give me liberty speech

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 fulfill 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 offense, 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 those warlike 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 free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if 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. The 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 inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. 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? 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!  

More History

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

How Patrick Henry’s ‘Liberty or Death’ Speech Inspired Revolution

By: Evan Andrews

Updated: August 23, 2023 | Original: March 22, 2015

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Those words, spoken by Virginia colonist Patrick Henry during a March 1775 address to his state legislature, echo through history as a dramatic call to arms.

Revolution was in the air that year. Only a few months earlier, delegates from the American colonies had held the first Continental Congress and sent Britain’s King George III a petition for redress of grievances, among them the repeal of the so-called “Intolerable Acts.” A mass boycott of British goods was underway, and Boston Harbor still languished under a British blockade as punishment for the 1773 Boston Tea Party . In a speech to Parliament in late 1774, King George had denounced the “daring spirit of resistance and disobedience to the law,” which seemed to be spreading like wildfire across the American continent.

Amid these mounting tensions, the Second Virginia Convention convened to discuss the Old Dominion’s strategy in negotiating with the Crown. The roughly 120 delegates who filed into Richmond’s St. John’s Church were a veritable “who’s who” of Virginia’s colonial leaders. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both in attendance, as were five of the six other Virginians who would later sign the Declaration of Independence .

Who Was Patrick Henry?

Prominent among the bewigged statesmen was Patrick Henry , a well-respected lawyer from Hanover County. Blessed with an unfailing wit and mellifluous speaking voice, Henry had long held a reputation as one of Virginia’s most vociferous opponents of British taxation schemes. During the Stamp Act controversy in 1765, he had even flirted with treason in a speech in which he hinted that King George risked suffering the same fate as Julius Caesar if he maintained his oppressive policies.

As a recent delegate to the Continental Congress, he had sounded the call for colonial solidarity by proclaiming, “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian; I am an American.”

Henry was convinced that war was around the corner, and he arrived at the Virginia Convention determined to persuade his fellow delegates to adopt a defensive stance against Great Britain. On March 23, he put forward a resolution proposing that Virginia’s counties raise militiamen “to secure our inestimable rights and liberties, from those further violations with which they are threatened.”

The suggestion of forming a militia was not shocking in itself. Other colonies had passed similar resolutions, and Henry had already taken it upon himself to raise a volunteer outfit in Hanover County. Nevertheless, many in the audience balked at approving any measure that might be viewed as combative. Word that King George had rejected the Continental Congress’s petition for redress of grievances was yet to reach the colonies, and some still held out hope for a peaceful reconciliation with Britain.

Henry's Defiant 'Liberty or Death' Speech

After several delegates had spoken on the issue, Patrick Henry rose from his seat in the third pew and took the floor. A Baptist minister who was watching the proceedings would later describe him as having “an unearthly fire burning in his eye.”

Just what happened next has long been a subject of debate. Henry spoke without notes, and no transcripts of his exact words have survived to today. The only known version of his remarks was reconstructed in the early 1800s by William Wirt, a biographer who corresponded with several men that attended the Convention. According to this version, Henry began by stating his intention to “speak forth my sentiments freely” before launching into an eloquent warning against appeasing the Crown.

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided,” he said, “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?”

Henry then turned his attention to the British troops mobilizing across the colonies. “Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation?” he asked. “Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? …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.”

As he continued speaking, Henry’s dulcet tones began to darken with anger. “Excitement began to play more and more upon his features,” the minister later said. “The tendons of his neck stood out white and rigid like whipcords.”

“Our petitions have been slighted,” Henry said, “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…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!”

Henry stood silent for a moment, letting his defiant words hang in the air. When he finally began speaking again, it was in a thunderous bellow that seemed to shake “the walls of the building and all within them.” His fellow delegates leaned forward in their seats as he reached his crescendo.

“The war is actually begun!” Henry cried. “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?” As he spoke, Henry held his wrists together as though they were manacled and raised them toward the heavens. “Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty”—Henry burst from his imaginary chains and grasped an ivory letter opener—“or give me death!” As he uttered these final words, he plunged the letter opener toward his chest, mimicking a knife blow to the heart.

For several moments after Henry sat back down, the assembled delegates seemed at a loss for words. “No other member…was yet adventurous enough to interfere with that voice which had so recently subdued and captivated,” delegate Edmund Randolph later said. A hushed silence descended on the room. “Every eye yet gazed entranced on Henry,” said the Baptist minister. “Men were beside themselves.” Colonel Edward Carrington, one of the many people watching the proceedings through the church windows, was so moved that he stood and proclaimed to his fellow spectators, “Let me be buried at this spot!” When he died decades later, his widow honored his request.

How Convention Delegates Reacted

While some of the Convention’s delegates clung to their loyalist stance—one even called Henry’s words “infamously insolent”—the “Liberty or Death” speech tipped the scales in favor of defensive action. After Richard Henry Lee and Thomas Jefferson both lent their support, the resolution passed by only a few votes. Henry was appointed the head of a new committee charged with readying the Virginia militia for combat.

Henry’s call to arms came at a pivotal moment. Less than a month later, skirmishes between British troops and colonial minutemen at Lexington and Concord resulted in “the shot heard round the world” and the first casualties of the Revolutionary War . In Virginia, scores of colonials—many of whom had embroidered the words “Liberty or Death” onto their shirts—flocked to join local militias. “The sword is now drawn,” wrote the Virginia Gazette , “and God knows when it will be sheathed.”

Patrick Henry would go on to serve as both a delegate to the Second Continental Congress and as Virginia’s governor. He played a crucial role in securing men and arms for George Washington’s Continental Army, but many would credit his silver tongue as having been his most indispensable contribution to American independence. “It is not now easy to say what we should have done without Patrick Henry,” Thomas Jefferson later wrote. “He was before us all in maintaining the spirit of the Revolution.”

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry’s moving speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses. 

