Historie Podcasts

Patrick Henrys tale om "Liberty or Death"

Patrick Henrys tale om


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Meget havde ændret sig i de næsten ni år, siden Patrick Henry havde holdt sin meget omtalte “Forræderi” -tale i maj 1765 som en protest mod frimærkesloven. Boston Tea Party i december 1773 havde foranlediget et angreb fra britiske myndigheder, der udpegede Massachusetts for særligt stramt kongeligt tilsyn. Som en reaktion på disse begivenheder indkaldte den første kontinentale kongres i september 1774, hvilket gav udtryk for troen på, at krænkelse af rettigheder i Massachusetts truede friheder i hele kolonierne. Kongressen opfordrede til modstand mod tvangslovene, dannelsen af ​​militser og etableringen af ​​en boykot af britiske varer. Parlamentet reagerede i februar 1775 ved at erklære de amerikanske kolonier for at være i oprør. Efter denne strøm af begivenheder åbnede en anden session i Virginia -konventionen i marts 1775 i St. John's Church i Richmond. Henry talte til støtte for sine forslag og argumenterede for, at en krig allerede var begyndt og delvist sagde:

Desuden skal vi ikke kæmpe vores kampe alene. Der er en retfærdig Gud, der præsiderer over nationernes skæbner, og som vil rejse venner til at kæmpe vores kampe for os. Slaget, sir, er ikke alene til de stærke; det er for de årvågne, de aktive, de modige. Desuden har vi intet valg. Hvis vi var base nok til at ønske det, er det nu for sent at trække sig tilbage fra konkurrencen. Der er ingen tilbagetog, men i underkastelse og slaveri! Vores kæder er smedet. Deres klap kan blive hørt på Boston -sletterne! Krigen er uundgåelig - og lad den komme! Jeg gentager det, sir, lad det komme! Det er forgæves, sir, at uddybe sagen. Herrer må græde, fred, fred; men der er ingen fred. Krigen er faktisk begyndt! Den næste kuling, der fejer fra nord, vil bringe øret sammenstød mellem rungende arme! Vores brødre er allerede i marken! Hvorfor står vi her inaktiv? Hvad er det, herrer ønsker? Hvad ville de have? Er livet så dyrt eller fred så sødt, at det kan købes til prisen for kæder og slaveri? Forbud det, den Almægtige Gud - jeg ved ikke, hvilken vej andre kan tage; men hvad mig angår - giv mig frihed eller giv mig døden!

Disse dramatiske ord blev modtaget i indledende stilhed, men råb om støtte lød hurtigt. Delegaterne stemte med en snæver margin for at begynde de militære forberedelser og sluttede sig til Massachusetts, som havde taget lignende handlinger tidligere, i spidsen for revolutionær aktivitet. Disse var i hvert fald ordene bedst husket efter det faktum, da talen ikke var skrevet på forhånd og ikke taget ned som leveret. Den mest populære version (citeret ovenfor) blev udgivet i 1817 af William Wirt, Patrick Henrys biograf. Mindre end en måned senere ville kampe bryde ud i Lexington og Concord.


Se tidslinjen for den amerikanske revolution.


Patrick Henrys tale om "Liberty or Death" - historie


Gå her for mere om Patrick Henry .

Gå her for mere om Henrys tale om frihed eller død .

Det følger den fulde tekstudskrift af Patrick Henrys Give Me Liberty eller Give Me Death -tale, holdt i Richmond, Virginia - 23. marts 1775.


Ingen mand tænker mere højt end jeg om patriotisme såvel som evner til de meget værdige herrer, der netop har talt til Parlamentet.

Men forskellige mænd ser ofte det samme emne i forskellige lys, og derfor håber jeg, at det ikke vil blive betragtet som respektløst over for de herrer, hvis jeg underholdende mens jeg udtaler meninger af en karakter, der er meget modsat deres, vil sige mine følelser frit og uden reservere. Dette er ikke tid til ceremoni. Spørgsmålet før Parlamentet er et af frygtelige øjeblik for dette land. For min egen del betragter jeg det som intet mindre end et spørgsmål om frihed eller slaveri og i forhold til emnets størrelse burde være debatens frihed. Det er kun på denne måde, at vi kan håbe på at nå frem til sandheden og opfylde det store ansvar, vi har over for Gud og vores land. Skulle jeg holde tilbage med mine meninger på et sådant tidspunkt, af frygt for at give anstød, skulle jeg betragte mig selv som skyldig i forræderi over for mit land og i en illoyal handling over for Himmelens Majestæt, som jeg respekterer over alle jordiske konger.

Hr. Formand, det er naturligt, at mennesket hengiver sig til håbets illusioner. Vi er tilbøjelige til at lukke øjnene for en smertefuld sandhed og lytte til sirenens sang, indtil hun forvandler os til dyr. Er dette en del af vise mænd, der er involveret i en stor og hård kamp for frihed? Er vi villige til at være af antallet af dem, der med øjne ikke ser, og med ører, ikke hører, de ting, der så næsten angår deres tidsmæssige frelse? For mit vedkommende, uanset åndsangst det måtte koste, er jeg villig til at kende hele sandheden til at kende det værste og sørge for den.

Jeg har kun en lampe, som mine fødder ledes efter, og det er erfaringens lampe. Jeg kender ingen måde at bedømme fremtiden, men efter fortiden. Og at dømme efter fortiden, vil jeg gerne vide, hvad der har været i det britiske ministeriums adfærd i de sidste ti år for at retfærdiggøre de forhåbninger, som herrer har glædet sig over at trøste sig selv og Parlamentet med. Er det det lumske smil, som vores andragende for nylig er blevet modtaget med?

Tro ikke på det, sir, det vil vise sig at være en snare for dine fødder. Lad ikke jer selv blive forrådt med et kys. Spørg jer selv, hvordan denne elskværdige modtagelse af vores andragende stemmer overens med de krigeriske forberedelser, der dækker vores farvande og gør vores land mørkere. Er flåder og hære nødvendige for et arbejde med kærlighed og forsoning? Har vi vist os selv så uvillige til at blive forsonet, at kraft må kaldes ind for at vinde vores kærlighed tilbage? Lad os ikke bedrage os selv, sir. Dette er redskaberne til krig og underkastelse de sidste argumenter, som konger tyer til. Jeg spørger mine herrer, sir, hvad betyder dette kampsortiment, hvis dets formål ikke er at tvinge os til underkastelse? Kan herrer tildele andre mulige motiver til det? Har Storbritannien nogen fjende i dette kvartal af verden for at opfordre til al denne ophobning af flåde og hære? Nej, sir, hun har ingen. De er beregnet til os: de kan ikke være beregnet til andre. De sendes over for at binde og nitte på os de kæder, som det britiske ministerium har smedet så længe. Og hvad har vi at modsætte os dem? Skal vi prøve at argumentere? Sir, vi har prøvet det i de sidste ti år. Har vi noget nyt at tilbyde om emnet? Ikke noget. Vi har holdt emnet oppe i ethvert lys, som det er i stand til, men det har været forgæves. Skal vi ty til bøn og ydmyge bøn? Hvilke vilkår skal vi finde, som ikke allerede er udtømt?

