Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death by Henry Patrick - Research Paper Example

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death by Henry Patrick Rhetorical devices are devices employed by in order to achievespecific rhetorical purposes. These strategies include, but are not limited to, rhetorical questions, repetition, analogy, anecdote, paradox, irony, humor, and various figures of speech. In this rhetoric notion “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,” Richard Schumann leads the interpretation in regards to colonial foundation. The rhetoric purpose is evidence in this writing through Henry’s articulation. Patrick Henry states, “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.” There is a sense of humor as observed from this saying hence rhetoric norm being availed from the Richard Schumann interpretations (Cohen 704). It is significant to note that Patrick Henry's powerful speech was given on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Henrico Parish Church in Richmond. Through this articulation, we realize that there is a connection of beliefs and attitudes and that the speaker tries to trace it out for us to understand the notion well. There is a strong articulation from the availed phrases from Henry speech, which says, “It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. People may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace (Henry 10). The war is actually begun.” This strong norm shows there is a connection between beliefs and attitudes at large. Additionally, the availed speech is a sort of emotional appeal. Henry is quoted by saying, “Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.” This is an emotional articulation in that Henry was addressing the gathering out of hunger and sudden feelings. Henry speech was a well-organized speech in that it entailed some of the main characteristics that a well-organized speech adheres to (Vaughan 54). The speech is easier to understand, pleasing, easier to remember and credible as well. In addition, the speech portrayed a specific and purposely central idea characterized by main point that was supported and narrated in well conversant manner (Cohen 711). The style in this writing is formal. This was a speech directed to the president and the urge of being formal was an option. The speech was to address the president to pity the fate of the common citizens and being formal was one way of Henry to eliminate any sort of personal feeling rather address issue as a community spokesman. Henry stated that “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.’ However, a metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. From the above Henrys words, we articulate that the speaker uses metaphors in this writings. From the excerpt, the author meant that freedom is the ability for an individual to make any choice they want, in any manner they deem fit as long as it does not harm or interfere with others’ pursuit of freedom (Cohen 714). The author’s beliefs advocated for maximized lives for those with minimum lives, this meaning that the lowest, least fortunate class of our society should be the most well off lowest class of all other societies no matter the cost. It is a complicated argument but a very charitable. As evident from the speech, the author did not advocate for socialism or equality but rather a well off lower class. The millionaire can still be a millionaire, but he must sacrifice some of his wealth to allow the least fortunate to live comfortably. At some point, the speech becomes even more confusing when the author introduces the concept of “representatives” at “the bargaining table.” The representatives are comprised of a group of men and women representing several anonymous citizens for the sole purpose of advocating a better life for the least fortunate class (Vaughan 66-69). Give me liberty or give me death focused on the philosophy of liberalism. It is significant to note that the work of Henry Patrick was to provide in depth analysis about authoritarian regimes and struggle for freedom or liberty. Critical analysis of the work unravels two important philosophies. The two liberal philosophies that Henry Patrick talked about includes cognitive principles, which is the principle of equal civil liberties between the citizens, and the principle of social and economic inequalities in terms of wealth and income (Vaughan 31). The above-mentioned principle plays a vital recognition facet and thus they involve an aspect of priority in relation to the fair action within liberal philosophy. Liberalism is part of political quintessence in need of fairness in justice system as well as political conception. In his research, John Rawls has considered the aspect of fairness as an important aspect in theory of justice. The work of Henry Patrick on the liberalism was seemingly translated to freedom and equality. In general, political liberalism is an example of political legitimacy specifically basing its views on the philosophical religious, moral disagreement and human good among the citizens of a given nation. Through public political forum, the author was able to provide elusive suggestions in depth towards the entire nation and in regards to the government, which he believed that was only visible if the supreme legislative and judicial bodies of the society play a vital position in its support (Fradin 69). Meanwhile, sources from Henry’s speech showed that ideal public reason from citizens secures freedom, equality, and fairness that are the backbone of the liberal nation. The issue of overlapping consensus is a vital idea suggested by Henry since it reflects on various doctrines that provide and solve an issue of justification and compatibility. However, Henry did not only talk about the stated issues but modified his principles of justice stating that each person has rights and equal claims towards basic rights and liberties. In addition, the social and economic inequalities as some of the principle aspects when put in action has to satisfy the issue of fairness in regards to opportunities availed and should be of beneficial to the members of society (Vaughan 711). Liberalism has portrayed its strong hold in social justice as compared to plutocracy as far as the aspect of priority is concerned stating that civil rights did not need to be trade off against other social goods. The second strong hold of liberalism is the two principles that show fairness and value of political liberties. The two independent principles of Henry Patrick makes his suggestion so strong hence giving liberalism an overview in regards to increase of economic growth at large (Henry 44-46). However, the work of Henry Patrick had its own weaknesses, which face liberalism