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 fulfill 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 offense, 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 those warlike 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 free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if 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. The 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 inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. 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? 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!

"I am certain they will desert:" Francis Marion on the Battle of Great Savannah

Mercy Otis Warren: "Look Over the Theatre of Human Action"

John locke - excerpts from the second treatise on government, you may also like.

Give me liberty or give me death!

• March 23, 1775

No related resources

Introduction

In March of 1775, a month before fighting began at Lexington and Concord, colonists braced for war. Scottish traveler William Mylne (1734–1790) observed that “as to politics I think most of the people are mad [i.e., insane]; in South and North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, they muster… as if they were going to be attacked.” Cooler heads seemed poised to prevail at the meeting of the Second Virginia Convention. Held in Richmond’s St. John’s Church, safely distant from Williamsburg and Lord Dunmore (who had disbanded the House of Burgesses in 1774), the Convention considered the proposal of Patrick Henry (1736–1799) to form in every county a company of cavalry or infantry. After some delegates urged caution, Henry rose to address the assembly.

William Wirt (1772–1834), who published a biography of Henry in 1817, reconstructed his speech based on the recollections of Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) and others who were present. After Henry concluded his remarks and took his seat, Wirt noted, “no murmur of applause was heard. The effect [of Henry’s address] was too deep. After the trance of a moment, several members started from their seats. The cry, ‘to arms!’ seemed to quiver on every lip, and gleam from every eye” as the assembly erupted in cheers, shouts, and tears. “Their souls,” he wrote, “were on fire for action.”

Source: Patrick Henry, Speech on a Resolution to Put Virginia into a State of Defense, in Selim H. Peabody, comp., American Patriotism: Speeches, Letters, and Other Papers which Illustrate the Foundation, the Development, [and] the Preservation of the United States of America (New York: American Book Exchange, 1880), 108–10. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015027038259;view=1up;seq=122

Mr. President [1] —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 was 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 fulfill 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 offense, 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 his 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 had 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 those warlike 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 longer. 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 free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if 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 inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. 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? 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!

• 1. Peyton Randolph (1721–1775) served as president (1774–1775) of the Virginia Convention.

Speech on Conciliation with America

Letter to the inhabitants of canada (1775), see our list of programs.

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Check out our collection of primary source readers

Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. Available in hard copy and for download.

03 Nov 2001 Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death – 1775

“Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death”

Patrick Henry

March 23, 1775

After Patrick Henry made this famous speech before the Virginia House of Burgesses at St. John’s Church, his resolution to organize the milita of Virginia and to put the colony of Virginia on a war footing was unanimously adopted in that colony.

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 those warlike 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 longer.

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 free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if 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 has 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 inevitable and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come!!!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. 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? 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!

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today’s public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century. Learn More About Us Subscribe to Our Updates

HISTORIC ARTICLE

Mar 23, 1775 ce: henry urges colonists to 'give me liberty or give me death'.

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry urged his fellow Virginians to support the Revolutionary War effort, supposedly saying “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Social Studies, Civics, U.S. History

Loading ...

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry urged his fellow Virginians to support the Revolutionary War , supposedly saying “Give me liberty or give me death!” Actually, it is unlikely that Henry uttered those precise words. The phrase was first attributed to him in 1817, more than 40 years after the American  Revolution . U.S. Attorney General William Wirt tried to recreate Henry’s speech from the memories of several people who were present. Regardless, Henry’s speech encouraged Virginia legislators to provide troops to the Revolutionary War effort, helping to create the Continental Army less than three months later. After the revolution , Henry became the first governor of the state of Virginia. Like many other leaders of the American Revolution —including fellow Virginians George Washington and Thomas Jefferson—Henry was a wealthy enslaver, making the conclusion of Wirt's interpretation of Henry's famous speech notable : “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!”

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Last Updated

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

On March, 23 1775 Patrick Henry delivered his famous speech which ended with the immortal words:

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

The words "Give me Liberty" are known to millions of people. They may not know the reasons why they were said but they resound strongly with all people of all different nationalities who value freedom. 

Facts about the "Give me Liberty" Speech Facts about the Give me Liberty speech are as follows:

The Meaning behind the words of Give me Liberty... The speech of Patrick Henry was delivered to the convention who were divided two opposing points of view. Patrick Henry sided with the men who wanted immediate action to raise a militia and to put Virginia in a position of defence. The opposition was urging caution and patience until the British replied to the latest petition for reconciliation from the Congress. Patrick Henry afforded and addressed the opposition with due respect.

Short Analysis of Give me Liberty... In his speech he emphasizes his view that there is a need to fight for truth and God's purpose. His "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" speech is based on his belief that the alternative to fighting is slavery (meaning British rule). He believes that fighting for freedom is a responsibility of God and country, he aligns God on the side of the colonists. He is respectful towards King George III but that God is the ultimate authority. He believes that the view of the opposition is based on false hope in that the British will work for the good of the colonists and that this hope will lead to betrayal "spurned with contempt from the foot of the throne". He then makes reference to additional British troops that the British have sent to America and their "warlike preparations". Patrick Henry then makes an urgent call to arms "The war is inevitable - and let it come!"

Give me Liberty - There can be no compromise Patrick Henry ends his speech with the immortal words:

He is equating death with slavery under British rule. He is saying very clearly that there can be no compromise.

Rhetorical Devices used in the Give me Liberty Speech Rhetorical Devices are used in the  "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" speech. Rhetorical Devices are patterns of ideas and words that stir emotions, create emphasis by repetition and are highly persuasive. Repetition is a Rhetorical Device using the same words. Restatement uses the same idea but different words. Parallelism, gives two or more parts of the sentences a similar form so as to give the whole a definite pattern. Rhetorical Question, asking a question with an obvious answer.