Lad os ikke, jeg beder dig, sir, bedrage os selv. Sir, vi har gjort alt, hvad der kunne gøres for at afværge den storm, der nu kommer. Vi har anmodet om, at vi har påvist, at vi har bedt om, at vi har bøjet os foran tronen og har anmodet om, at den skal anholdes ministeriets og parlamentets tyranniske hænder. Vores andragender er blevet mindsket, vores remonstrationer har frembragt yderligere vold og fornærmelse vores bønner er blevet ignoreret, og vi er blevet forkastet med foragt fra tronfoden! Forgæves, efter disse ting, må vi forkæle det gode håb om fred og forsoning. Der er ikke længere plads til håb. Hvis vi ønsker at være frie-hvis vi vil bevare ukrænkelige de uvurderlige privilegier, som vi har stridt så længe om-hvis vi ikke grundlæggende mener at opgive den ædle kamp, ​​hvor vi har været så længe engageret, og som vi har haft lovede os selv aldrig at opgive, før det herlige objekt i vores konkurrence er opnået-vi skal kæmpe! Jeg gentager det, sir, vi må kæmpe! En appel til våben og til værtsguden er alt, hvad vi har tilbage!

De fortæller os, sir, at vi er svage ude af stand til at klare en så formidabel modstander. Men hvornår skal vi være stærkere? Bliver det den næste uge eller det næste år? Vil det være når vi er totalt afvæbnet, og når en britisk vagt skal være stationeret i hvert hus? Skal vi samle kræfter ved uopløsning og passivitet? Skal vi tilegne os midlerne til effektiv modstand ved at ligge supinely på ryggen og omfavne håbets vildfarne fantom, indtil vores fjender har bundet os hånd og fod?

Sir, vi er ikke svage, hvis vi gør en ordentlig brug af de midler, som naturens Gud har lagt i vores magt. De millioner af mennesker, bevæbnet i den hellige frihedssag, og i et land som det, vi besidder, er uovervindelige af enhver kraft, som vores fjende kan sende imod os. Desuden skal vi ikke kæmpe vores kampe alene. Der er en retfærdig Gud, der præsiderer over nationernes skæbner, og som vil rejse venner til at kæmpe vores kampe for os. Slaget, sir, er ikke alene for de stærke, det er for de årvågne, de aktive, de modige. Desuden har vi intet valg. Hvis vi var base nok til at ønske det, er det nu for sent at trække sig tilbage fra konkurrencen. Der er ingen tilbagetog, men i underkastelse og slaveri! Vores kæder er smedet! Deres klap kan blive hørt på Boston -sletterne! Krigen er uundgåelig-og lad den komme! Jeg gentager det, sir, lad det komme.

Det er forgæves, sir, at dæmpe sagen. Herrer kan råbe: Fred, fred- men der er ingen fred. Krigen er faktisk begyndt! Den næste kuling, der fejer fra nord, vil bringe øret sammenstød mellem rungende arme! Vores brødre er allerede i marken! Hvorfor står vi her inaktiv? Hvad er det, herrer ønsker? Hvad ville de have? Er livet så dyrt eller fred så sødt, at det kan købes til kæder og slaveri? Forbud det, den Almægtige Gud!

Jeg ved ikke, hvilken kurs andre kan tage, men hvad mig angår, giv mig frihed eller giv mig døden!


Hvad er formålet med Patrick Henrys tale?

Patrick Henry holdt sin "Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death" -tale med det formål at befri Virginia fra britisk kolonistyre. Patrick Henrys tale blev leveret i 1775 og er siden blevet anerkendt som en af ​​de mest afgørende taler i verdenshistorien.

Talen fandt sted i en kirke i Virginia den 23. marts 1775 ifølge både Totally History og Yale Law School. Det fungerede som et svar på Storbritanniens handlinger mod kolonier på de amerikanske øer. Patrick Henry betragtede briternes indflydelse som en trussel mod det amerikanske folks frihed og afviste alle de påstande, briterne fremsatte for at begrunde deres grunde til at kolonisere Amerika. Som patriot troede Patrick Henry på, at det britiske imperium siver fra hans land, og at amerikanske borgere ikke havde andet valg end at acceptere deres rolle som værende underordnet det dominerende britiske kolonistyre.

Formålet med talen var at mobilisere indbyggerne i Virginia til at tage affære mod det britiske styre og overbevise staten Virginia om, at de aldrig under nogen omstændigheder kunne opnå fred. Talen inspirerede mange mennesker til at tage parti med Patrick Henrys politiske ideologier og indledte en bølge af patriotisme, der påvirkede den amerikanske histories forløb.


Talen

Ingen mand tænker mere højt end jeg om patriotisme såvel som evner til de meget værdige herrer, der netop har talt til Parlamentet. Men forskellige mænd ser ofte det samme emne i forskellige lys, og derfor håber jeg, at det ikke vil blive betragtet som respektløst over for de herrer, hvis jeg underholdende mens jeg udtaler meninger af en karakter, der er meget modsat deres, vil sige mine følelser frit og uden reservere. Dette er ikke tid til ceremoni. Opgaven før Parlamentet er en af ​​frygtelige øjeblik for dette land. For min egen del betragter jeg det som intet mindre end et spørgsmål om frihed eller slaveri og i forhold til emnets størrelse burde være debatens frihed. Det er kun på denne måde, at vi kan håbe på at nå frem til sandheden og opfylde det store ansvar, vi har over for Gud og vores land. Skulle jeg holde mine meninger tilbage på et sådant tidspunkt, af frygt for at forfalde, skulle jeg betragte mig selv som skyldig i forræderi over for mit land og i en illoyal handling over for Himmelens Majestæt, som jeg respekterer over alle jordiske konger.

