrote “Liberty or Death” on their hunting shirts. Finally, St. George Tucker is a highly credible source. He witnessed the speech and became one of Virginia’s most respected jurists serving as the first Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court (he was also Henry’s son-in-law). Judge Tucker had a sterling reputation which adds great weight to his account.

It seems safe to conclude the reported transcript of Henry’s speech is as accurate as Wirt could make it. Whether Henry said every word, we may never know. However, Wirt’s account clearly captured the spirit of Henry’s speech. We know from contemporaneous accounts that Henry’s speech electrified his listeners. Colonel Edward Carrington witnessed the speech from a window and was so inspired, he exclaimed “Let me be buried on this spot.” 4 When he died, years later, his widow honored the request. Edmund Randolph, another witness, wrote:

In the sacred place of meeting, the church, the imagination had no difficulty to conceive, when he [Henry] launched forth in in solemn tones, . . . against oppressors that the British king was lying prostrate from the thunder of Heaven. 5

Further, “liberty or death” became a rallying cry for the Revolutionary War and freedom movements from the 18th century to present.

So, I will leave you with one of my favorite recitations which captures the emotion of the speech and Henry’s oratory gifts. I am also including the entire text of the speech from Wirt’s book below the video link.

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are 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? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? 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. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, 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, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. 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. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? 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 course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Sources

1 Letter from Reverend James Maury to Reverend John Camm dated December 12, 1763.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/dfg/amrv/maury.htm

2 Rhys Isaac, “Lighting the Fuse of Revolution in Virginia, May 1765: Rereading the “Journal of a French Traveller in the Colonies,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 4 (October 2011), 665-666.

3 Ibid., 666.

4 Jon Kukla, Patrick Henry, Champion of Liberty, New York: Simon & Schuster (2017). 170.

5 George Morgan, The True Patrick Henry. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencourt & Co., 1907. 196.

Cohen, Charles L., “The ‘Liberty or Death’ Speech: A Note on Religion and Revolutionary Rhetoric.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct., 1981), pp. 702-717 http://www.jstor.org.library.norwich.edu/stable/1918911.

Rhys Isaac, “Lighting the Fuse of Revolution in Virginia, May 1765: Rereading the “Journal of a French Traveller in the Colonies,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 4 (October 2011), 657-670.

Lloyd J. Matthews, “Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” Speech and Cassius’s Speech in Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar.’” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 86, No. 3 (Jul., 1978), 299-305. http://www.jstor.org.library.norwich.edu/stable/4248229.

David A. McCants, “The Authenticity of William Wirt’s Version of Patrick Henry’s ‘Liberty or Death’ Speech.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 87, No. 4 (Oct., 1979), 387-402. http://www.jstor.org.library.norwich.edu/stable/4248338.

Wirt, William Sketches in the Life and Character of Patrick Henry. Philadelphia: E. Claxton, 1881.

Mayer, Henry, A Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the American Republic. New York: Grove Press, 1991.

Meade, Robert Douthat, Patrick Henry, Patriot in the Making, vol 1, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencourt Co., 1957.

Meade, Robert Douthat, Patrick Henry, Practical Revolutionary, vol 2, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencourt Co., 1969.

5 1 vote Article Rating

Share this: Print

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Reddit