Rhetorical Strategies used in the Give me Liberty Speech Rhetorical Strategies are used in the  "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" speech. Patrick Henry persuades by pathos, ethos, metaphor, allusion, imagery, logos (logic) to express the themes of freedom, equality, and independence. A combination of Rhetorical Devices and Strategies used in "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" speech results in highly persuasive, motivational and emotional words and ideas producing an extremely powerful speech.

Examples of Rhetorical Devices in the Give me Liberty Speech Rhetorical Devices are used in the  "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" speech include:

Examples of Rhetorical Strategies in the Give me Liberty Speech Rhetorical Strategies are used in the  "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" speech. Patrick Henry persuades by pathos, ethos, metaphor, allusion, imagery, logos (logic) to express the themes of freedom, equality, and independence.

Give me Liberty

• The Columbian Exchange
• De Las Casas and the Conquistadors
• Early Visual Representations of the New World
• Failed European Colonies in the New World
• Successful European Colonies in the New World
• A Model of Christian Charity
• Benjamin Franklin’s Satire of Witch Hunting
• The American Revolution as Civil War

Patrick Henry and “Give Me Liberty!”

• Lexington & Concord: Tipping Point of the Revolution
• Abigail Adams and “Remember the Ladies”
• Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” 1776
• Citizen Leadership in the Young Republic
• After Shays’ Rebellion
• James Madison Debates a Bill of Rights
• America, the Creeks, and Other Southeastern Tribes
• America and the Six Nations: Native Americans After the Revolution
• The Revolution of 1800
• Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase
• The Expansion of Democracy During the Jacksonian Era
• The Religious Roots of Abolition
• Individualism in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance”
• Aylmer’s Motivation in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark”
• Thoreau’s Critique of Democracy in “Civil Disobedience”
• Hester’s A: The Red Badge of Wisdom
• “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”
• The Cult of Domesticity
• The Family Life of the Enslaved
• A Pro-Slavery Argument, 1857
• The Underground Railroad
• The Enslaved and the Civil War
• Women, Temperance, and Domesticity
• “The Chinese Question from a Chinese Standpoint,” 1873
• “To Build a Fire”: An Environmentalist Interpretation
• Progressivism in the Factory
• Progressivism in the Home
• The “Aeroplane” as a Symbol of Modernism
• The “Phenomenon of Lindbergh”
• The Radio as New Technology: Blessing or Curse? A 1929 Debate
• The Marshall Plan Speech: Rhetoric and Diplomacy
• NSC 68: America’s Cold War Blueprint
• The Moral Vision of Atticus Finch

Advisor: Robert A. Ferguson, George Edward Woodberry Professor in Law, Literature and Criticism, Columbia University, National Humanities Center Fellow Copyright National Humanities Center, 2015

Lesson Contents

Teacher’s note.

• Text Analysis & Close Reading Questions

Follow-Up Assignment

• Student Version PDF

What arguments, appeals, and rhetorical strategies did Patrick Henry use in 1775 to persuade reluctant members of the Second Virginia Convention to develop a military response to British aggression?

Understanding.

In 1775 American independence was not a foregone conclusion. While there had been unrest and resistance in Massachusetts with scattered acts of support from other areas, no organized movement toward revolution existed across the Colonies. Virginia ranked among the largest, wealthiest, and most populous colonies in 1775, and her political and military support for independence would be crucial for success. In this speech Patrick Henry (1736–1799) uses powerful rhetoric to convince influential, affluent, landed men of Virginia with much to lose to move past their current diplomatic posture opposing British aggression to the more treasonous one of open military preparedness.

Patrick Henry, 1736–1799

Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775 .

Speech, non-fiction.

Text Complexity

Grade 11-CCR complexity band.

For more information on text complexity see these resources from achievethecore.org .

In the Text Analysis section, Tier 2 vocabulary words are defined in pop-ups, and Tier 3 words are explained in brackets.

Click here for standards and skills for this lesson.

Common Core State Standards

• ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.1 (cite evidence to analyze specifically and by inference)
• ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.4 (determine the meaning of words and phrases)
• ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.6 (determine author’s point of view)

Advanced Placement US History

• Key Concept 3.1 (IIB) (arguments about rights of British subjects, the rights of the individual,…)

In this lesson students will deconstruct Patrick Henry’s famous speech to explore the tools of effective persuasion, including appeals, rhetorical strategies, and classical argument. This is a persuasive speech, one intended not only to present an argument but also to persuade the audience to act. While the speech can be used to investigate issues of freedom, power, and rights of the governed, this lesson focuses upon effective rhetoric. The speech includes several Biblical allusions — revolutionary rhetoricians often used Biblical references because it allowed them to speak more strongly against Britain without using overtly treasonous speech.

The text of this speech is well known; less well known is the fact that there was no actual transcript created of Henry’s speech — after all, these discussions smacked of treason, and keeping a written record would have been dangerous. In an environment of digital media and world-wide instant communication, students may wonder how Henry’s words were preserved. This speech was recreated in 1817 by William Wirt of Maryland, who published the first biography of Patrick Henry. Wirt drew upon materials collected beginning in 1808, including interviews with those who knew Henry and those who were present when the speech was delivered. For an electronic version of Wirt’s book, visit this link: Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry .

The provenance of the speech notwithstanding, Henry’s words provide a rich source to study rhetorical strategies and classical argument, and that study is the focus of this lesson. This text divides into four sections aligned to the arrangement of classical argument.

• The first two paragraphs form the introduction ( Exordium ). The Exordium attempts to engage the audience, to prepare them for the message to come, and to explain the purpose (thesis) of the speech.
• The third paragraph provides the statement of fact ( Narratio ) and argument ( Confirmatio ). The Narratio contextualizes the argument, presenting any background information necessary, while the Confirmatio explains the evidence that supports the thesis.
• The fourth paragraph presents and refutes counter arguments ( Refutatio ).
• The final paragraph forms the conclusion ( Peroratio ). The Peroratio serves several purposes: to restate an argument, to amplify reasoning, to inspire an audience, and to rouse emotional responses.

