Connolly 1
Abigail Connolly
01 February 2012
Undergraduate
American Foundations Found in Colonial Revolutionary Rhetoric: An Analysis of Patrick
Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” Speech
INTRODUCTION:
In “the times that try men’s souls” (Paine, 1776), the novel ideas of liberty and freedom
circulated relentlessly across the thirteen colonies in both the public and private realms of
conversation. After numerous, insufferable acts imposed on the colonies by the British crown,
many colonists felt that there was no other choice but to defy this tyrannical government.
However, the idea of outright dissent was uncomfortable for many colonists, many who had
English roots and a multi-generational loyalty to the Crown. Rebellion constituted treason
(Sage, 2010), and was punishable by death, a fact that encouraged many colonists to first seek
diplomatic means of reconciliation (Revolutionary War and Beyond, 2011).
On December 16, 1773, a group of disguised American colonists dumped 342 containers
of tea into the Boston Harbor (T h e H i s t o r y P l a c e , n . d . ) , l e a d i n g t h e B r i t i s h
g o v e r n m e n t t o e x a c t m o r e aggressive measures of control (dubbed the “Intolerable
Acts” (United States HISTORY, n.d.) in order to establish their dominion over the colonies.
These particularly egregious exploits by the Crown, vastly limiting the already diminished
independence of the colonies, were the tangible breaking point for many revolutionaries. In
effect, this British usurpation of Boston instigated increasing levels of action among dissenting
colonists, kindling their passions to speak up and publicly defend their liberties. Less than two
Connolly 2
years later, the verbal outrage climaxed on March 23, 1775, rhetorically manifesting itself in
Patrick Henry’s famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech presented before the
Virginia Convention. In this renowned speech, Patrick Henry, a radical patriot, ignited the
flames of rebellion among his fellow countrymen with his zealous, nationalistic words, and
summoned the American colonists to immediate action, to fight not only for their freedoms as
American colonists, but for the overarching freedoms of mankind. Through a cluster analysis of
Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, I argue that Patrick Henry, by
appealing to revolutionary values and nationalist sentiment, created a model of uniquely
American rhetoric that united his contemporaries, initiated the revolution, and transcended his
generation, remaining a critical part of American rhetoric today.
BACKGROUND:
In the years prior to 1774 and the Intolerable Acts, the fate of American loyalty to the
British crown hung in the balance; anti-British sentiment was on the rise and whispers of
revolution swept among the American colonists in hushed tones. On one side of the debate stood
loyal supporters of the British government who ardently maintained that reconciliation was the
only means that would bring about lasting peace; on the other side, passionate dissenters
advocated emphatically for redress for the numerous abuses of human rights, insisting that all
prospects of reconciliation were exhausted (Paine, 1776). Both sides feared brutal retaliation
from the Crown, but gradually, the risks of rebellion were outweighed by the intolerable
maltreatment leveled at the colonists and a deeper belief in the equality and fair treatment of
human beings.
In addition to the excruciatingly and increasingly restrictive acts of the British
government, these revolutionary concepts also flourished because they existed in an era
Connolly 3
transformed by the philosophy of natural rights and social contract. This period of
Enlightenment ushered in an age of rational thinkers, epitomized by Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke, whose interpretations of natural law and theories of social contract formed the
foundations of the democratic American ideals (Forde, 2011). Natural law philosophy dictated
that human beings have certain “unalienable Rights” (The Charters of Freedom, n.d.) that cannot
be limited or abused by a governing body. Revolutionary in and of itself, it was this mindset that
encouraged American colonists to rebel against the British crown, seek their independence, and
establish a new government that protected what they viewed as the undeniable human rights of
“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Charters of Freedom, n.d.).
On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered his speech to a Virginia Convention who
held mixed emotions regarding revolutionary action. According to rumor, Henry stood before
the crowd of statesman in St. John’s Episcopal Church of Richmond, Virginia, and, without
notes (The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2011)1, fervently delivered this fiery, rebellious
speech (The Federal Observer, 2011; NOLO, 2011) passionately beseeching his countrymen “in
a voice that became louder and louder, climaxing with the now famous ending” (The History
Place, n.d.). He pleaded with the attendees to build a militia to protect Virginia from the British,
and succeeded in convincing the delegates to do just that, acclaimed by Thomas Jefferson “as the
man who ‘set the ball of Revolution rolling’ in Virginia” (NOLO, 2011) arguably one of the
most pivotal and influential colonies (The History Place, n.d.). However, Henry’s speech was
not only significant to the colony of Virginia; it mythically symbolizes “the single spark” (The
Federal Observer, 2011) that provoked the smoldering cinders of rebellion into the full-blown
flames of the American Revolution. Henry’s words succeeded in igniting the passions and
1Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech was delivered without a manuscript, but the
transcript of William Wirt, his first biographer, is generally accepted as the text used for rhetorical criticism (The
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2011).
