Saturday, January 28, 2012
WHERE ARE THEY TODAY, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, WITH THIS ELOQUENCE?
AND DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE IT ANY MORE?
The Text:
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 offense, 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 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 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 free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if 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. The 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--and 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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Joe, Fine speech. Dramatic reading and, yes, Colonial English is eloquent.
What's your point in posting this?
Craig: Let's play a game.
I believe that as a typical liberal you cannot understand the point of posting this.
Prove me wrong by listing the reasons you think I posted this.
I don't think you are able, due to your rank liberalism.
But I could be wrong.
I was wrong once last year.
What the hell is she talking about?
Ducky: If you really have to ask that you are a historically ignorant person.
That was a speech given by a founder. Can you guess which one?
To you know what principles he was espousing?
Do you have any principles?
Dearest Craig,
Joe posted this 'cause he knows I can't view it! Being on Dial-Up with no audio driver and all. Joe operates this blog specifically to annoy me doncha know?
Colonial English?
COLONIAL ENGLISH !?!?!?!!!
I may not be able to view or hear the video, but I can only surmise that what you call 'Colonial English' is actually the 'Queen's English' (actually the 'King's English' at the time) BEFORE the Revolted Colonies destroyed it with their American Misspelling Conventions and lower primate syntax and grammar rules.
Joe?
Perhaps when your queries to Craig and Bojangles Ducky come to fruition, you could direct me to an on-line transcript or somesuch?
Okay!
I've researched Patrick Henry. Is your video the 'Give me Liberty, or give me the NFL! speech?
It seems our beloved Bojangle Ducky has read the Wikipedia article too and is possibly mimicking Thomas Jefferson's take on Mr. Henry's hypnotic orations with his comment of 9:59 AM today.
Okay!
I see you've updated your post.
Thank You.
Disregard my directly above comment- except the part about Bojangles.
Do you have any principles?
------
Of course not, I'm a complete libertine.
There is nothing in my world view except sex, drugs and rock n' roll.
That's the deal with you self righteous whitened sepulchers, you figure that since you never cuss you are in a position of moral authority.
Your history stops around 1776 and you can't figure out why you are mocked.
The Barnhardt Medusa sounds as if she's still worried about an invasion from Canada.
Prove me wrong by listing the reasons you think I posted this.
My guess is, you think Patrick Henry's speech is somehow applicable to what is happening today. You and your fellow tea partiers are feeling aggrieved. The principles of liberty and freedom are under assault from the Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist, America hating occupant of the White House. Him and his cabal of fellow travelers. He's a despot, a tyrant and the revolution has begun, The war is inevitable--and let it come!
That and I'm sure you relate to Henry's repeated appeals to the supernatural.
The context of Henry's speech was the quest, soon to be the fight, for self determination. they were rebelling against rule by a government without direct representation.
You mistakenly write in your side bar,
Freedom means not being controlled by the government, that being the very reason we declared our independence from Great Britain.
We declared our independence from Great Britain to govern ourselves, not to be free of government.
Henry is calling for armed rebellion, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! .
I hope you're not advocating that, Joe. According to the Constitution, to which you profess fealty, that would be treason.
Art. 3, Sect. 3; Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Am I close?
what you call 'Colonial English' is actually the 'Queen's English' (actually the 'King's English' at the time) BEFORE the Revolted Colonies destroyed it with their American Misspelling Conventions and lower primate syntax and grammar rules.
Dern straight. I doesnt talk enlish, I speek AMARICAN. You best learn it cuz AMERECA and AMERICAN grammer rulez.
Joe,
There are many amoung us who can, and do, pontificate with such language but there is no longer a main stream media forum for such prating palaver. You must remember Mr. Henry was educated in the Classics - Latin and Greek - and well versed in the skills needed for erudite Rhetoric. He did not intend his words to be heard by a pedestrian audience. They were intended for a cadre of his peers - equally educated and learned. He was not concerned if Desmond with his barrow in the marketplace or Molly, the singer in the band, understood him. And if the great unwashed, unlettered and innumerate masses did hear him, he did not fear, in their ignorance, they would consider him pompous or pretentious as the equivalent masses would today. Eloquence in speech is now considered a character flaw to be ridiculed at worst and dismissed as gibberish at best.