Each paragraph is accompanied by a number of close reading questions designed to invite student analysis in four major areas: classical argument structure, diction and syntax, rhetorical strategies, and argumentative appeals (logos, ethos, and pathos).

This lesson is divided into two parts, both accessible below. The teacher’s guide includes a background note, the text analysis with responses to the close reading questions, access to the interactive exercises, and a follow-up assignment. The student’s version, an interactive PDF, contains all of the above except the responses to the close reading questions and the follow-up assignment.

Teacher’s Guide

Background questions.

• What kind of text are we dealing with?
• When was it written?
• Who wrote it?
• For what audience was it intended?
• For what purpose was it written?

In 1775 unrest bubbled through the American Colonies. Britain had severely restricted Massachusetts through the Intolerable Acts; towns were voting to boycott British goods, and British soldiers were becoming a common sight in the American Colonies. In this lesson you will explore a famous speech by Patrick Henry (1736–1799), member of the Second Virginia Convention. Patrick Henry is not speaking in the Virginia House of Burgesses [the state legislature] in Williamsburg because it had been dissolved the year before by Royal Governor Dunmore. Resenting this British interference with local government, the members of the House of Burgesses regrouped as a state convention. In order to avoid any interference from British troops, the Second Convention of approximately 120 delegates met in Richmond, Virginia, from March 20 through March 27.

The American Colonies were attempting to negotiate with British in 1775, and many of Henry’s fellow delegates wanted to wait until these negotiations were completed before taking action. But Henry felt that delay would be a major mistake. On March 23, 1775, he asked the Virginia Convention to take a defensive stance immediately against Great Britain by raising an armed company in every Virginia county — an action considered by many to be open treason. His speech reflected language and actions far more radical that his fellow delegates were willing to go in public, but Henry based his request upon the assumption that even more aggressive military actions by the British would soon follow. Twenty-seven days after this speech was delivered the Battles of Lexington and Concord proved Henry correct.

In this lesson you will look at Patrick Henry’s speech and analyze his methods for convincing his fellow members of the Virginia Convention to take a military stance against the British. These delegates were wealthy and powerful and they had much to lose; Henry’s request was a big decision that many of them were reluctant to make. Henry used not only rhetorical devices but also the strategies of classical argument, making a potentially confusing situation simple and straightforward as he attempted to move all his fellow delegates toward the same result. His recommendations were accepted by the Convention.

The speech divides into the four parts of a classical argument, defined below. As you analyze the individual parts of the speech, look also for how these parts of the argument work together.

• The first two paragraphs form the introduction ( Exordium ). The Exordium attempts to engage the audience, preparing them for the message to come, and to explain the purpose (thesis) of the speech.
• The third paragraph provides the statement of fact ( Narratio ) and argument ( Confirmatio ). The Narratio contextualizes the argument, presenting any background information necessary, while the Confirmatio lays out in order the evidence to support the thesis.
• The final paragraph forms the conclusion ( Peroratio ). The Peroratio may perform several purposes: to restate an argument, to amplify reasoning, to inspire an audience, and to rouse emotional responses.

Text Analysis

Paragraph 1: exordium, close reading questions.

1. The first paragraph of classical argument, the exordium, seeks to engage the audience and prepare them to hear the speaker’s message. Give an example in this paragraph of an attempt to engage the audience and an example of an attempt to prepare the audience. Henry seeks to engage his audience by showing his respect for them. He recognizes and compliments the patriotism and abilities of the other members of the Convention in his first sentence (note that Henry continues to address the body as the House). He prepares his audience by expresses the hope that they will show him the same respect when he states in sentence 2, “I hope it will not be thought disrespectful…” Even though he will be speaking contrary to what has been previously presented, he reminds his audience that they are all colleagues by referring to the entire group, as in sentence 6, “we can hope to arrive at the truth.”

2. Another function of the exordium is to explain the purpose of the speech. What purpose does Henry establish, and to what is he appealing in order to emphasize this purpose? The purpose of the debate, of which this speech is a part, is to “arrive at truth” and fulfill the “great responsibility which we hold to God and our country” (sentence 6). He is appealing to the ethical integrity of his audience by articulating their earthly and heavenly responsibilities.

3. Why does Henry use the term “gentlemen” twice in the first two sentences? In order for others to accept a different idea, they must first believe they are being respected. Henry seeks to establish his respect for those who do not agree with him by referring to them as gentlemen. In addition, Henry is hoping to imply that since he is also a member of the Convention that they will give him and his ideas the same respect.

4. Why does Henry begin the second sentence with “but”? This is a rhetorical shift in perspective that helps to prepare his audience. Even though he is a fellow member of the Convention, he uses a rhetorical shift to explain that what he will say from that point on will be different than that heard before.

5. In sentence 3 what does Henry mean when he says, “this is no time for ceremony”? Why does he use the term “ceremony”? He means this is no time to simply say things because they might sound conciliatory, since ceremonies are often for visual display rather than actual action. He is emphasizing the time-sensitive nature of this debate and establishing the importance of immediate, serious discussion rather than a postponement of the issue (recall that some members of the Convention wished to wait until negotiations had run their course before beginning military preparedness).

6. What does Henry mean by “awful moment” in sentence 4? Why does he use this phrase? He means that the question under discussion is extremely important with potentially life-changing consequences. He is recognizing the treasonable nature of this discussion, displaying not only his own courage but asking his fellow delegates to show courage as well.

7. In sentence 5, when Henry states, “I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery,” he commits a logical fallacy. The false dichotomy (either-or) fallacy gives only two options with no choices in between, and Henry uses this intentionally. Why? By eliminating other options he is focusing his argument. He wants the listeners to understand that there are only two options; freedom, which he is advocating, or slavery, which he knows these proud, wealthy men, many of whom are slaveholders, will not tolerate.