Hr. Formand, det er naturligt, at mennesket hengiver sig til håbets illusioner. Vi er tilbøjelige til at lukke øjnene for en smertefuld sandhed og lytte til sirenens sang, indtil hun forvandler os til dyr. Er dette en del af vise mænd, der er involveret i en stor og hård kamp for frihed? Er vi villige til at være af antallet af dem, der med øjne ikke ser, og med ører, ikke hører, de ting, der så næsten angår deres tidsmæssige frelse? For mit vedkommende, uanset åndsangst det måtte koste, er jeg villig til at kende hele sandheden til at kende det værste og sørge for den. Jeg har kun en lampe, som mine fødder ledes efter, og det er erfaringens lampe. Jeg kender ingen måde at bedømme fremtiden, men efter fortiden. Og at dømme efter fortiden, vil jeg gerne vide, hvad der har været i det britiske ministeriums adfærd i de sidste ti år for at retfærdiggøre de forhåbninger, som herrer har glædet sig over at trøste sig selv og Parlamentet med. Er det det lumske smil, som vores andragende er blevet modtaget for nylig? Tro ikke på det, sir, det vil vise sig at være en snare for dine fødder. Lad ikke jer selv blive forrådt med et kys. Spørg jer selv, hvordan denne elskværdige modtagelse af vores andragende er i overensstemmelse med de krigeriske forberedelser, der dækker vores farvande og gør vores land mørkere. Er flåder og hære nødvendige for et arbejde med kærlighed og forsoning? Har vi vist os selv så uvillige til at blive forsonet, at kraft må kaldes ind for at vinde vores kærlighed tilbage? Lad os ikke bedrage os selv, sir. Dette er redskaberne fra krig og underkastelse de sidste argumenter, som konger tyer til. Jeg spørger mine herrer, sir, hvad betyder dette kampsortiment, hvis dets formål ikke er at tvinge os til underkastelse? Kan herrer tildele andre mulige motiver til det? Har Storbritannien nogen fjende i dette kvartal af verden for at opfordre til al denne ophobning af flåde og hære? Nej, sir, hun har ingen. De er beregnet til os: de kan ikke være beregnet til andre. De sendes over for at binde og nitte på os de kæder, som det britiske ministerium har smedet så længe. Og hvad har vi at modsætte os dem? Skal vi prøve at argumentere? Sir, vi har prøvet det i de sidste ti år. Har vi noget nyt at tilbyde om emnet? Ikke noget. Vi har holdt emnet oppe i ethvert lys, som det er i stand til, men det har været forgæves. Skal vi ty til bøn og ydmyge bøn? Hvilke vilkår skal vi finde, som ikke allerede er udtømt? Lad os ikke, jeg beder dig, sir, bedrage os selv. Sir, vi har gjort alt, hvad der kunne gøres for at afværge den storm, der nu kommer. Vi har anmodet om, at vi har påvist, at vi har bedt om, at vi har bøjet os foran tronen og har anmodet om, at den skal anholdes ministeriets og parlamentets tyranniske hænder. Vores andragender er blevet mindsket, vores remonstrationer har frembragt yderligere vold og fornærmelse vores bønner er blevet ignoreret, og vi er blevet forkastet med foragt fra tronfoden! Forgæves, efter disse ting, må vi forkæle det gode håb om fred og forsoning. Der er ikke længere plads til håb. Hvis vi ønsker at være frie - hvis vi vil bevare de uvurderlige privilegier, som vi har været så længe i strid med, at krænke - hvis vi ikke grundlæggende mener at opgive den ædle kamp, ​​som vi har været så længe engageret i, og som vi har lovet os selv aldrig at opgive, før det herlige objekt i vores konkurrence er opnået - vi skal kæmpe! Jeg gentager det, sir, vi må kæmpe! En appel til våben og til værtsguden er alt, hvad vi har tilbage!

De fortæller os, sir, at vi er svage ude af stand til at klare en så formidabel modstander. Men hvornår skal vi være stærkere? Bliver det den næste uge eller det næste år? Vil det være når vi er totalt afvæbnet, og når en britisk vagt skal være stationeret i hvert hus? Skal vi samle kræfter ved uopløsning og passivitet? Skal vi tilegne os midlerne til effektiv modstand ved at ligge supinely på ryggen og omfavne håbets vildfarne fantom, indtil vores fjender har bundet os hånd og fod? Sir, vi er ikke svage, hvis vi gør en ordentlig brug af de midler, som naturens Gud har lagt i vores magt. De millioner af mennesker, bevæbnet i den hellige årsag til frihed og i et land som det, vi besidder, er uovervindelige af enhver kraft, som vores fjende kan sende imod os. Desuden skal vi ikke kæmpe vores kampe alene. Der er en retfærdig Gud, der præsiderer over nationernes skæbner, og som vil rejse venner til at kæmpe vores kampe for os. Slaget, sir, er ikke alene for de stærke, det er for de årvågne, de aktive, de modige. Desuden har vi intet valg. Hvis vi var base nok til at ønske det, er det nu for sent at trække sig tilbage fra konkurrencen. Der er ingen tilbagetog, men i underkastelse og slaveri! Vores kæder er smedet! Deres klap kan blive hørt på Boston -sletterne! Krigen er uundgåelig - og lad den komme! Jeg gentager det, sir, lad det komme.

Det er forgæves, sir, at dæmpe sagen. Herrer kan råbe: Fred, Fred - men der er ingen fred. Krigen er faktisk begyndt! Den næste kuling, der skyller fra nord, bringer sammenstød mellem rungende arme i ørerne! Vores brødre er allerede i marken! Hvorfor står vi her inaktiv? Hvad er det, herrer ønsker? Hvad ville de have? Er livet så dyrt eller fred så sødt, at det kan købes til kæder og slaveri? Forbud det, den Almægtige Gud! Jeg ved ikke, hvilken kurs andre kan tage, men hvad mig angår, giv mig frihed eller giv mig døden!

* William Wirt (1772-1834) rekonstruerede denne accepterede tekst fra Patrick Henrys "Liberty or Death" -tale til sin biografi om Patrick Henry. Wirt’s Skitser af livet og karakteren af ​​Patrick Henry blev udgivet i 1817 og genoptrykt omkring to dusin gange i det nittende århundrede. Historikere og biografer har ofte diskuteret fordele og grænser ved William Wirt's rekonstruktion af teksten.


Denne uge i historien: Patrick Henry opfordrer til frihed eller død

Historisk tolk, Michael Wells, til højre, leverer den berømte linje om "giv mig frihed eller giv mig døden", da han genopfører Patrick Henrys tale i St. John's kirke på Church Hill i Richmond, Va., Fredag ​​den Jan. 10, 2014. Steve Helber, Associated Press

Den 23. marts 1775 holdt Virginia advokat og politiker Patrick Henry sin berømte tale "Giv mig frihed eller giv mig død" i St. John's Episcopal Church i Richmond, Virginia. Talen dramatiserede den dybde af følelse, som patrioter holdt dengang, og hjalp med at overtale Virginia House of Burgesses til at forberede krig med Storbritannien.

