Patrick Henry's most famous speech, made to the House of Burgess in 1775, is aptly referenced as the "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech. This immortalized title more or less sums up the whole point of Patrick Henry's speech. The point of the speech is a call to arms. He is telling the House that the colonists have done everything they can do by either petition or pander to try to reconcile these ten years past. He points out that reconciliation is not possible when you see how the colonists petitions are received by the monarchy, and how the British militia becomes more and more prevalent in their towns. Although Mr. Henry is for peace, his speech clearly tells that peace has been tried to its very limit. The only thing that can be done now is to take up arms and fight; because to him the war has already been started on the British side.
Patrick Henry appeals to the pathos of the House when he points out that their petitions and attempts at reconciliation with the monarchy have been either completely ignored, or they are have been answered in the uprising of greater hostility and violence of the British Militia against the colonists. He warns them that as reconciliation attempts are continually thrown out or are causing violence against the people; this is effectually putting them in-midst war already. The pathos of his speech often circle around the idea of slavery versus freedom. Patrick Henry urges that if the colonists don't take up arms and fight for their liberty, then they are effectually letting themselves become slaves to the monarchy. I believe the perceived character of Patrick Henry is one of a God-fearing man who prefers peace. Although he may be one who prefers peace and reconciliation, he is also smart enough to know when these measures are not going to work anymore. He can tell that if an answer to the query of reconciliation is violence, then really have no choice to take up arms and defend your liberties.
The historical significance of this document, I believe is great. This speech was delivered barely a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and is one of the most influential in history. Had Patrick Henry not delivered this speech, especially when he did, there may have not been as much fervor to move things along as quickly as they did. Although the masses do not write or communicate in the beautiful language of that time, the message is still completely relevant to this country. In one place I enjoy greatly he says specifically that if your body of government (in his case the monarchy) is not allowing you your liberties, and they refuse to come to any sort of compromise (or reconciliation), and you refuse to defend your liberties -not only are you being treasonous to yourself (and your country) but you are allowing yourself to be a slave to the government (or monarchy).
In conclusion, I have to say I am in complete agreement with Mr. Patrick Henry. I believe he was right in his petition to the House of Burgess, and although I am a person who always upholds peace over war; if you are being forced into a situation where as a country your inquiries of peace and reconciliation are being met with intolerance and violent acts against, and you have tried every other method; some times you have to take up arms to defend yourself and what you believe in.
Thank you for giving a clear, modern language summation of Patrick Henry's speech. I generally do not have an issue with reading older texts that have terms we just don't use today, but I am not sure I would have provided the clarity you did in your blog- nice! The points you made regarding his call to arms as a last resort is an important distinction and I think it shows this was not just a "war-happy" man who had little regard for the sacrifices that come with war. I also think he was rather astute in warning that the war had already begun even though others were either unable or unwilling to recognize that fact. I think he demonstrated the challenge he was up against by how strongly he worded his speech in order to persuade and convince his audience that severe action was necessary. I also think it very interesting that he appealed to the fight against slavery and subjugation by the British and yet we are reading in other parts of the text how there was a double-standard to the term slavery dependent upon the race of the would-be slave. Again, nice points, great analysis.
ReplyDeleteI think that you did an excellent summation of this difficult to read article. You are correct in your summation; it is essentially a call to arms. I agree Thomas Paine doesn’t strike me as a war-happy person, but a man of intellect and vision. In the excerpt, Thomas Paine basically ask them them in a matter of fact way, how much is too much? He realizes that the time is now to fight for what the colonists have acquired and will acquire in the future. He realizes that America will be more advantageous if they separate from the Britain. He also goes on to say how Britain’s relationship with the colonies is one that is of financial advantage to Britain. They could care less about the colonies. This was demonstrated with the repeated tax laws that were revoked only to be reinstated. Also, he goes to great depths to explain to the colonist that they don’t need Britain’s protection. They can build a navy that could give the unbeatable British navy a run for their money. After all, they are debt-free and can afford to cost of assembly a navy, which by the way would provide advantageous on the international trade commerce. Paine realizes that they can do what many think are impossible.
ReplyDelete