8. In sentence 7 Henry argues on the basis of “ethos,” which is Greek for “character.” Such an argument is called an “ethical appeal.” It attempts to win over listeners on the basis of the trustworthiness of the speaker. How, in this sentence, does Henry suggest that his listeners can trust him? By appealing to religion as he calls upon the “majesty of heaven,” Henry makes an ethical (ethos) appeal that his audience will understand intellectually and emotionally. The Convention members consider themselves to be men of integrity and ethics, as Henry acknowledged in sentence 1. In sentence 7 Henry is asking them to understand that he likewise is compelled to speak based on his own sense of integrity (if he holds back, he would consider himself “guilty of treason”). He reminds his audience that he, like them, is a believer and is trustworthy.

MR. PRESIDENT: (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) This is no time for ceremony. (4) The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. (5) 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. (6) It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. (7) 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.

Statue of Patrick Henry, Richmond, Virginia.

Paragraph 2: Exoridum, continued

10. In this second paragraph of the exordium, Henry works to explain the importance and timeliness of his argument by setting up a contrast between illusions and truth in sentences 8 and 12. According to Henry, which will his argument contain and which will it NOT contain? He states that it is “natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope” but in the last sentence of the paragraph he clearly says he will not do that — he will know the “whole truth.” His argument will contain truth but will not contain illusions.

11. Henry uses the word “hope” several times in this speech. Give an example of an “illusion of hope” that Henry suggests in this second paragraph. One illusion would be the idea that the Colonies and Great Britain could negotiate an acceptable peace without war.

12. Allusions, unexplained references to other sources, are commonly based upon the Bible or mythology. What allusion does Henry use in sentence 9 when he says “listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts?” How does this allusion contribute to his argument? He is alluding to the sirens found in the epic The Odyssey . Siren calls are alluring and hard to resist even if expected, but they can be deadly. Henry is saying that to listen to this call, this “illusion of hope”, even though it is tempting, will prove fatal and transform the Convention into something unable to reason and act (beasts).

13. Henry uses multiple biblical allusions with which his educated audience would be familiar. In sentence 11 he says “Are we disposed of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not.” This is from Ezekiel 12:2, when god describes how those who hear Ezekiel’s words and do not listen will be destroyed. How does this allusion contribute to Henry’s argument? Henry is implying that not seeing or listening to his argument will lead to destruction.

(8) Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. (9) 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. (10) Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? (11) 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? (12) 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.

Henry delivered his 1775 speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia.

Paragraph 3: Narratio and Confirmatio

The Narratio contextualizes the argument, including presenting any background information necessary, while the Confirmatio lays out in order the evidence to support the thesis. Henry lists several negotiation attempts by colonists and British responses. He uses rhetorical strategies and appeals to further develop his argument, making sure that each item is contextualized from the Colonial perspective.

15. Henry begins this paragraph with another Biblical allusion, “one lamp by which my feet are guided” (Psalms 119:105). Rather than the word of God, which is the lamp found in the Biblical verse, what is the lamp that Henry uses to guide his feet in sentence 13? Why does he make this connection? The lamp is experience. Henry recounts past experiences and events that “guide his feet” and make fighting a necessity.

16. Henry continues to use “gentlemen” in this paragraph. Why? He wants to maintain his respect for his audience and remind them that he is one of them. As his argument builds he wants to take them along with him — reiterating the fact that they are esteemed colleagues.

17. What does “solace” mean? Why does Henry use this term? “Solace” means comfort in distress. Henry cautions his audience that the “hopes” of the past may have been used to comfort the Convention, but such comfort is an illusion and will not last.

18. Henry uses parallelism (structuring phrases in similar fashion) several times in this paragraph. Consider sentence 40, especially the verbs. How does Henry use both parallelism and verb choice (diction) to explain that the Colonies have tried many steps to maintain peace? “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated; [we] have implored…” He uses the parallel structure to indicate the process by which the Colonies have taken multiple steps to resolve differences. He chooses verbs that are increasingly dramatic to remind his audience that the Colonies have tried everything without result. Consider “petition” (to bring written grievances) versus “remonstrate” (to forcefully protest) versus “supplicate” (to beg earnestly or humbly) versus “prostrate” (to totally submit) versus “implore” (to beg desperately).

19. In the second paragraph Henry spoke of the “illusions of hope.” In sentence 43 he says, “There is no longer any room for hope.” Why did he use this term again? He is linking this part of his argument to the exordium and explaining that any chance of hope no longer exists. He is moving his audience away from the position of illusive hope that they may have held at the beginning of his speech toward another position.

20. Henry again makes a Biblical allusion in sentence 18, “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.” Christ was betrayed by his disciple Judas through the kiss of brotherhood, which led to Christ’s arrest and crucifixion (Luke 22:47). Who does Henry believe represents Judas and how does this allusion as a metaphor contribute to Henry’s argument? He believes the British represent Judas and that while they will appear brotherly to the Colonies they will betray, leading to Colonial downfall.

21. Antithesis means to put two ideas together in order to contrast them, pointing out their differences. In sentence 20, what does Henry contrast with “love and reconciliation”? What is the effect? He contrasts them with “fleets and armies.” The effect is to highlight the fact that Great Britain does not consider “love and reconciliation” a viable strategy, since they have responded with “fleets and armies,” and these should be “the last arguments to which kings resort.” Henry emphasizes that Great Britain has already taken the matter past the diplomatic phase to the military level.

22. Hypophora is a special type of rhetorical question whereby a question is asked and then answered by the speaker (as opposed to a typical rhetorical question, which is either not answered or has a yes/no answer). A hypophora is useful to present to an audience issues they may not have considered in depth. Find at least one example of hypophora in this paragraph and explain its contribution to Henry’s argument.