as a concept. Inequalities lacks in the work of Henry since it does not explain the rules that govern distribution of wealth and income to all people. Aspect of inequality when looked upon can produce a grater total productive nation in terms of wealth considering the issue of wages that covers the costs of training and education. Meanwhile financial level from high to low income people shows how the irregularities in inequalities possess a weakness in liberalism aspect (Cohen 716). From the speech, it is clear that the principle of equal civil liberties between the citizens and the principle of social and economic inequalities in terms of wealth and income is vital towards liberalism. Through public political forum, the author was able to provide elusive suggestions in profundity towards the entire nation and in regards to the government, which he believes that it was only possible when the existing government puts in place the lay down on the aspect of liberalism. The issue of overlapping consensus is a vital idea suggested by the author and it reflects on various doctrines that in general provide and solve an issue of justification and compatibility. The author did not only talk about the stated issues but modified his principles of justice stating that each person has rights and equal claims towards basic rights and liberties. Despite this, inequalities aspect when looked upon can produce a greater total productive nation in terms of wealth considering the issue of wages that covers the costs of training and education in general (Vaughan 112). Despite the fact the speech presented by Henry Patrick talks about liberalism or freedom of the citizens, the idea of patriotism seems talking about different things. In this speech, it is significant to distinguish patriotism from the liberal obligation to various universal principles and values. According to the speech, where and from whom people learn their morality is of significant importance both for their commitment to it as well as for its very contents. This is because morality is only the morality of a particular people, emphasizing that people can only understand moral rules only through the way of life of their community. It is from these views that patriotism should not be distinguished from morality (Cohen 709). Patriotism is the foundation of morality. The patriot, therefore, is to be devoted to his or her country and polity, although this does not mean that the patriot should support just any government in power. The allegiance of the patriot, he writes, is to the nation regarded as a project rather than the status quo of power. One is allowed to oppose the government in the name of the true history and character of the country. However, some practices ought to be beyond critical scrutiny and questioning, at which he writes that a true patriot has a “fundamentally irrational attitude.” The patriot may promote the interests of his or her country in a critical and non-exclusive manner, in various issues. However, when it comes to the “large interests” of the country that are considered to be beyond criticism and that are supposed to be supported in an irrational manner, the concern of the patriot will unavoidably become exclusive, and in all likelihood aggressive too (Henry 82). It is clear that Give me liberty or give me death concerns equality of men and their pursuit of happiness. The author believes that since human beings were created equal, they hold these perceptions to be self evident in that as humans we are endowed by God the creator with certain unalienable rights which includes the right to liberty, life and search of happiness. In order to safeguard these rights, the governments are composed among men acquiring their authority from the consent of the citizens or the governed (Henry 70). In case any government violates these rights in form of oppression via discrimination, it is the right and obligation of the people to abolish or change the regime, or even establish a new regime or government laying its foundation on such rights and tenets in order for the new regime to uphold and respect their rights (Fradin 100). Since all men were created equal, it is significant every government to ensure the protection of rights of individual to create and express their ideas or convictions and to work upon them individually without government interference. Human beings have natural and rights such as freedom of association, religion, liberty, movement and freedom from arbitrary arrest by the police. The U.S constitution is mandated to protect these unalienable rights. It is evident from the speech Henry believed that in pursuit of happiness and liberty, it would be rational to establish a strong federal regime that would hold people together. Because of this argument, Henry insisted that the States were to be second to the federal government. In this manner, he decided to use the word pursuit of happiness rather than property. Henry understood that political judgment or prudence plays a significant role in founding the regimes. Therefore, there is the association between speech and reason, which shows to us what is good and harmful, and by knowing what is just and unjust, good and bad, it makes people to live together and at the same time makes political leaders to pursue what is good for the people. It is the interests of political leaders that make them determine how to rule or govern which in turn may lead to any regime such as democracy (Cohen 117). Henry Patrick was right in his assertions about the pursuit of happiness in human life. For instance, according to him, prudence or practical intelligence is the thinking mode that which provides morality in an adequate way. This comprehends true character of individuals and the community welfare, which applies the results to guidance of human actions. To act correctly, one coordinates his desires with the correct thoughts over correct ends or goals (Fradin 123). Deliberative reasoning considers the extent at which each one of them could contribute towards achieving the appropriate end or goal, engaging in the action voluntarily and making deliberate choices to act in a way, which best fits its end. Governments should respect their citizens and treat them as human beings. Works Cited Cohen, Charles. "The ‘Liberty or Death’ Speech: A Note on Religion and Revolutionary Rhetoric". The William and Mary Quarterly 38. 4 (1981): 702–717. Fradin, Dennis. Patrick Henry: Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death. Boston: Enslow Pub Inc, 1987. Print. Henry, Patrick. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death. New York: Amazon, 2013. Print. Vaughan, David. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. New Jersey: Cumberland, 1997. Print. Read More