I midten af ​​1770'erne var Storbritannien og dets amerikanske kolonier på en kollisionskurs. Med afslutningen af ​​den franske og indiske krig et årti tidligere stod Storbritannien tilbage med lammende gæld og havde vendt sig til nye skatteformer for at stabilisere sin økonomi. I 1765 blev kolonierne ramt af frimærksloven, der beskattede lovlige licenser og tilskud, pjecer, aviser, spillekort, terninger og mere. Modstanden mod skatten i kolonierne var rasende, og en af ​​de førende stemmer, der opfordrede til ophævelse, tilhørte Patrick Henry.

Henry var født i 1736 i Virginia's Hanover County. Henry var en jord- og slaveejer og begyndte sin karriere som en gentleman -landmand. Han blev derefter en succesfuld advokat, inden han blev valgt til Virginia's House of Burgesses i 1765, ligesom frimærkeloven var blevet vedtaget.

I bogen "The American Revolution" bemærkede historikeren Bruce Lancaster om en session i House of Burgesses få dage efter, at Henry talte til kroppen: "Medlemmerne diskuterede sandsynligvis den tale, Patrick Henry fra Hanover County havde holdt, en tale, der rystede hovedstadens slanke spir. Forsigtige mænd mumlede, at Henry var kommet tæt på forræderi i sin trodsige tale mod den nye handling, men alle var enige om, at der havde været en god handel i Henrys ord. ”

På grund af Henry og andre i hele kolonierne dannede der sig mobber, der sørgede for, at de nye skatter ikke blev opkrævet, og med britiske købmænd ramt hårdt på grund af amerikanske boykotter, bakkede det britiske parlament tilbage. Det udstedte imidlertid erklæringsloven på samme tid, der slet og tydeligt sagde, at det havde magt og myndighed til at udstede eventuelle skatter eller foretage enhver handling, det skønnede passende til enhver tid.

Dette førte til flere skatter og endda stationering af et stort antal tropper i Boston-et arnested for anti-britisk stemning. I 1770 blev flere Bostonianere skudt af britiske rødfrakker i det, der blev kendt som Boston -massakren, hvilket øgede spændingerne mellem kolonierne og Storbritannien endnu mere. I december 1773 gik Bostonianere, der modstod de nye afgifter på te, om bord på tre britiske skibe i Boston havn og dumpede deres last te i bugten, hvilket førte til alvorlige restriktioner fra Storbritannien i form af de utålelige love.

Begivenheder i Boston gav imidlertid genklang i hele kolonierne, og de fleste koloniale ledere vidste, at sådan en britisk hårdhændethed også let kunne vendes mod deres lokalitet. I hele denne periode arbejdede Henry sammen med Thomas Jefferson og andre fremtrædende jomfruer for at opretholde kommunikationen mellem kolonierne.

I begyndelsen af ​​1774, efter at Storbritannien havde opfordret til at lukke havnen i Boston som reaktion på Boston Tea Party, opfordrede Virginia House of Burgesses til solidaritet med Bostons indbyggere og en bønnedag for at bede Gud om at hjælpe deres kollegaer. Virginia kongelige guvernør, Lord Dunmore, mente, at huset handlede illoyalt over for kongen og officielt opløste liget. Det rekonstituerede imidlertid hurtigt i en taverne som en konvention og accepterede at sende delegerede til den første kontinentale kongres, der mødtes i Philadelphia i september 1774.

I begyndelsen af ​​1775 syntes Storbritannien at være fuldstændig villig til at bruge militær magt til at knuse enhver modstand mod dens autoritet i Massachusetts, og ledere i hver af kolonierne begyndte at diskutere, hvordan man opretter deres egen militære modstyrke. Patrick Henry stod i spidsen for debatten i Virginia. Den anden konvention blev konstitueret den 20. marts 1775 i St. John's Episcopal Church i Richmond. Da kroppen diskuterede, om man ville bevæbne sin milits eller ej, stod Patrick Henry op den 23. marts for at holde talen, som han i sidste ende blev mest kendt for.

Henry begyndte sine bemærkninger med respekt for dem, der var imod hans holdning: ”Ingen mennesker tænker mere højt end jeg om patriotisme såvel som evner til de meget værdige herrer, der netop har talt til huset. Men forskellige mænd ser ofte det samme emne i forskellige lys, og derfor håber jeg, at det ikke vil blive betragtet som respektløst over for de herrer, hvis jeg underholdende mens jeg udtaler meninger af en karakter, der er meget modsat deres, vil sige mine følelser frit og uden reservere."

Efter at have imponeret på sine kolleger, at det var vigtigt at handle, og at han troede på, at emnet kun handlede om kolonisternes frihed eller slaveri, opfordrede Henry medlemmerne af huset til at vågne op til virkeligheden af ​​det, der skete: ”Er dette den del af vise mænd, der er involveret i en stor og hård kamp for frihed? Er vi villige til at være af antallet af dem, der med øjne ikke ser, og med ører, ikke hører, de ting, der så næsten angår deres tidsmæssige frelse? For mit vedkommende, uanset åndsangst det måtte koste, er jeg villig til at kende hele sandheden for at kende det værste og sørge for den. ”

Henry fortsatte med at detaljerede Storbritanniens lovovertrædelser mod kolonierne og bemærkede, at dets militære opbygning "i dette kvarter af verden" ikke var beregnet til nogen fjende, men snarere til brug mod kolonisterne. ”Og hvad har vi at modsætte os dem? Skal vi prøve at argumentere? Det har vi prøvet i de sidste 10 år. Har vi noget nyt at tilbyde om emnet? Ikke noget."

Da der ikke var noget militær til at modsætte sig briterne, sagde Henry, så var "ydmyg underkastelse" den eneste mulighed tilbage, og hvilke vilkår, spurgte Henry, ville de finde?

”Der er ikke længere plads til håb. Hvis vi ønsker at være frie - hvis vi vil bevare de uvurderlige privilegier, som vi har stridt så længe for, at de er uoverskuelige. vi skal kæmpe! Jeg gentager det, sir, vi må kæmpe! En appel til våben og til værtsguden er alt, hvad vi har tilbage! ”

Han bemærkede, at modstanden mod at forberede et forsvar anførte, at kolonierne var svage. Men hvornår, spurgte Henry, ville det være det rigtige tidspunkt? Hvis kolonierne kun ventede, indtil de var stærke nok til at tage imod Storbritannien, ville dagen aldrig komme, for Storbritannien ville med magt afvæbne alle kolonisterne længe, ​​før de kunne opbygge deres styrke. Ydermere bemærkede han, at enhver konflikt ikke ville blive vundet med våben alene, men også ved at stole på Gud, som sikkert støttede deres sag.