Connolly 4
indignation of his fellow countrymen, clearly defining American values, and uniting colonists in
the struggle for their liberties. Less than one month after Henry’s momentous, inspiring speech,
“the shot heard around the world” (Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum, 2002)
officially started the American Revolutionary War.
METHOD:
Kenneth Burke postulated that the main purpose of rhetoric is to establish identification
between a rhetor and their intended audience, proposing that human agents use words “to form
specific attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents” (Foss, 2009). One of the primary
motives behind creating identification among audiences is to foster a sense of unity in respect to
an idea or belief system, a necessary process, Burke claims, “because men are (naturally) at odds
with one another (Golden et al., 2011),” and this “division” creates the need for communication
(Golden et al., 2011). Burke claims that we create “terministic screens,” or specific frameworks
for viewing a situation that regulate and rationalize our attitudes and responding courses of
action (Foss, 2009). These self- imposed boundaries conceal the differences of an audience, and
give rhetoricians the ability to unify this audience to a specific cause; in essence, if an audience
believes that they are part of a particular group, they are much more likely to adhere to that
group’s belief systems. This creation of identification is especially crucial in speeches that
advocate radical political action, for example, Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me
Death” speech.
According to Burke’s theory, Henry’s speech appealed to his audience because it created
a sense of unity among its listeners by imploring them to believe in the revolutionary cause and
the natural freedoms inherent to human beings. Henry identified his audience as Virginian
colonists, as Americans, and ultimately, as human beings. If his audience believed they were
Connolly 5
united through this human commonality, they would then fight against the British violations of
natural laws. This identification was essential because in a time when many colonists were loyal
solely to their own colony, Henry’s rhetoric succeeded in: establishing an American ethic that
bound his audience to protect the inalienable rights of human beings, obscuring other inherent
dissimilarities through a common bond of humanity, and transcending his specific setting to
create a historical, American precedent of rising above insufferable circumstances and sacrificing
of oneself to defend the liberties of others.
ANALYSIS:
In order to effectively examine the immediate success and enduring results of Patrick
Henry’s speech, it is necessary to examine his specific placement of words and how their
particular location, inherent meaning, and surrounding lexical counterparts create meaning.
First, I will analyze Henry’s juxtaposition of specific, contradictory terms (e.g. “freedom and
slavery”) to show how this style of contrasting language produces unique ideas of American
“good” and American “evil” that fuel our patriotic rhetoric. I will also examine how Henry
defines enemies of America in a specific language of enslavement, a rhetorical theme that has
been and is continually implemented in discourse regarding opposition of proposed American
values. Then, I will analyze how contributions from this speech effectively define the American
value of quality of “life,” and what constitutes a strong American populace that bravely defends
the rights of humanity.
“Freedom” vs. “Slavery”
Any analysis of American rhetoric would be incomplete without examining the vital role
the term “freedom” plays in past and contemporary American discourse; indeed, many would list
it as the most foundational and universal belief held by Americans, and any inspirational speech
Connolly 6
given to an American audience would be remiss to fail in mentioning this American ideal.
Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech complies to this standard; the word
“freedom” appears in direct contrast with the term “slavery,” providing a clear example of
distinct, irresolvable American values. To study the importance of each of these terms in their
relationship to American rhetoric, I will look at each word individually, assessing their inherent
value, the added significance defined by their surrounding counterparts, and finally, examine
how these conflicting terms rhetorically frame American ethics.