Some possibilities follow:

• “Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation?” “These are the implements of war; the last arguments to which kings resort.” (sentences 20 and 23). Henry emphasizes the seriousness of the military response that Great Britain has already displayed.
• “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.” (sentences 26 and 27). Henry points out that the British military response cannot be interpreted as anything other than a direct challenge to the Colonies.
• “And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument?” “Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years.” (sentences 30, 31, and 32). Henry reminds his audience that the Colonies have been trying to negotiate for ten years without results.

23. Henry first mentions slavery in paragraph one when he contrasts it with freedom. Find an example of slave imagery in this paragraph. What is Henry’s purpose in using this image in paragraph 3? In sentence 29 Henry states, “They [the armies and fleets] are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.” He wishes to continue the image of slavery to explain that the Colonies have used argument to combat the attempts of the British to enslave them, but these efforts have failed. Convention delegates included slaveholders who would recognize and recoil from this imagery.

24. Rhetorical parenthesis is the insertion into a sentence of an explanatory word or phrase. Consider sentence 42, “In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.” Identify the parenthesis and Henry’s purpose for including it. The parenthesis is “after these things,” and Henry is referring to the Colonies’ attempts at reconciliation. By using the parenthesis he connects those failed attempts to the end of the “hope of peace and reconciliation.”

25. Metonomy and synecdoche are special types of metaphors. In a metonomy, something strongly associated with an element is substituted for it (for instance, “The White House” is substituted for “the President”). In a synecdoche, part of an element substitutes for the whole (for instance, “farm hands” means “farm laborers”). Find an example of metonomy and synecdoche in this paragraph and identify what each represents. “The foot of the throne” (sentence 41) is metonomy, representing the King. “Tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament” (sentence 40) is synecdoche, representing the British government.

26. Henry finishes this paragraph with an appeal to logic in the form of an “if… then” statement. What is the “if… then” statement in this paragraph? He states in sentence 44, “If we wish to be free… [then] we must fight”!

27. Henry builds to a syllogistic argument, an appeal to logic, at the end of this paragraph. Identify the three parts of his syllogism (Major premise [A], Minor premise [B], and Conclusion), citing evidence from the text.

• Major premise [A]: We must either talk or fight to achieve results.
• Minor premise [B]: Talking does not achieve results.
• Conclusion: Therefore, we must fight to achieve results.

For more information about syllogisms, see Understanding Syllogisms

(13) I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. (14) I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. (15) 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? (16) Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? (17) Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. (18) Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. (19) Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. (20) Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? (21) Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? (22) Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. (23) These are the implements of war and subjugation ; the last arguments to which kings resort. (24) I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array , if its purpose be not to force us to submission? (25) Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? (26) Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? (27) No, sir, she has none. (28) They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. (29) They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry has been so long forging. (30) And what have we to oppose to them? (31) Shall we try argument? (32) Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. (33) Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? (34) Nothing. (35) We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. (36) Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication ? (37) What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? (38) Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. (39) Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. (40) 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. (41) 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. (42) In vain , after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. (43) There is no longer any room for hope. (44) If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending , if 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! (45) I repeat it, sir, we must fight! (46) An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

Patrick Henry’s “Treason” speech before the House of Burgesses on May 30, 1765.

Paragraph 4: Refutatio

29. The refutatio presents and refutes counter arguments. In paragraph 4 Henry uses procatalepsis, an argumentative strategy that anticipates an objection and then answers it. What argument does he anticipate and what two rhetorical strategies does he use to refute it? He anticipates the argument that the Colonies are too weak to fight. He answers it through tonal shifts and appeals.

30. Henry shifts tone in the beginning of this paragraph to irony, the use of language that conveys the opposite of the intended meaning. How does he convey a ironic tone? Cite evidence from the text. He uses ironic rhetorical questions — questions that convey the opposite of what he attempts to argue. Examples include “Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house” and the two questions that follow it (sentences 50, 51, and 52).

31. How does Henry shift from a ironic tone back to his urgent argument? Cite evidence from the text. He inserts appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos. He appeals to ethos in sentence 53 by saying “we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.” In sentence 54 he appeals to Logos and pathos by citing “three millions of people (logos) armed in the holy cause of liberty (pathos), and in such a country as that which we possess (pathos, patriotism).”

32. In sentence 58, what does Henry mean by “we have no election”? He means there is no choice but to fight.

33. Most of the British military action to this point had occurred in and around Boston. How does Henry attempt to connect the fate of Virginia to that of Boston, and why would he wish to make this connection? He uses the possessive pronoun “our” when discussing the chains, even though the clanking is heard is Boston. This addresses one of the objections made by southern colonies to taking up arms against the British — that the “trouble” was centered in Massachusetts, not Virginia.

34. Asyndeton is a series of phrases or words with conjunctions deleted. Find an example of asyndeton in this paragraph. What is its purpose? An example is in sentence 57, “the vigilant, the active, the brave.” Henry uses this to emphasize the positive qualities of those who will take up the battle.

Paragraph 5: Peroratio

36. The Peroratio, or conclusion, has several purposes, including: to restate an argument, to amplify reasoning, to inspire an audience, and to rouse emotional responses. Cite an example from the text of each of these four purposes.

• To restate: “Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace.” (sentence 66)
• To amplify: “the war is actually begun” (sentence 67)
• To rouse: “Why stand we here idle?” (sentence 70)
• To inspire: “Give me liberty or give me death” (sentence 75)

37. What image does Henry use to convey that the battle has already begun? He states in sentence 68, “the next gale… will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms.”

38. In sentences 70 through 73, Henry uses a series of questions which directly challenge his fellow delegates. What is his purpose in asking these questions? He wishes to inspire his colleagues to arms, in order to avoid the “chains and slavery.”

39. In sentence 75, probably the most famous sentence from this speech, Henry uses antithesis to set up a clear contrast. What does he contrast? What is the effect of this contrast? He contrasts liberty and death, concluding that without liberty death is preferable.