Oh dear, a Beatles reference. I'm so ashamed. Next I'll be spouting Python. If I do Joe, delete me. It'll be for my own good.
Don't dismiss Canada Bojangles, those puck-slapping, maple-eating and moose-mounting comrades of Soviet Canuckistan burnt your White House once. They can do it again!
Those frozen folks have already caused great harm by sending you Celine Dionne and Justin Bieber. They have more weapons of mass destruction up their parka sleaves.
Craig said,
".....Dern straight. I doesnt talk enlish, I speek AMARICAN. You best learn it cuz AMERECA and AMERICAN grammer rulez....."
Y'all rule the world and your incessant cultural hegemony marches forth as a juggernaut so it seems only fair.
I'm gonna need my shots though - don't wanna catch obesity and all.
Ya know, it would be even more fun 'round these parts if that Bojangles character would unhitch the jet engine of her/his on-line intellect from the ox cart of her/his real-life ego. Unless I am badly mistaken, she/he does seem to take her/himself a tad too seriously. Either that, or she/he is the most dead-pan ironist I've ever encountered. If that be the case - hope springs eternal, yes?
Mr. Bojangles,
With a contrite heart, I most objectionable, abominable, English language neophyte, ALTC, do most humbly apologise for misspelling the word sleeve - as in parka sleeve.
Damn homophones always trip me up.
Come on sweetheart, cut the crap and use the vernacular once in a while.
Who's your daddy, William F. Buckley?
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear I can't see it that way."
--- Bat Masterson
He was much more eloquent, Joe.
Craig: Check your rheostat, your light is dimming.
Duck and Craig: Turns out I was right!
About what, Joe?
Do you agree with Henry's opposition to the U.S. Constitution?
Craig: "you think Patrick Henry's speech is somehow applicable to what is happening today."
In the sense that the principles espoused in his speech are relevant to today, that would be true, but that is not the purpose of the post.
That was "hidden" away in the title.
We seem not to have any statesmen who can properly and steadfastly present their case(s) with passion and verve.
They all seem to find all of the answers blowing in the wind and dependent upon which way the wind is blowing at any given moment.
In that respect, President BO (the child president), Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are all yokes from the same egg.
Newt is smart, but certainly not eloquent. Mitt is rich, but very plastic. President BO (the child president) is either stupid or the most dangerous man of the 20th century, but he can't speak his way out of a wet paper sack.
This country needs a person with Patrick Henry's ability to articulate and the courage to take a stand for this nation.
Although I do not count them as men of principle, FDR and Jack Kennedy were inspirational speakers. Ronald Reagan was clear and concise, and a good communicator, if not forceful and fluid.
No one in between them or since them has been an effective or inspirational speaker.
Upon Patrick Henry's speech hung the future of this country. Without it we would not be here.
That's the kind of speech power and leadership I'm looking for.
Joe, you do know that the veracity of the account of Henry's speech has been disputed, I'm sure.
Ducky: Only by complete idiots.
Of course, to the liberal mind, the farther away from an even we get, the more we know about what really happened.
Those who were actually there, and wrote about it, didn't really know what really happened.
Grow up, Duck.
We seem not to have any statesmen who can properly and steadfastly present their case(s) with passion and verve.
It's a shame you haven't found anyone who inspires you.
President BO (the child president) is either stupid or the most dangerous man of the 20th century, but he can't speak his way out of a wet paper sack.
I thought the knock on him was, he only gave nice speeches. Joe, this is the 21st century. The 1900's were the 20th century. I learned that during my indoctrination in the government schools.
It's this kind of hyperbole that reasonable people can't wrap their heads around. Obama's more dangerous than Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol pot, Idi Amin, Adam Sandler? Seriously, he's to the right of Ike. To the right of Nixon in some respects.