In an age just beginning to value the natural rights of humanity, “freedom” was a
burgeoning idea that fueled the American revolutionary cause. “Freedom” is a word laden with
intrinsic emotional worth, appealing to a great desire of human beings that surpasses immediate
sufferings and looks to a more fulfilling future. Revolutionary rhetoricians defined “freedom”
for past and contemporary audiences, experimenting both socially and philosophically with their
meanings. Henry alludes to this evolving term by surrounding it with “question,” “awful,” and
“magnitude,” all words that acknowledge the inherent importance of the word, and represent the
uncertainty of the human role regarding the natural rights “endowed (on all) by the Creator” (The
Charters of Freedom, n.d.). Henry continues this divine construal of “freedom” as he links the
term with consecrated words and phrases such as “temporal salvation, “noble struggle,”
“glorious object of our contest,” “holy cause of liberty,” and “a just God who presides over the
destinies of nations.” By interlacing “freedom” with sacred phraseology, Henry’s language
rhetorically functions to elevate “freedom” to a pious, humanly impenetrable level of divinity.
“Freedom” therefore becomes invulnerable to the petty whims and maltreatment of human
beings, and any abuse of this consecrated right constitutes a blasphemous, heretical violation
against the Creator God. Henry further expounds on this idea of “freedom’s” sacred protection
Connolly 7
when he claims divine intervention on behalf of those who fight valiantly for “freedom,”
proclaiming that if they (the American colonists) will make “proper use of the means which the
God of nature has placed in our power” then a “just God…will raise up friends to fight our
battles for us,” not allowing their intrinsic, divinely-appointed rights to be infringed upon by a
tyrannical government. Rhetorically, this sanctification of “freedom” serves to divinely
legitimize and mandate preservation of this inherent, invaluable right. Defense on behalf of
safeguarding “freedom” becomes the mantra of the oppressed citizen, the justification of the
abused and maltreated to resist the government and ordinances that threaten to restrict their Godgiven liberty.
Standing in direct contrast to the value of “freedom,” “slavery” conjures up instinctive
detestation in human beings by limiting their natural rights and restricting their courses of action.
The terms that cluster around “slavery:” “treason,” “guilty,” “disloyalty,” “submission,”
“chains,” “forged,” and “clanking” evoke provocative and distressing images of unfair treatment.
A “submission” to “slavery” involves a voluntary acceptance of the failure to protect “freedom,”
resulting in innumerable miseries to the slave, their fellow citizens, and humanity. In this
speech, Henry classifies the proponent of this insupportable slavery as the British “throne.” The
“war-like preparations” of the throne, their actions regarding the colonies, are characterized by
the words: “insidious,” “snare,” “trust [not],” “betrayed,” “deceive,” “force,” “resort,” “motives,”
“rivet,” “enemy,” “fleets and armies,” “oppose,” and “war and subjugation.” Opponents of
“freedom” constitute enemies of humanity; evil, conniving entities that threaten human rights,
“deceive” their counterparts, “betray” loyalties, “ensnare” innocent bystanders, control by
military dominance, and “force” their slaves to abandon their natural rights. This explicit
terminology surrounding “slavery” implies that if one was to accept this idea of “slavery,” they
Connolly 8
were essentially ignoring the universal cry for justice, and advocating for the diminishment of
human rights, symbolizing the oppressive, intolerable dominion of the British crown. “Slavery”
functions as the ideological antithesis to the transcendent qualities of “freedom,” essentially
impeding on the sacred rights of the individual, restraining the will of the citizen by the
tyrannical yoke of government, and inhibiting the enlightened soul from reaching its divine
destiny by the harsh bondage of oppression.
The juxtaposition of these irreconcilable terms provides an important and frequently
utilized framework for American patriotic rhetoric. The protection of “freedom” is still used as
the primary motivator in American discourse, entreating audiences to pursue “truth” and observe
their “responsibility” to safeguard natural human rights. American rhetors still frame “slavery”
as the chief evil facing the human race, characterizing opponents that perceivably restrict
“freedom” as the ultimate enemy. In essence, the “freedom” versus “slavery” structure creates a
terministic screen that focuses on idealistic American values and allows American rhetoricians to
justify measures employed to protect natural human rights.2
“Strong We” vs. “Weak We”
One of Henry’s primary strategies of building identification in his audience is
accomplished by creating two distinct visions of the American colonial public: one that
encompasses their previous attempts at reconciliation with the Crown and urges for future brave
2
This type of justification can be seen in historical and recent American discourse such as President John F.
Kennedy’s pledge in his January 20, 1961 inaugural address to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty (American Rhetoric, 2011) and
President George W. Bush’s vow on September 21, 2001, that “Tonight, we are a nation awakened to danger and
called to defend freedom . . . Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be
done” (CNN, 2001).
Connolly 9
action, and one that constitutes the vulnerable image that would result from cowardly inaction.