40. Sententia, especially useful in speeches, is an argumentative device that uses sound to sum up an argument. What is the sententia in this speech? “Give me liberty or give me death!”

41. How does Henry’s final statement, “Give me liberty or give me death” represent the courage of both Henry and his audience? Henry states that he is willing to suffer a traitor’s death rather than be denied liberty. This was an either/or choice with nothing in between, and a traitor’s death was quite likely if the patriot efforts failed. This indicates the courage that Henry displays by making the speech and by implication he recognizes the courage that will be necessary for his fellow delegates to take action.

(65) It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. (66) Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. (67) The war is actually begun! (68) The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! (69) Our brethren are already in the field! (70) Why stand we here idle? (71) What is it that gentlemen wish? (72) What would they have? (73) Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? (74) Forbid it, Almighty God! (75) I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

How might the format of the Henry speech apply to current events, especially in countries and regions of political unrest? If there had been social media in 1775 would this speech have been interpreted differently? Investigate the role of social media in the Arab Spring (2012) or other current events as directed by your teacher and then rewrite this speech for a social media platform. Share your results with your class.

Vocabulary Pop-Ups

• entertaining : thinking
• moment : importance
• magnitude : greatness
• revere : highly respect
• indulge : yield to desire
• arduous : very difficult
• temporal : worldly
• anguish : great distress
• solace : comfort
• insidious : deceitful
• snare : trap
• petition : formal request
• comports : agrees with
• implements : tools
• subjugation : enslavement
• martial array : warlike display
• rivet : fasten firmly
• entreaty : earnest request
• supplication : meek request
• beseech : to appeal urgently
• avert : prevent
• remonstrated : forcefully protested
• prostrated : totally submitted
• implored : begged desperately
• interposition : influence
• tyrannical : unjustly cruel
• slighted : ignored
• spurned : rejected
• in vain : without result
• inviolate : undisturbed
• inestimable : priceless
• contending : competing
• basely : dishonorably
• formidable : powerful
• adversary : enemy
• irresolution : indecision
• effectual : effective
• supinely : passively
• delusive : misleading
• phantom : ghost
• invincible : cannot be defeated
• vigilant : always alert
• election : choice
• forged : made
• extenuate : stretch out
• gale : strong wind
• resounding : echoing loudly
• brethren : brothers
• Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention, 1775. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp
• George Matthews, “Patrick Henry, half-length portrait.” Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/det.4a26383/ [accessed August 2015]
• “Patrick Henry on the George Washington equestrian statue at Capitol Square, Richmond, Virginia.” http://www.richmond.com/image_d0936222-3d78-11e2-9cd8-001a4bcf6878.html [accessed September 2015]
• “Saint John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, where Patrick Henry delivered his famous speech.” Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.34917/ [accessed August 2015]
• Peter F. Rothermel, “Patrick Henry’s ‘Treason’ speech before the House of Burgesses,” 1851. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry#/media/File:Patrick_Henry_Rothermel.jpg [accessed August 2015]
• “‘Give me liberty, or give me death!’ Patrick Henry delivering his great speech on the rights of the colonies, before the Virginia Assembly, convened at Richmond, March 23rd 1775, concluding with the above sentiment, which became the war cry of the revolution.” Lithograph. New York: Published by Currier & Ives, c1876. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b50326/ [accessed September 2015]

National Humanities Center | 7 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12256 | Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709

Phone: (919) 549-0661 | Fax: (919) 990-8535 | nationalhumanitiescenter.org

Copyright 2010–2023 National Humanities Center. All rights reserved.

What inspired Patrick Henry to proclaim, “Give me Liberty or Give me Death!”?

In attendance were 120 delegates, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, Edmund Pendleton, and Peyton Randolph. Dozens of British sympathizers were in the audience.

The delegates met in Richmond “to avoid the wrath of Royal Governor Lord Dunmore who resided in Williamsburg,” explains Charles Wissinger, the casting director and Richmond-based actor who, with a cast of nine actors, regularly reenacts a portion of the Convention. “Henry’s words not only articulated the concept of liberty as an essential right — a philosophy drawn from the writings of Enlightenment scholars — but also inspired support during a critical turning point in uniting the Colonies against British rule.”

St. John’s Church (c. 1741) is in Richmond’s oldest standing neighborhood, Church Hill, and it features a permanent exhibit that delves into the area’s history, including events leading to the American Revolution. “There’s perhaps no better place to get a taste of the revolutionary spirit that forever altered the course of the nation,” Whiting says.

Watch our video interview about Patrick Henry on GratefulAmericanTV.com.

And scroll down for more of our Q&A with Wissinger and Whiting. — David Bruce Smith, founder of the Grateful American™ Foundation, and Hope Katz Gibbs, executive producer

Charles Wissinger : He was born in Studley, VA, a little town in Hanover County. Growing up, he listened to Rev. Samuel Davies at Polegreen Church, and he would take the messages he learned in church and practice them aloud. This is how he learned to become an orator. As a young man, he tried his hand unsuccessfully at being a farmer and merchant, perhaps because he was destined for something bigger.

David Bruce Smith: Henry’s house burned down around 1762. How did that impact Henry and his young bride, Sarah Shelton?

Charles Wissinger: Sarah’s family owned the Shelton Tavern, which is now known as the Hanover Tavern, and her father invited the couple to live there after the fire as long as they helped with the guests. Across the street was the courthouse, where Henry’s father, John Henry ,  was the presiding judge in Hanover. Looking for a new career, Henry read books, studied law, and went to the courthouse to watch his father work.

Sarah Whiting : In early 1763 he passed the Virginia Bar, and eight months later he tried the Parson’s Cause case, which turned out to be his most famous case.

Charles Wissinger : That’s right. At the time, parsons (ministers, reverends, and pastors) were paid with the cash crop of the time — tobacco. In the years leading up to the lawsuit, little rain fell and the extensive minerals in the ground made the crop malnourished. As a result, the parsons received less tobacco, because it was valued at a higher price. They asked the local courts if they could be paid the same amount of tobacco they had received before, even though it was now worth much more. The courts declined their request.