”Krigen er uundgåelig - og lad den komme! Jeg gentager det, sir, lad det komme. Det er forgæves, sir, at dæmpe sagen. Herrer kan råbe: Fred, Fred - men der er ingen fred. Krigen er faktisk begyndt! ”

Endelig afsluttede Henry sin tale med ord, der rørte kroppen til handling og fortsat omrører mænds sjæle den dag i dag: “Er livet så dyrt eller fred så sødt, at det kan købes til prisen for kæder og slaveri? Forbud det, den Almægtige Gud! Jeg ved ikke, hvilken kurs andre kan tage, men hvad mig angår, giv mig frihed eller giv mig døden! ”

Dette er dog muligvis ikke den nøjagtige tekst i talen. Teksten blev først optaget et par årtier senere af William Wirt, (selv en statsadvokat). Der er en vis debat om, hvor meget af teksten i talen, der kom fra Henry, og hvor meget der reelt blev rekonstrueret af Wirt fra brugte kilder. Én ting er dog næsten sikker - sætningen "frihed eller død" eller i det mindste det tema var en del af talen. (Den her citerede version er gennem Yales Avalon -projekt og online på avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp.)

Virginia beboere besluttede i sidste ende at bevæbne sig og forberede sig på krig i kølvandet på slagene i Lexington og Concord i Massachusetts den følgende måned. I juni udnævnte den anden kontinentale kongres George Washington, en jomfru, til at lede den nyoprettede kontinentale hær.

Henry fortsatte med at blive guvernør i Virginia og modsatte sig forfatningskonventionen i 1787 og troede, at det ville føre til et amerikansk monarki. Han sagde berømt om stævnet: "Jeg lugter en rotte!" Han modsatte sig derefter Virginia's ratificering af forfatningen, af frygt for at den centraliserede for meget magt i den nye føderale regering. I 1799 løb han som føderalist om et sæde i Virginia -lovgiver og vandt, selvom han døde kort før han tiltrådte.


Lit 2 Go

Henry, P. (1817). Patrick Henrys tale til Virginia House of Burgesses, Richmond, Virginia 23. marts 1775. Historiske amerikanske dokumenter (Lit2Go Edition). Hentet 28. juni 2021 fra https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/133/historic-american-documents/4956/patrick-henrys-speech-to-the-virginia-house-of-burgesses-richmond-virginia -march-23-1775/

Henry, Patrick. "Patrick Henry's tale til Virginia House of Burgesses, Richmond, Virginia 23. marts 1775." Historiske amerikanske dokumenter. Lit2Go Edition. 1817. Web. https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/133/historic-american-documents/4956/patrick-henrys-speech-to-the-virginia-house-of-burgesses-richmond-virginia-march-23-1775/ >. 28. juni 2021.

Patrick Henry, "Patrick Henry's tale til Virginia House of Burgesses, Richmond, Virginia 23. marts 1775" Historiske amerikanske dokumenter, Lit2Go Edition, (1817), åbnet 28. juni 2021, https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/133/historic-american-documents/4956/patrick-henrys-speech-to-the-virginia-house- of-burgesses-richmond-virginia-march-23-1775/.

Ingen mand tænker mere højt end jeg om patriotisme såvel som evner til de meget værdige herrer, der netop har talt til Parlamentet. Men forskellige mænd ser ofte det samme emne i forskellige lys, og derfor håber jeg, at det ikke vil blive betragtet som respektløst over for de herrer, hvis jeg underholdende mens jeg udtaler meninger af en karakter, der er meget modsat deres, udtaler mine følelser frit og uden reserve.

Dette er ikke tid til ceremoni. Spørgsmålet før Parlamentet er et af frygtelige øjeblik for dette land. For min egen del betragter jeg det som intet mindre end et spørgsmål om frihed eller slaveri og i forhold til emnets størrelse burde være debatens frihed. Det er kun på denne måde, at vi kan håbe på at nå frem til sandheden og opfylde det store ansvar, vi har over for Gud og vores land. Skulle jeg holde mine holdninger tilbage på et sådant tidspunkt, af frygt for at forfalde, skulle jeg betragte mig selv som skyldig i forræderi over for mit land og i en illoyal handling over for himmelens majestæt, som jeg respekterer over alle jordiske konger.

Hr. Formand, det er naturligt, at mennesket hengiver sig til håbets illusioner. Vi er tilbøjelige til at lukke øjnene for en smertefuld sandhed og lytte til denne sirens sang, indtil hun forvandler os til dyr. Er dette en del af vise mænd, der er involveret i en stor og hård kamp for frihed? Er vi villige til at være af antallet af dem, der med øjne, ikke ser og har ører, ikke hører, de ting, der så næsten angår deres tidsmæssige frelse?

For mit vedkommende, uanset åndsangst det måtte koste, er jeg villig til at kende hele sandheden og vide det værste og sørge for den. Jeg har kun en lampe, som mine fødder ledes efter, og det er erfaringens lampe. Jeg kender ingen måde at bedømme fremtiden, men efter fortiden. Og at dømme efter fortiden, vil jeg gerne vide, hvad der har været i det britiske ministeriums adfærd i de sidste ti år, for at retfærdiggøre de forhåbninger, som herrer har glædet sig over at trøste sig selv og Parlamentet med?

Er det det lumske smil, som vores andragende for nylig er blevet modtaget med? Tro ikke på det, sir, det vil vise sig at være en snare for dine fødder. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these 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&mdashthe 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 motives 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 on the subject? Ikke noget.

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&mdashif we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending&mdashif 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&mdashunable 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 the 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&mdashand let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, &ldquoPeace! Peace!&rdquo&mdashbut 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!

Patrick Henry &ndash March 23, 1775

Denne samling af børnelitteratur er en del af Educational Technology Clearinghouse og finansieres af forskellige tilskud.

This document was downloaded from Lit2Go, a free online collection of stories and poems in Mp3 (audiobook) format published by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology. For more information, including classroom activities, readability data, and original sources, please visit https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/133/historic-american-documents/4956/patrick-henrys-speech-to-the-virginia-house-of-burgesses-richmond-virginia-march-23-1775/.

