Most all of us have heard the quote, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Very few know the entire speech that ended with this strong cry to stand for our freedom. Our current textbooks have deleted the context of these words. Once again, we see the faith of our ancestors in this speech. Let there be no mistake about where Patrick Henry stood; later in 1775, he wrote, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded the freedom of worship here.” [1]
To avoid interference from Lieutenant-Governor Dunmore and his Royal Marines, the Second Virginia Convention met March 20, 1775 inland at Richmond–in what is now called St. John’s Church–instead of the Capitol in Williamsburg. Delegate Patrick Henry presented resolutions to raise a militia, and to put Virginia in a posture of defense. Henry’s opponents urged caution and patience until the crown replied to Congress’ latest petition for reconciliation.
On the 23rd, Henry presented a proposal to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county. By custom, Henry addressed himself to the Convention’s president, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg. Henry’s words were not transcribed, but no one who heard them forgot their eloquence, or Henry’s closing words: “Give me liberty, or give me death!” [2]
St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia
March 23, 1775.MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! [3]
[1] Speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses, May, 1765
[2] “Give me Liberty or Give Me Death” Introduction, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm
[3] Source: Wirt, William. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry. (Philadelphia) 1836, as reproduced in The World’s Great Speeches, Lewis Copeland and Lawrence W. Lamm, eds., (New York) 1973.
The Covenant Origins Of The American Polity
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010Entire article is an excerpt from The Covenant Origins Of The American Polity, Steven Alan Sampson, Liberty University, Professor of Government; Copyright 1994; http://www.americanreformation.org/Philosophy/Polity/polity.htm#fn4
It is not uncommon for historians to view America as an experimental laboratory in political theory and practice in which the American character is represented as a triumph of common sense over ideology. The title of one influential book, Inventing America, and the subtitle of another, How Europe Imagined and America Realized the Enlightenment, together reflect a long fascination with the “Yankee ingenuity” and “can do” spirit of a nation of tinkerers. [1]
This may help explain why history books often neglect to acknowledge the religious dimension of this experiment. Yet far from being inconsequential, religion — and particularly the Christian concept of vocation — is the wellspring of this spirit of practicality that gave substance to the desire for a greater degree of self-government and led to the development of greater religious and political liberty.[2] The so-called Protestant work-ethic to which Max Weber attributed the material progress of northern Europeans is simply one expression of the Pauline injunction to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).
It may be true, as well, that “pure Religious Liberty… may be confidently reckoned as of distinctly American origin”, as Sanford Cobb claimed.[3] But like the Yankee ingenuity thesis, it is an oversimplification which fails to acknowledge the long train of historical circumstances and preconditions that made such liberty possible. After all, religious liberty did not spring, like Athena, in full armor from the head of Zeus. Unlike Eli Whitney, Alexander Graham Bell, and Thomas Alva Edison, not to mention a host of less famous figures, the inventors of our familiar liberties — if any existed — are practically unknown. Yet who would claim that these liberties are less important than the invention of interchangeable parts, the telephone, or the light bulb? Are they simply the result of historical accident? Or is there perhaps some rhyme or reason to their appearance at certain times and places?
Earlier Americans, including our most influential historians, generally regarded the settlement and development of our country less as a testimony to frontier inventiveness than as an indication of God’s providential blessings. Indeed, they believed that America, both the land and the people, had been designed for a specific purpose and destiny. [4] Franklin Littell offered the following synopsis of this motif:
The once commonly held conviction, that God providentially directs the historical paths of men and nations, is a missing note in contemporary scholarship. So thoroughly secularized have our academic and popular histories become that any mention of Providence sounds quaint, insincere, or irrelevant. [6] Evocations of a distinctly Christian viewpoint on public occasions are rare today even compared with just forty years ago when Judge Learned Hand said the following in his famous “Spirit of Liberty” speech:
[1] Garry Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978); Henry Steele Commager, The Empire of Reason: How Europe Imagined and America Realized the Enlightenment (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977)
[2] A recent exception is the first volume of a massive cultural history that identifies and compares the contributions of “four British folkways” to the development of the American culture. See David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). The author contends that regional and cultural differences in America are the legacy of several distinct groups from the British Isles — particularly the Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers, and Borderers — who hailed from different regions, migrated during different historical periods, and took up residence indifferent regions: Massachusetts, Virginia, the Delaware Valley, and the Backcountry respectively.
[3] Sanford H. Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America: A History (New York: Macmillan, 1902; Burt Franklin, 1970), p. 36. David Hackett Fischer, op. cit., by the way, distinguishes different conceptions of liberty that prevailed among the four British folk groupings: the ordered liberty of the Massachusetts Puritan (and later Yankee), the hegemonic liberty of the Virginia Cavalier, the reciprocal liberty of the Delaware Valley Quaker, and the natural liberty of the Backcountry Borderer.
[4] The idea that America has a divine mission to perform was not limited to the majority Protestants. For example, shortly after the Civil War ended, Orestes A. Brownson wrote: “The United States, or the American republic, has a mission and is chosen of God for the realization of a great idea… Its idea is liberty, indeed, but liberty with law, and law with liberty. But its mission is not so much the realization of liberty as the realization of the true idea of the state, which secures at once the authority of the public and the freedom of the individual –the sovereignty of the people without social despotism, and individual freedom without anarchy.” Orestes A. Brownson, “The American Republic [1866]“, in The Brownson Reader, ed. Alvan S. Ryan (New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1955), pp. 70-71.
[5] Franklin H. Littell, “The Churches and the Body Politic“, in Religion in America, ed. William G. McLoughlin and Robert N. Bellah (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968), pp. 25-26. The Rev. S. W. Foljambe strictly adhered to this formula as late as 1876 in the annual election sermon he delivered in Boston. The sermon has been excerpted and reprinted as “The Hand of God in American History” in Verna M. Hall, comp., The Christian History of the American Revolution: Consider and Ponder (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1976), pp. 46-50.
[6] This is not to say that the idea of Providence has disappeared from the secular mind. It simply assumes new guises. Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983), p. 6, makes a similar point: “Western society, in turnings away from Christian faith, has turned to other things. This process is commonly called secularization, but that conveys only the negative aspect. The word connotes the turning away from the worship of God while ignoring the fact that something is being turned to in its place.” Walter Lippmann, for instance, suggested that when a totalitarian regime like the Soviet Union describes its vision of a “socialist commonwealth embracing the whole world…”, it ascribes to it the attributes of God: perfect authority and justice, miracles, omnipotence, and omniscience. “It is to believe not in human government but in a Providential state.” Walter Lippmann, The Good Society (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1936: 1943), pp. 70-71.
[7] Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses, ed. Irving Dilliard (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952), p. 190.
Posted in Bible, Commentary, Faith, Founding Fathers | No Comments »