David Bruce Smith: England’s King George, however, stepped in and reversed the court’s decision.

Charles Wissinger : Right again. The king told the parsons they could receive the same amount of tobacco from year to year regardless of its value. While that was better for the parsons, it was bad for everyone else — making the ruling damaging to the economy. Then Patrick Henry entered the  Parson’s Cause case, asking how much in back pay the parsons would receive to cover the difference under the king’s new ruling.

Sarah Whiting : Henry said the king had overstepped his bounds, contradicting the rules set by King James, who said we Colonists were allowed to govern ourselves. During his arguments, Patrick Henry called King George a tyrant. He won the case, leaving it to the jury to decide how much in back pay the parsons would receive.

David Bruce Smith: And the jury’s decision was two pennies per pound of tobacco, a decision that became known as the Two Penny Act.

Another amazing fact about the lowly penny is that in January 2012, a one-cent copper coin from the earliest days of the US Mint in 1793 sold for a record $1.38 million at a Florida auction — the most expensive coin ever sold for at auction.

It was known as a “Chain Cent,” because the central design on the back is a chain of 13 linking rings representing the solidarity of the 13 original colonies. Some critics, however, claimed the chain was symbolic of slavery, and the design was quickly changed from rings to a wreath.

Hope Katz Gibbs:  Where did Patrick Henry’s fame and recognition as an orator who fought for individual rights and liberties lead him?

Charles Wissinger : In 1772, he was elected to the House of Burgesses as a representative of Hanover County. In 1774, the Royal-appointed governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, dissolved the House of Burgesses because he saw that the delegates were leaning toward arming a militia and defending themselves against Britain.

The first Virginia Convention was held in Virginia’s capital, Williamsburg. Its primary focus was to decide on a place to hold the second Virginia Convention — because they needed to be as far from Lord Dunmore as possible to hold an extralegal meeting.

Sarah Whiting : Lord Dunmore was appointed to oversee our elected officials. When he disbanded the House of Burgesses, neither Parliament nor the king knew about it. So the delegates who thought he had no right to do so took it upon themselves to do business as usual without Dunmore’s permission. It is a hazy, complicated line here! Dunmore is overstepping the power he thinks he has, and the delegates are choosing to start the Conventions to continue their business.

Hope Katz Gibbs: What happened during the Second Virginia Convention in March 1775?

Charles Wissinger : Though it was a week-long meeting, we don’t know how many of the 120 delegates were there each day. You have to understand that they were entrepreneurs and farmers, and it was just before the spring harvest. But one of the key issues they faced was to organize and arm a militia in defense of the Colony of Virginia.

David Bruce Smith: That brings us to Patrick Henry’s famous speech.

Hope Katz Gibbs: Patrick Henry was asked to head the committee that created a plan to organize the defensive militia.

Charles Wissinger : Yes, and not many people know that Col. George Washington already had a plan in his pocket when he sat at the Virginia Convention. That was the basis for the plan that eventually passed. After that, Washington went to the different counties in Virginia to organize and send troops to the North to aid the New England area. Within a year, Patrick Henry is still in Virginia while the Declaration of Independence is being written in Philadelphia.

Sarah Whiting : We were now fighting as an independent nation breaking away from Great Britain. Lord Dunmore ran away. He jumped on a ship going back to England, never to return. In 1776, the people of Virginia elected their first governor — Patrick Henry. He served five one-year terms, although not consecutively.

Hope Katz Gibbs: Patrick Henry was elected one of the representatives to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but he chose not to serve.

Charles Wissinger : In fact, he said, “I smell a rat.” He didn’t want the Constitution ratified because he worried it would take away the states’ identities, giving more power to a centralized national government. And here’s where it gets really fun — that would have been the case without the Bill of Rights, which details the individual rights and liberties of the common man and the individual states. Henry’s criticism of the proposed Constitution stirred support for the Bill of Rights, which became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution after it was ratified.

Charles Wissinger: Henry and his first wife, Sarah Shelton, married in 1754 and had six children. By 1775, she was suffering from what we’d now consider post-partum depression — and became so mentally ill that she didn’t recognize her own children, wouldn’t eat, and died. Just a few weeks after her death, he gave the “Liberty or Death” speech, and it’s possible that there’s some correlation between his state of grief and his willingness to risk everything to be free. When he is elected governor within a year, he’s a single parent with his oldest children taking care of the younger ones.

David Bruce Smith: On Oct. 25 1777, two years after Sarah’s death, he marries a relative of Martha Washington — Dorothea Dandridge.

Charles Wissinger: She was about 22 years old, 19 years younger than he was, and they have 11 children together. However, six of the 17 children died before Patrick Henry did. In fact, only two of his first six children outlived him  — he died on June 6, 1799 at the age of 63. Dorothea, however, lived until Feb. 14, 1831; she was 73.

Don’t stop here! To learn more about Patrick Henry and St. John’s Church, visit  historicstjohnschurch.org.

Today in History

In the news | apr 02, 2024, elizabeth cady stanton, what four pivotal events happened on this day in history, words of wisdom, "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.", history matters, history matters april 1 to april 15, 2024, where to go, frederick douglass national historic site, special to the newsletter, history matters march 16 to march 31, 2024, arts & literature, historical book club, the personal librarian, eleanor and franklin: the story of their relationship, in the news, clarice smith’s paintings on display at university house, april 2024 newsletter, april 2, 2024, april 1, 2024, march 16, 2024, march 1, 2024, history making women, history matters march 1 to march 15, 2024, james garfield national historic site, march 2024 newsletter, herbert hoover, february 17, 2024, presidents day, february 16, 2024, history matters february 16 to february 29, 2024, february 1, 2024, chita rivera, february 2024 newsletter, partners & supporters.