This country needs a person with Patrick Henry's ability to articulate and the courage to take a stand for this nation.
Against what? Affordable health care? A decent wage? An equitable tax structure? A manufacturing base? An energy policy that won't wreck the environment?
For what? A passionate plea for downtrodden hedge fund managers? The virtues of selfishness and the concentration of wealth with the chosen few? A stirring defense of derivative markets? Fighting for the rights of multinational corporations (they're people, my friend)? Protecting money as speech? Guarding against the fall of western civilization by denying the right of a gay couple to marry? Standing for the inalienable right to hunt squirrel with a HK 21 UBF 308 beltfed machine gun?
I'm waiting for that too.
Upon Patrick Henry's speech hung the future of this country. Without it we would not be here.
So, If Henry hadn't given that speech, the British wouldn't have marched on Lexington and Concord, New Hampshire?
Little known historical factoid;
Patrick Henry used a teleprompter. He was lost without it.
Joe, the account of Henry's speech, especially the "give me liberty" line exited only in a biography written about 60 years after the fact.
Grow up and remember that the left is here to help you shed dogma and close mindedness.
Joe, you didn't answer my question about whether or not yo support Henry's opposition to the Constitution.
Craig: "I thought the knock on him was, he only gave nice speeches."
He gives speeches that flow fairly well IF his tele prompter is working.
When he speaks extemporaneously, every third or fourth word is "Uh..."
He also misrepresents what he has said in some instances and directly contradicts himself in others. Then, as often as not, he just repeats things he has said before.
According to some experts, the year 2000 was the 100th year of the 20th century (defined as 100years), just as the year 100 was the 100th year of the first century. The year 2100 will be the first year of the 21st century.
Others hold your view.
There is no concensus on the matter, so I choose the former.
Joe - There's no concensus on what century it is???? The fact that you think that explains so much about what I read here.
Joe, I think you're confused. The only "controversy" is whether 2000 or 2001 was the first year of the 21st century. The correct year is 2001 because there was not a year 0.
Joe, Do you really think Obama is destroying America? Are you looking for a modern day Patrick Henry to inspire? To do what?
Obama is the most incompetent, narcissistic, America-hating president that this country has ever had the displeasure of having and yet we see people like Ducky Boy defending everything he says and does. What does that tell us about Ducky?
I respect the wishes of the blogs author and I won't put it in writing.
Craig: I am looking for a leader who can speak passionately and eloquently about the truth of where he stands and who has the experience to know what leadership skills are.
That's not Newt (2 out of 3 ain't too bad), Mitt (1 out of 3 is not all that good) or President BO (the child president) because 0 out of 3 is really bad.
Craig: I am looking for a leader who can speak passionately and eloquently about the truth of where he stands and who has the experience to know what leadership skills are.
That's not Newt (2 out of 3 ain't too bad), Mitt (1 out of 3 is not all that good) or President BO (the child president) because 0 out of 3 is really bad.
Most Americans wouldn't have the patience for this. Our nation has an Attention Deficiency.
Opinion Boy, maybe you can try being substantive. Joe presents Henry as a great leader. Henry opposed the ratification of the Constitution.
1. Do you consider Henry a successful leader?
2. What century is it?
Joe - I give Obama 3 out of 3.
Joe said,
".....or President BO (the child president) because 0 out of 3 is really bad......"
Not if we are talking about Hepatitis infections. I know about which I speak; I've a whole alphabet's worth.
Bojangles Ducky said,
".....Come on sweetheart, cut the crap and use the vernacular once in a while....."
I am! My vernacular differs from yours it would appear.
"....Who's your daddy, William F. Buckley?....."
After researching Mr. Buckley, I suspect you mean for that to be a derogation, but I shall take it otherwise. His linguistic expertise and his command of language were legendary it would seem. He learned to speak Spanish and French before learning English at the age of 7. I was 20, but we otherwise share the same sequence.
He was a Papist though - I hate the Papists.
Post a Comment