The SAR MAGAZINE is the official quarterly publication of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution published quarterly.
Issue link: http://sar.epubxp.com/i/311328
26 SAR MAGAZINE By Vicki Kendall, Regent Lynnhaven Parish, NSDAR L ord Dunmore, following the lead of his British masters, dissolved the House of Burgesses in Virginia to quell the rising tide of opposition to the growing British military presence in the Colonies. In a move resembling our recent government shutdown, the doors at the Virginia Capitol were chained in a power play to demonstrate to the representatives where the ultimate authority lay. Denying representation to the people is not popular now and was less popular at a time when the founding fathers were finding their voices. Meeting at St. JohnÕs Church in Richmond, Va., the Burgesses gathered in defiance of their royal governor. These were precarious times, when community organizers, dubbed by the British as rabble-rousers, were whisked from their homes and tried in admiralty courts half a world away, often to land in prison for Òcrimes against the crownÓ or Òtreasonous words.Ó It was a time following several attempts by the crown to impose the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Declaratory Act of 1766 to pay off EnglandÕs massive debt from the French and Indian Wars. Dissatisfaction was manifested in the burning of the British revenue ship Gaspee off the Rhode Island coast in 1772 and the Boston Tea Party in 1773. Vitriol vented in the newspapers and town meetings led to preparations for war and provisions in Massachusetts. Sentiments were not unanimous among the Colonists, particularly in the coastal regions of Virginia, where many merchants depended on English trade for their livelihood. Those against the crown often spoke to crowds of divided loyalty, more often in favor of the crown. On the crisp 23rd day of March 1775, when the outlawed Virginia government met in St. JohnÕs Church in Richmond, it was no surprise that those representatives couched their sentiments with a respectful nod to the crown and spoke of their concerns in modest, carefully chosen words. Patrick Henry, a rising star in the Old Dominion after his work in the ParsonÕs Cause dispute, began his speech with the usual formal courtesy, and then directed it with boldness uncommon among the conservative Virginia Burgesses. Risking all he possessed, including his life, Henry rose to Òrock starÓ status in the hearts of his countrymen, far beyond the Virginia borders, evoking envy from another Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, who slighted Henry posthumously in the side notes of William WirtÕs biography of Patrick Henry. Fortunately, the devotion of Thomas Nelson and George Washington far outweighed the effete ridicule expressed by Jefferson. Nelson donated 1,000 horses and $100,000 toward the war. Washington was motivated by HenryÕs argument to lead the cause, while others sat on the sidelines to await the outcome. The speech reprinted below was reconstructed to the best of the ability of the recorder, as his pen stopped while he sat in rapture at the words of Patrick Henry. ∑ March 23, 1775, St. John's Church, Richmond, Va., given by Patrick Henry: 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 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 opinion at such a time through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself guilty of treason toward 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 for a 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 might 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 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 the 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 those 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 239 Years Later Remembering the Liberty or Death Speech ∑ Patrick Henry SPRING_14_sar22-27.indd 26 5/7/14 4:44 PM