Lit2Go: Historic American Documents

Patrick Henry’s Speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses, Richmond, Virginia March 23, 1775


Kommentarer

“Will we ever tell the truth to our children and most of the rest of our society about our slaveholding founders?”

We do. They owned slaves. Most people are aware of that, public schools as a matter of routine make mention of it, and it doesn’t effect most Americans’ opinion one way or the other, which is appropriate. The real question is this: when will you “anti-racism” types ever be truthful about your motives? You consider the founders of my country villains, and the people of my country (Americans) enemies. You wish to strip us of our history and our connections to our ancestry, you wish to eradicate our culture heroes and our ethnic identity. Lastly, you wish to displace us in our country and dispossess us *of* our country.

Who is being dishonest here?

I wish people wouldn’t hide-rate this poster into oblivion because the sentiments expressed are complimentary to this article.

Many if not most whites see themselves as perpetual victims. Regardless of how much suffering the white race has been documented as causing others, still they are victims.

So, S.L. Toddard, while you know some of the history of the white race, clearly you don’t understand it. Thus it needs to be repeated and contextualized. Not until you and others are tired of hearing it but perhaps until you finally understand it.

“You wish to strip us of our history and our connections to our ancestry, you wish to eradicate our culture heroes and our ethnic identity.”

S.L.– you can’t see the irony in this statement. Virkelig? Yikes. And I don’t know exactly what you’re calling “our ethnic identity” or who you consider “our culture heroes” but…
…it’s ridiculous and appalling for any one individual to claim ownership or possession of an entire country–ie the territorial, us-vs-them, ours-vs-theirs mentality.

“You wish to strip us of our history and our connections to our ancestry, you wish to eradicate our culture heroes and our ethnic identity.”

““You wish to strip us of our history and our connections to our ancestry, you wish to eradicate our culture heroes and our ethnic identity.”

S.L.– you can’t see the irony in this statement. ”

I think you misunderstand the word “irony”, as do so many people. What is relevant is that it is true. I am quite aware of the horrors of the middle passage, the lynchings, etc etc. Slavery was indeed a tragic footnote to American history. As far as I’m concerned it does not – and should not – alter the standing of the Founders in the eyes of most Americans – and certainly does not in mine. They were men of their time, and were not flawless. I do not see “whites” as “perpetual victims”. It has only been recently that Americans have been taught to hate themselves and their history, and it has only been over the last half century that we have allowed ourselves to be dispossessed and displaced. I understand it would not be politic to be honest about it (and that’s why you aren’t), but the fact is that “anti-racist” simply means “anti-American”. You people wish to displace and dispossess Americans, and replace us with non-Westerners. It is ethnic cleansing by definition. We Americans – unhyphenated and unconditional – are your enemies. Or, at least those of us who have not succumbed to the corporate brainwashing vis a vis television, and learned to loathe ourselves and our ancestors. Those poor Americans who have I pity more than anyone.

“Will we ever tell the truth to our children and most of the rest of our society about our slaveholding founders?”

We do. They owned slaves. Most people are aware of that, public schools as a matter of routine make mention of it, and it doesn’t effect most Americans’ opinion one way or the other, which is appropriate. The real question is this: when will you “anti-racism” types ever be truthful about your motives? You consider the founders of my country villains, and the people of my country (Americans) enemies. You wish to strip us of our history and our connections to our ancestry, you wish to eradicate our culture heroes and our ethnic identity. Lastly, you wish to displace us in our country and dispossess us *of* our country.

Who is being dishonest here?

Mr. Toddard, we ARE being honest. That’s why this blog was formed, to point out and acknowledge the continuing curse of racism and the denial that perceives it. If we continue to turn our eyes away from the issues discussed in this blog, it will NOT make racism go away as some people think.

I doubt that a lot of people knew that celebrated historical figures like Patrick actually owned slaves. Some people don’t know that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Yet, in this country we celebrate those figures based on myths, positive images created to block out the harsh truths about history. It’s been done over and over to the point where people cringe at the thought of a legacy of hatred and destruction. This is why many whites do not like to talk about slavery, or think that it was not as big a deal as blacks are making it to be.

The idea is to not strip “you” of your history, but the idea is to TEACH YOU THE TRUTHS HIDDEN WITHIN THE MYTHS WHICH IS THEN CONVERTED INTO HISTORY. I can already tell that you don’t like to talk about racism especially in the context of American history.

Also, there is no where in this post that called the founders villians. The founders were far from saints. They are only “great” in the minds and hearts of the historians who recorded them as great men who built this country. Yet, truths say otherwise. Nevertheless, kids in schools all over the country are taught the sugary-sweet, myth-induced American history that shows successes at the hands of whites as well as provide a sense of white superiority.

Here is the inconvenient truth, Mr. Toddard:

In the last few sentences in your response you are showing the same kind of fears the people at these tea party rallies are showing. You’re afraid of having your so-called heroes exposed. You’re afraid of being “dispossessed” (whatever that means). In other words I think you’re afraid of LOSING YOUR PRIVILEGES! You’re afraid to awaken to the truth behind how you got your privileges. You’re afraid of losing your comfort zone, and you’re afraid of waking up from the so-called American dream.

“In the last few sentences in your response you are showing the same kind of fears the people at these tea party rallies are showing. You’re afraid of having your so-called heroes exposed. You’re afraid of being “dispossessed” (whatever that means).”

We are not afraid of having the Founders of our country “exposed”. Expose away. What we object to, however, is the insistence on obsessing unduly on the negative. We object to that for the most obvious and rational reason there is: our enemies wish to focus on the negative so as to de-legitimize the Founders (and our heroes in general) in our own eyes, the purpose being to crush any sense of pride we Americans may feel, to sever us from our history and from each other in order to render us docile and servile, the more easily to rob us of our patrimony – America. Obviously only a sick, suicidal people would allow such a thing. And you see these sick, docile souls here aiding and abetting you in your war against their people and history. To these self-loathing and servile Americans I say this: Our cultural ancestors sailed across horizons, conquered and tamed a continent, flew the first trans-Atlantic flight, established a Republic, sailed clipper ships to China, built towering cities whose spires pierce the clouds, flew through space and stood upon the face of the moon.

What have those who seek to replace us done to compare?

Thanks for reminding me that you can’t reason with the irrational–your argument is based entirely on unsubstantiated allegations, faulty dilemmas, and I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I infantile bullshit.

I got news for you buddy, I’m as born-and-bred American as you are. Sweet dreams.

