March 23, 2006

Today in history: March 23, 1775

liberty.bmp

Patrick Henry made his famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia. The speech changed people's lives, ignited them.

Benson Bobrick writes in his book Angel in the Whirlwind (this is about a speech Henry made a decade earlier) - You get the sense in the following excerpt of Henry's power as a public speaker - the consciousness with where he chose to PAUSE ... and then how he concluded his thought, as the cries of "treason" rose around him - genius:

On May 29, 1765, Patrick Henry rose in the Virginia House of Burgesses to introduce a series of momentous resolutions which he had hastily drafted on a blank leaf of an old law book…Henry accompanied these resolutions with a fiery speech given the next day in which he concluded, "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third"—amid cries of "Treason" that arose from all sides of the room – "and George the Third," he continued artfully, "may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it!"

Thomas Jefferson, then a student at the College of William and Mary, was standing in the doorway and heard Henry speak. "I well remember the cry of treason," Jefferson wrote afterward, "the pause of Mr. Henry at the name of George III, and the presence of mind with which he closed his sentence, and baffled the charge vociferated."…To Jefferson it seemed as if Henry "spoke as Homer wrote".

Paul Johnson, in his wonderful book, History of the American People, writes of the "Give me liberty or give me death" speech:

A common American political consciousness was taking shape, and delegates began to speak with a distinctive national voice. At the end of it, Patrick Henry marked this change in his customary dramatic manner: 'The distinctions between Virginians and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian but an American.' Not everyone agreed with him, as yet, and the Continental Congress, as it called itself, voted by colonies rather than as individual Americans. But this body, essentially based on Franklin's earlier proposals, perpetuated its existence by agreeing to meet again in May 1775. Before that could happen, on February 5, 1775, parliament in London declared Massachusetts, identified as the most unruly and contumacious of the colonies, to be in a state of rebellion, thus authorizing the lawful authorities to use what force they thought fit. The fighting had begun. Hence when the Virginia burgesses met in convention to instruct their delegates to the Second Continental Congress, Henry saw his chance to bring home to all the revolutionary drama of the moment.

Henry was a born ham actor, in a great age of acting - the Age of Garrick. The British parliament was full of actors, notably [William] Pitt himself ('He acted even when he was dying') and the young [Edmund] Burke, who was not above drawing a dagger, and hurling it on the ground to make a point. But Henry excelled them all. He proposed to the burgesses that Virginia should raise a militia and be ready to do battle. What was Virginia waiting for? Massachusetts was fighting. 'Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we her idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?'

Then Henry got to his knees, in the posture of a manacled slave, intoning in a low but rising voice: 'Is life so dear, our peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!' He then bent to the earth with his hands still crossed, for a few seconds, and suddenly sprang to his feet, shouting, 'Give me liberty!' and flung wide his arms, paused, lowered his arms, clenched his right hand as if holding a dagger at his breast, and said in sepulchral tones: 'Or give me death!' He then beat his breast, with his hand holding the imaginary dagger.

There was silence, broken by a man listening at the open window, who shouted: "Let me be buried on this spot!'

Henry had made his point.

It's interesting - there's a great description of acting: "Acting is like a sculpture carved in snow." Obviously, that phrase came from the time of stage acting. Movies now can capture the "sculpture" before it melts. But that quote always makes me think of Patrick Henry. Nobody alive today can ever see his oratorical skills. There are no video tapes, tape recordings. We just have to take the word of those who were THERE. So while no "record" exists, and his speeches were, indeed, "carved in snow" ... a whiff of the power of them comes down to us regardless.

Click below to read, in full, Patrick Henry's speech that he made on this day in 1775:

Patrick Henry's Speech, St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775

No man, Mr. President, 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!

Posted by sheila
Comments

Great post. Patrick Henry tends to fade into the background beside Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton...

If I were an actor going for an open call for "1775," I think the role I'd enjoy most would be Adams (because I know the most about him, thank you David McCullough), but next would be Henry, because it would be such a challenge to make such an outsized orator not seem like a caricature, but not lose the natural drama of his personality - an actor playing a man who did a good deal of acting - it would be great to show the man in all of that, the choice to orate rather than just make a speech. And as a supporting role that would be especially sweet. (Maybe I could get one of your Ten Minute Oscars.)

But it shows the difference in the times. I've pictured those times in my mind, and I've always heard Henry delivering these outsized lines without a lot of artifice, almost matter-of-factly, and their power escaping people's attention for just a moment... and then, as it sinks in, gasps of treason! And THEN the passion of "If this be treason, make the most of it!" Adams seemed to me to be more of the firebrand in the Congress. (No-one sang, "Sit down, Pat!")

Do you think that stuff like Method acting and minimalism (not the same, I'm aware) have gotten into our public discourse in the same way as Garrick and other grandly theatric methods got into theirs? Maybe I made Henry too modern in my imagination?

Posted by: Nightfly at March 23, 2006 11:40 AM

//I've always heard Henry delivering these outsized lines without a lot of artifice, almost matter-of-factly,//

I don't know, man - people who were there describe Henry raising his hands to the heavens, shaking them, as though they were handcuffed, and pretending to break free of invisible shackles, etc. People could hear him down the damn block! People were standing clustered at the windows - so obviously Henry knew he had to be heard. And not just that - but he did this whole pantomime thing of breaking free from slavery - Sounds pretty OUT THERE to me. Not "artificial" but certainly performed.