Both of these representations are idealistic in nature, but certain courses of action will result in
one becoming reality. Ultimately, the contrast of the “strong Virginia populace” versus the
“weak Virginia populace,” and the ability to choose one’s destiny reflects the rhetorical
motivation schema of multiple generations of American rhetoricians.
Henry characterizes the strong vision of Virginia with a collective “we,” by first referring
to the attempts at peaceful reconciliation proposed by the colonists. His descriptions of these
nonviolent, diplomatic advocacies are depicted by postures of humility: “petitioned,”
“remonstrated,” “supplicated,” “prostrated,” and “implored,” only to be met with insolent
disdain: “slighted,” “violence and insults,” “disregarded,” “spurned,” and “contempt.” By
directly comparing the obliging endeavors by the colonists with their audacious British foils,
Henry’s rhetoric dictates that if at first humble attempts at reconciliation are ignored and human
rights are still being violated, it is the duty of citizens to seek other means of resolution. The
responsibility for protection of rights lies with the collective “we,” indicating an implicit value of
united accountability.
When earnest tries at peaceful reconciliation fail, then American colonists, according to
Henry, must assume a strong face; this collective, and now assertive “we” is characterized by
clusters such as “wish to be free,” “preserve privileges,” “never abandon,” “noble struggle,”
“engaged,” “pledged,” “glorious object,” “must fight!” and “appeal to arms and God of Hosts.”
Through these aggressive, charged terms, Henry appealed to his audience’s sense of pride and
dignity, utilizing the archaic diction of knights and noblemen to awaken the consciences of his
countrymen. According to Henry’s verbiage, it is not acceptable for human beings to tolerate
oppressive infringement on their natural rights or civil liberties. This “strong we” refuses to
Connolly 10
accept human rights violations or appease tyrannical governments; it authoritatively demands
specific recourses for freemen that actively engage their human rights. Rhetorically, this vision
of a “strong Virginia populace” unites Henry’s audience in opposition of heavy-handed British
domineering, and enlists their support as a collective group to preserve the enlightened ideals of
natural, human liberties. By creating this nationalist identification, Henry’s rhetoric transcends
the present conditions of Virginia colonists, and functions to create an ideal, noble America that
values and defends their collective freedoms regardless of the personal cost.
The juxtaposed counterpart to this vision of nobility and strength is the Virginia that
chooses the cowardly approach instead of defending liberty, the colonial people that pay no
attention to human rights breaches and avert their gaze from the acts of irrational tyrants. Henry
portrays this as the “weak we,” the colonists that continue to seek futile means of reconciliation.
Instead of dignity, this “we” is left to grovel at the feet of the tyrant, surrounded by words like
“unable to cope,” “formidable enemy,” “disarmed,” “irresolution,” “inaction,” “lying supinely on
backs,” “bound,” “delusive,” and “phantom of hope.” These expressions show citizens deprived
of their most basic human rights, cringing in fear as a result of their misplaced loyalties,
responsibilities, and values. Henry communicates that there is no hope for these invalidated
citizens; they forsook the advice of the revolutionaries and lost the most rudimentary rights
afforded to human beings due to their negligence.
Henry’s motives and methods of creating identification in his audience adhere to Burke’s
two-part purpose of rhetoric: in this passionate speech, Henry successfully attempts to “form
specific attitudes and induce actions from other human agents” (Foss. 2009). His rhetoric
effectively appeals to the inherent pride of Virginians, framing his “strong we” in ways that
flatter their dignity to encourage his audience to engage in this immediate debate. His images of
Connolly 11
“weak we” are intended to repulse his audience, as no one desires to be another’s slave, denied
of basic human liberties. Essentially, he reminds the Virginia colonists of their pride in
independence, their zealous love for human liberties, and their responsibility to protect these
freedoms. However, Henry’s rhetoric did more than just unite the Virginia colonists of 1775, it
transcended his revolutionary generation, and laid the foundations for patriotic rhetorical appeals
that define American discourse.
CONCLUSION:
On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry succeeded in uniting his fellow Virginians for the
cause of the American Revolution. By juxtaposing specific, irreconcilable terms, Henry laid a
foundational style for American rhetoric that recognized natural human values, appealed to the
pride of an independent society, and established a responsibility for a liberated citizenry to
protect their “unalienable Rights” (The Charters of Freedom, n.d.). By comparing “freedom”
and “slavery,” Henry enacted an archetype of American rhetoric that derives its significance
from the value of innate human liberties and endorsed a burgeoning, uniquely American attitude
that places supreme value on “freedom” and human rights.