I have not seen evidence that you can reason at all. I am not sure which “allegations” you are alleging are “unsubstantiated” – what I am sure of, though, is that you have failed to demonstrate that any are. You have also failed to demonstrate any “dilemmas” that are “faulty”. As for “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I infantile bullshit” I haven’t the foggiest idea to what you are referring.

Thanks for the replies to the rather illiterate and uniformed Toddard comments. A key question still remains too. Do any students in US read Patrick Henry’s famous speech and analyze its racist ironies? Free me from chains and Give ME liberty or death, not those whom I have in chains…..
I doubt if more than 5 or so out of millions, and clearly the 5 not including Toddard…..

I doubt that more than five have too, Joe. Speaking from experience, growing up in school, we were given a brief history of Patrick Henry and a snippet of his infamous speech. We were never asked about how his speech was ironic. Come to think of it, we were not really taught much about slavery other than the dates, places, and people in politics at the time.

I think it shows that Americans, not all but enough to make the point, will hold on faster to the half-truths and myths behind their history, than to the cold truths hidden from the people for so long. I also think if one did reveal the facts about Patrick Henry owning slaves, most whites won’t think much about it. They may consider that to be nothing to be concerned about, and will still consider him an “American hero.”

I just realized there’s a school near my hometown called Patrick Henry Academy, and most, if not all, of the students are white.

I asked Toddard who he considers ‘a true American’. I would like a response to this please. What is the definition of real Americans?

There is no “definition”, really. An American is an American, much like a Frenchman is a Frenchman.

Or, rather, an “American” is someone whose ethnicity is “American”. I’m sorry if that’s not helpful, but I don’t know how else to define an American.

In other words you don’t know what an American is, but yet, you are considering yourself to be one and a proud one at that?

“We are not afraid of having the Founders of our country “exposed”. Expose away. What we object to, however, is the insistence on obsessing unduly on the negative. We object to that for the most obvious and rational reason there is: our enemies wish to focus on the negative so as to de-legitimize the Founders (and our heroes in general) in our own eyes, the purpose being to crush any sense of pride we Americans may feel, to sever us from our history and from each other in order to render us docile and servile, the more easily to rob us of our patrimony – America. Obviously only a sick, suicidal people would allow such a thing. And you see these sick, docile souls here aiding and abetting you in your war against their people and history. To these self-loathing and servile Americans I say this: Our cultural ancestors sailed across horizons, conquered and tamed a continent, flew the first trans-Atlantic flight, established a Republic, sailed clipper ships to China, built towering cities whose spires pierce the clouds, flew through space and stood upon the face of the moon.

What have those who seek to replace us done to compare?

So, in other words we should live in the glorious, half-baked, myth induced, so-called history instead of facing the unpleasant, flat-out truths that are ommitted from the mainstream? We should live as if the past has in no way effected the present?

How on earth will focusing on the negatives, which I assume you mean the unpleasant truths, de-legitmize the founders and heroes? For what matter, who are YOUR American heroes and why should anyone worship them? What is the sense of pride you speak of? How is talking about the history severing history, and how will exposing the history we SHOULD know render us docile and servile? If anything, historical truths should awaken those still asleep. However, there are those like you that choose to remain asleep.

Mr. Toddard, you obviously are filled of so-called American pride, and from the last part of your response, a lot of white pride and something else. You want to continue to live in your own pleasant matrix where America is the greatest country in the world, and those who question America are out to destroy your own personal utopia of White American “greatness”.

At the same time like Distance said you want to potray yourself as a victim. In this statement that YOU made, you said:

“You wish to strip us of our history and our connections to our ancestry, you wish to eradicate our culture heroes and our ethnic identity.”

THIS IS WHAT YOUR PEOPLE HAVE DONE TO MY PEOPLE!!

Yet, you can’t understand why some of my people are angry. In fact you can’t even accept the same comment if a black man said it. No, you would call it making excuses, and tell us to pull up out bootstraps, work harder, and blah, blah, blah.

You know what? You can respond however you want. There’s no point talking to someone who wants to remain asleep. I’m sure I will encounter more people who think like you. While I’ll constantly try to rid mself of the program your people have installed into my people for hundreds of years, I will always be in pain. Yet, I will wish you well.

I don’t care about what a Frenchman is, Mr. Toddard. I asked you what an American is. Stop derailing the issue.


Patrick Henry Makes "Liberty or Death" Speech

The American colonies were in an uproar in the spring of 1775. The British crown seemed to be depriving the colonists of their English rights the governor of the Virginia colony had even dissolved the legislature because of its constant discussions about the King's actions against them. The assembly met anyway -- in St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia.

During the debates, Patrick Henry delivered a speech on this day March 23, 1775 that electrified the assembly. Saying that if he kept back his opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, he would consider himself guilty of treason to his country and "disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings." Then, like the prophet Isaiah centuries before, Patrick warned of those who cried, "Peace, peace" when there was no peace. Insisting that war with Britain was inevitable, he called on Virginia to arm its militia. He rallied his countrymen to trust the God of Hosts and use all the means that the God of nature had placed in their power:

"Three million of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send us. Besides. 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."

Patrick concluded his argument with a passionate cry, "I know not what course others may take but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" A man listening at the window was so moved by the words, that he asked to be buried on that spot when he died--a wish that was granted.

Patrick had given significant speeches before. Thomas Jefferson said about one, "He appeared to me to speak as Homer wrote." Where had Patrick Henry learned such eloquence? Many speculate it was from Samuel Davies, Presbyterian minister in Virginia. Though Henry was reared an Anglican, his mother embraced Presbyterianism during the Great Awakening. As a teenager Henry often accompanied her to the meeting house in Hanover County where Samuel Davies was a pastor. Davies was an eloquent, powerful speaker as well as a strong advocate of religious liberty. No doubt Christian influences such as Davies helped shape the thoughts and oratorical skills of Patrick Henry.

Patrick Henry served several times as governor of Virginia. Sometimes he was hopelessly out of touch with the times. For instance, he tried to keep the Church of England as the established church of Virginia. Again, although he sought liberty for himself, he was content to leave blacks in slavery.

Nonetheless, he was a committed Christian throughout his life. His will concluded with these words: "This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed."


Patrick Henry Gives his ‘Give me Liberty, or Give me Death’ Speech

On March 23, 1775, less than a month before the beginning of the Revolutionary War, Patrick Henry addressed the House of Burgesses in Richmond, Virginia. He gave a speech that has been remembered popularly as the &ldquoGive Me Liberty or Give Me Death&rdquo speech. Although Henry&rsquos discourse was not recorded at the time (partially because Henry delivered it extemporaneously), Henry&rsquos biographer, William Wirt, later gathered testimony from people who had heard him speak. Through their accounts, Wirt reconstructed what Henry spoke that day. The motivation behind the speech was to incite the determination of the Virginia House members to raise a militia, or voluntary army, that would fight against the British army. It should be noted that more modern historians have challenged the authenticity of Wirt&rsquos account of Henry&rsquos speech. However, Henry&rsquos rhetoric was very effective, and his speech has become one of the more famous in American history.