And like you imply in your comment: oratory and rhetorical skill were taught back then. People who were good at it didn't just make a speech, like you said - they went to ANOTHER place - they "orated"!! Rhetoric and oratory were important classes, important parts of education. We have lost that skill - we only need to look at our dullard politicians to see that this is the case. We are no longer taught it, it's not a valued skill.

But for someone like Henry - or all those guys - rhetoric, and how to make an argument effectively, and how to devastate your opponent would have been drilled into them. The whole "devastate your opponent" thing is what Henry did with that brief little pause after George III - I just love that, I love Jefferson's memory of it - look at it again, at the timing of it: Henry makes it SEEM like he is going to go one way with the comment - makes it seem like he is going to lump George III in with the others - he leads his audience to believe that that's the way he's going, and so people start screaming "treason, treason ..." - and then, with a little rhetorical jujitsu move, he gets the best of EVERYBODY. Flips it. He wins.

Wish I had been there. Just wish I had been there!

Posted by: red at March 23, 2006 11:53 AM

I've always pictured the lines being delivered with all the pomp and circumstance the rhetoric conveys.

I'm glad to see that there was a bit of theatrics to it.

Posted by: Cullen at March 23, 2006 11:59 AM

Oh, for a time machine!!

Posted by: red at March 23, 2006 11:59 AM

Can you imagine one of the senators today brandishing a knife in congress and flinging it into the oak bannister to make his point. I'd be watching C-span on a regular basis.

And how about the guy at the window yelling, "Let me buried on this spot." If that actually happened (and I need to believe it did) that obscure human being is forever remembered, to this freaking day, before camcorders.

Fascinating stuff. I'm almost about to get pulled into another Sheila obsession but I just won't let myself.

Posted by: David at March 23, 2006 12:12 PM

I've never been to St. John's Church, David - although that WILL be one of my pilgrimages one day - but I do believe that that gentleman actually WAS eventually buried in that spot - and you can see his grave today.

Goosebumps!!

Posted by: red at March 23, 2006 12:15 PM

WOW! How freaking cool is THAT!!

Posted by: David at March 23, 2006 12:17 PM

Edward Carrington was his name.

Posted by: red at March 23, 2006 12:18 PM

Well, slap me with a red herring and call me irrelevant - that is wild. Not only did he say it, they took it seriously!

...people who were there describe Henry raising his hands to the heavens, shaking them, as though they were handcuffed, and pretending to break free of invisible shackles, etc. People could hear him down the damn block!

You see, I never knew this! My reading on the subject isn't comprehensive, so I never saw a description of Henry in action, just the words, with some bland caption - "Patrick Henry's speech led to cries of protest from the onlookers." Very bland textbook stuff, names and dates and texts and blah blah... I knew they could get carried away, but never really put it together in Henry's case.

Oh, and I only wish we had even one-tenth of the wit and rhetoric of the old masters. Then again, some of our politicians can barely handle enough logic to make even a sensible speech, much less present it so artfully.

Posted by: Nightfly at March 23, 2006 2:47 PM

OK. Confession time. I actually played Patrick Henry in a 6th grade school play and had to memorize the last paragraph of this speech.

I was blown away when I saw this post.

Posted by: Val Prieto at March 23, 2006 2:48 PM

val - hahahah really?? Did you do the whole pantomime thing, do you remember??

That is so cute.

Posted by: red at March 23, 2006 2:53 PM

Nightfly - yeah, really!!

I know - I just love that he acted the whole thing out -

Here's the description (this is from Paul Johnson's wonderful book History of the American People) - it just gives me chills - look at how INTO it Henry got!!:


[Henry] proposed to the burgesses that Virginia should raise a militia and be ready to do battle. What was Virginia waiting for? Massachusetts was fighting. 'Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we her idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?'

Then Henry got to his knees, in the posture of a manacled slave, intoning in a low but rising voice: 'Is life so dear, our peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!' He then bent to the earth with his hands still crossed, for a few seconds, and suddenly sprang to his feet, shouting, 'Give me liberty!' and flung wide his arms, paused, lowered his arms, clenched his right hand as if holding a dagger at his breast, and said in sepulchral tones: 'Or give me death!' He then beat his breast, with his hand holding the imaginary dagger.

There was silence, broken by a man listening at the open window, who shouted: "Let me be buried on this spot!'

Henry had made his point.

Posted by: red at March 23, 2006 2:55 PM

I dont remember much, but I do remember the costume quite vividly. My grandmother whod just come from Cuba had made it for me. She was a taylor by trade. I also remember the teacher urging me to do the whole pantomime thing.

That, and my award winning role as the evil Mr. Schnitzel in a play in ninth grade is the extent of my acting career.

I wont mention the mime club.

Posted by: Val Prieto at March 23, 2006 2:57 PM

Yes, it's probably best to leave the mime club unspoken.

Ahem.

Posted by: red at March 23, 2006 2:58 PM

"OK, children, remember your Heirarchy of Acting: legitimate theater, musicals, movies, TV, then mime."

Posted by: Nightfly at March 23, 2006 5:33 PM