After he establishes this attitude, Henry then fashions a specific American identity by
contrasting a “strong we” against a “weak we” in his argument for an engaged stalwart populace
that opposes tyranny. These diametrically opposed visionary entities rhetorically create a unified
body of citizens whom, identifying with a similar value system, uphold the already-established
attitude that cherishes human liberties, and allowing Henry to propose a strong, even radical
course of action that adheres to these collective values.
However, the strategy of framing Americans as the stalwart defenders of freedom and
human rights is not unique to American Revolutionary rhetoric. Throughout the course of
Connolly 12
history, American rhetors have employed this model of American idealism to rationalize
American involvement in international conflicts (e.g. both World Wars, the Cold War, the
Vietnam War, and the current “war on terrorism”) on the basis of these terministic screens that
were established by Patrick Henry and other early American orators. Also consistent with this
early archetype of juxtaposing disparate terms, contemporary rhetoricians often employ a similar
contrasting strategy, maintaining that American values are clear and indisputable, and anyone
who disagrees with these values constitutes the enemy, establishing a rhetorical theme of “you’re
either with us, or you’re against us.” This either-or mentality further expands the restrictions
that are in place from created terministic screens to seek American approval and justification for
“noble” acts of liberation, rhetorically creating an America that places supreme value on human
liberties, and is willing to go to any lengths to defend and protect these “inherent and inalienable
rights” (Jefferson, 1829). Ultimately, the logic of American idealism is founded in the enduring
rhetorical strategies of juxtaposing seemingly irreconcilable terms, establishing a unified,
American identity, and proposing action that selflessly protects against abuses of innate liberties,
transcending existing struggles to preserve the undeniable, inherent rights of humanity.
Works Consulted
American Rhetoric. (2011). John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address. Retrieved from
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkinaugural.htm.
Connolly 13
CNN. (2001, September 21). Transcript of President Bush's Address. Retrieved from
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-20/us/gen.bush.transcript_1_joint-session-nationalanthem-citizens?_s=PM:US.
Forde, S. (2011). John Locke and the Natural Law and Natural Rights Tradition. Retrieved from
http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke.
Foss, S.K. (2009). Rhetorical Criticism Exploration and Practice. (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Press, Inc.
Golden, J. L., Berquist, G. F., Coleman, W. E., & Sproule, J. M. (2007). The Rhetoric of Western
Thought. (Ninth ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. (2002). When Did It Happen? The Shot
Heard ‘Round the World. Retrieved from
http://www.hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/RevAmerica/3-When/Shot.html.
Jefferson, T. (1829). From the Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson. In N. Baym (Ed.), The
Norton Anthology of American Literature (pp. 651-657). New York, NY: W.W. Norton
& Company, Inc.
McGee, M.C. (1980). The “Ideograph”: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology. The Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 66(1), 1-16.
NOLO. (2011). Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”. Retrieved from
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/patrickhenry-liberty-speech.html.
Paine, T. (1776). Common Sense. In N. Baym (Ed.), The Norton Anthology of American
Literature (pp. 630-637). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Paine, T. (1776). The Crisis, No. 1. In N. Baym (Ed.), The Norton Anthology of American
Literature (pp. 637-642). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Connolly 14
Red Hill Patrick Henry National Memorial. (n.d.) Biography of Patrick Henry. Retrieved from
http://www.redhill.org/rhcontact.htm.
Revolutionary War and Beyond. (2011). The Olive Branch Petition. Retrieved from
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/olive-branch-petition.html.
Sage, H.J. (2010). The American Revolution 1775-1777. Retrieved from
http://www.academicamerican.com/revolution/topics/Amrev1775-1777.html.
The Charters of Freedom. (n.d.). The Declaration of Independence. Retrieved from
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2011). “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”.
Retrieved from http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm.
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2011). Patrick Henry. Retrieved from
http://www.history.org/almanack/people/bios/biohen.cfm.
The Federal Observer. (2011). Words That Men Live By. Retrieved from
http://www.federalobserver.com/words.php.
The History Place. (n.d.). Patrick Henry Liberty or Death!. Retrieved from
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/henry.htm.
United States HISTORY. (n.d.). The Coercive Acts. Retrieved from http://www.u-shistory.com/pages/h647.html.