Henry begins by addressing the men who spoke before him that day in the House. These men had argued against staging a war against Britain they are against the proposal Henry was about to make for the colony of Virginia to form a militia, as many of the northern colonies had already done. Henry compliments those who had spoken against the plan by calling them patriots, but he presents the idea that it is possible that different people could see the same subject in different ways. Henry then apologizes for speaking against these men&rsquos ideas. He feels compelled to do so, he tells them, for he considers the subject a matter of choice between living in freedom or suffering as slaves. If he did not speak out on this topic, he says, he would consider himself guilty of treason.

Henry then warns the assembly against closing their eyes to the truth. Although it might be painful, he says, it is the duty of wise men to look unblinking at what is happening around them in their struggle for liberty. His full speech is below&hellip

St. John&rsquos Church, Richmond, Virginia

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

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Ikke noget. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted?

Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned we have remonstrated we have supplicated we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult our supplications have been disregarded and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.

Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone.There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, 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!

Patrick Henry is credited with having swung the balance in convincing the convention to pass a resolution delivering Virginian troops for the Revolutionary War. Among the delegates to the convention were future U.S. Presidents Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Following the convention of the Virginia legislature, a committee was assembled which included Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of this committee was &ldquoto prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient&rdquo to defend their commonwealth. This convention then urged &ldquothat every Man be provided with a good Rifle&rdquo og &ldquothat every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.&rdquo

Recommended Books:

Don&rsquot miss syndicated radio host and author Mark Levin&rsquos #1 New York Times acclaimed and longtime bestselling manifesto for the conservative movement.

When nationally syndicated radio host Mark R. Levin&rsquos Liberty and Tyranny appeared in the early months of the Obama presidency, Americans responded by making his clarion call for a new era in conservatism a #1 New York Times bestseller for an astounding twelve weeks. As provocative, well-reasoned, robust, and informed as his on-air commentary, with his love of our country and the legacy of our Founding Fathers reflected on every page, Levin&rsquos galvanizing narrative provides a philosophical, historical, and practical framework for revitalizing the conservative vision and ensuring the preservation of American society.

In the face of the modern liberal assault on Constitution-based values, an attack that has resulted in a federal government that is a massive, unaccountable conglomerate, the time for reinforcing the intellectual and practical case for conservatism is now. In a series of powerful essays, Levin lays out how conservatives can counter the tyrannical liberal corrosion that has filtered into every timely issue affecting our daily lives, from the economy to health care, global warming to immigration, and more.

Most Americans know Patrick Henry as a fiery speaker whose pronouncement &ldquoGive me liberty or give me death!&rdquo rallied American defiance to the British Crown. But Henry&rsquos skills as an orator&mdashsharpened in the small towns and courtrooms of colonial Virginia&mdashare only one part of his vast, but largely forgotten, legacy. As historian Thomas S. Kidd shows, Henry cherished a vision of America as a virtuous republic with a clearly circumscribed central government. These ideals brought him into bitter conflict with other Founders and were crystallized in his vociferous opposition to the U.S. Constitution.

I Patrick Henry, Kidd pulls back the curtain on one of our most radical, passionate Founders, showing that until we understand Henry himself, we will neglect many of the Revolution&rsquos animating values.

In this action-packed history, award-winning author Harlow Giles Unger unfolds the epic story of Patrick Henry, who roused Americans to fight government tyranny&mdashboth British and American. Remembered largely for his cry for &ldquoliberty or death,&rdquo Henry was actually the first (and most colorful) of America&rsquos Founding Fathers&mdashfirst to call Americans to arms against Britain, first to demand a bill of rights, and first to fight the growth of big government after the Revolution.

As quick with a rifle as he was with his tongue, Henry was America&rsquos greatest orator and courtroom lawyer, who mixed histrionics and hilarity to provoke tears or laughter from judges and jurors alike. Henry&rsquos passion for liberty (as well as his very large family), suggested to many Americans that he, not Washington, was the real father of his country.

This biography is history at its best, telling a story both human and philosophical. As Unger points out, Henry&rsquos words continue to echo across America and inspire millions to fight government intrusion in their daily lives.


Patrick Henry Orator Of Liberty Rhetorical Analysis

Henrys Inspiring Speech
Virginia convention 1775. Patrick Henry a very inspirational man who was tired of sitting back and waiting on something to happen. He was ready to fight for what was his and his freedom he was also known as "The Orator of Liberty". Patrick Henry was famous for giving speeches supporting American Democracy. Henry was also a very big patriot who loved his country and the people in it. Today I will be explaining why and how he uses such rhetorical devices as ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos appeals to the audiences trust as being a credible speaker. Pathos is the audiences emotions. logos is logic, thinking.
Ethos makes you think alot about a dcision or a question that has been asked or said. On page 89 line 17 "majesty of heaven which i revere above all earthly kings." I think that he means that he is a credible speaker and that he is one of a kind because he is one of the onl men who will stand up and fight for what is his. when he says that it makes you think that he is higher and credible to be giving such a speech. I think of Mr. Henry as a very persuasive and influental speaker because of the way he uses his words and can persuade an audience so easily with just a couple words.

page 89 line 18-19 he says "It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope." Mr. Henry is saying that men are easy to just jump right into things and not worry or think about the consequences. Page 88 line 9-10 "For my own part i consider as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. what he is saying is that if we fight at least we didnt just lay down and watch them bound us with chains and take our freedom, we need to take action and fight for what is ours. We dont want to be slaves for the rest of our lives and our grandchilden so lets fight for a future of.


Se videoen: БАТЕ САШО - СВОБОДА ИЛИ СМЪРТBATE SASHO - SVOBODA ILI SMURT (Juli 2022).


Kommentarer:

  1. Heywood

    Du har ikke ret. Jeg kan forsvare min holdning. Send mig en mail på PM, så taler vi.

  2. Gardami

    Jeg er enig, det er en god idé.

  3. Ethan

    Skriv varianterne i stedet for kritik.

  4. Stefano

    your sentence, just the charm

  5. Duante

    Kan du ikke forklare det mere detaljeret?

  6. Devere

    Senkyu, useful info! ;)

  7. Ardell

    Der er også andre mangler



Skriv en besked