This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Outstanding edit, Isis. Thank you!

Someone might want to add a bit more detail about the debate before the Stamp Act resolutions were passed. Although the exact wording of Henry's speech is unknown, and the traditional wording is apocryphal, he definitely made some comparison of George III to Julius Caesar and Charles XXXVII.

The way I heard it it referred both to Tarquin and Caesar: "Each had his Brutus", I think.... As to the "apocryphal" part, people just used to talk like that.

Henry's famous "lk, not to the House of Burgesses. The convention had many of the same members as the legislative body, but the legislature was barred from sitting by decree of Lord Dunmore, the Royal Governor. For this reason, as well as the potentially treasonous nature of the debate, the convention met at St. John's Church in Richmond, as opposed to the colonial capital, Williamsburg.

This is probably a pointless comment, but I think it is quite amusing to see how a prominent figure can be confused with a French criminal of the same name. Ethereal 03:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure of all the facts surrounding the Parson's Cause court case, but I believe that Patrick Henry technically lost the case, however his clients were ordered to pay damages of only 1 and that money going to the parsons!

Not according to Parson's Cause, which states that Henry technically lost the case, but won a moral (and practical) victory. I don't know which is true- someone with more knowledge than me might want to clear up the discrepency, otherwise I shall try and find some sources on the web and reword it myself. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 05:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

He did indeed lose. Badgerpatrol 16:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The case had actually been "lost" by the vestry's previous attorney at an earlier hearing. Henry was then hired by the vestry for the second phase of the proceedings, in which the jury was asked to determine the damages due to the plaintiff, the Reverend James Maury. Henry's arguments prompted the jury to award Maury the smallest possible amount - variously described as one farthing, one penny, half a penny, etc. Henry's popularity after achieving this 'moral victory' led to his election to the House of Burgesses . . . . where he then attacked the Stamp Act etc. 69.19.14.44 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, User:69.19.14.44, you're right. The article currently states that "Henry technically lost the case", which is of course wrong. You wrote this more than a year ago but no one fixed the article, so I'll do the honor. — Kevin Myers 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Did Henry actually say "Suspicion is a Virtue if it is in the interests of the good of the people."? He was an Antifederalist, wary of governmental powers and a proponent of liberty. Can anyone provide a traditional citation for this quote? (Google 1, 2) rgm 20:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Was he a proponent of liberty for slaves? Americans worship some false gods in connection with their Revolution. Bhoeble 20:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re the paragraph: "In the later years of his life, Henry was a key figure in a major land speculation scandal involving the Yazoo lands in what was then the western territory of Georgia."

Does anyone know what was the outcome of the scandal? It should be stated if he was found innocent or guilty or what was the preponderance of opinion at that time or today. Otherwise, the paragraph just seems a smear on the man's reputation. Neven Karlovac 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this sentace in the biography section "Henry won the case but damages were set at such a nominally low level that the result was a victory for the independence movement, to the consternation of the British government." Is this a typo? I'm assuming that Henry was the lawyer on the side of the independance movement. So why does it say BUT? I don't know the situation enough to rewrite this properly so it makes sense.

Someone with a poor grasp of literacy altered the original wording in a haphazard way. The sentence has now been restored, along with a reference to the fact that Henry actually (technically) lost the case. Badgerpatrol 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also the last paragraph is very bad. How does he change from federalist to anti federalist? And what was he elected to that he died before he could take his seat?

I Googled on "named for Patrick Henry" to find several additional counties, then verified them. There may be more places out there; someone with more patience might want to search for articles that link to this one. -- Thatnewguy 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the material in this article is base on the sources in the references section. Could someone make (effectively) footnotes to those from the contents? Thank you Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 15:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Should add Appleton's Biography Link patrick-henry.net to the External Links

I noticed that someone referenced "Lies My Teacher Told Me." This book is problematic...although definitely a fascinating read, historians do not consider it mainstream. There are some dubious interpretations, which I won't go into here. I think this article would do better to draw its material from another source or else strengthen the argument with citations from a second work. [Anonymous, October 10th, 2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.13.14 ( talk) 18:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

But all that's taken from there is a quote from a letter Henry wrote. Unless you're saying that Lies My Teacher Told Me isn't a reputable source (i.e. in question are not just its "interpretations", but rather its honesty and accuracy), I really don't see the problem. — Ruakh _TALK 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This page seems very vague for such an important person in United States and Virginian History.

Can there be information on the following subjects? (I am willing to contribute some of my findings on all these things)

-Early Life (ie: parents, schooling, connection to the Winstons)

-Way more on his US Constitution work.

-More on his work as a laywer.

-finally I would love to read and see more his rivalries with Madison, Jefferson and at times the great George Washington.

I am very willing to contribute some of this information.

narwhalhistory

Here is the biography we distribute at Red Hill - The Patrick Henry National Memorial, and that will be available on our redesigned website later this spring. January 30 2007

EARLY LIFE AND TIMES

Patrick Henry was born at Studley in Hanover County, Virginia, on May 29, l736. His father John Henry was a Scottish-born planter. His mother Sarah Winston Syme was a young widow from a prominent gentry family. Henry attended a local school for a few years and received the remainder of his formal education from his father, who had attended King’s College of the University of Aberdeen,

At fifteen Henry began working as a clerk for a local merchant. A year later, in 1752, he and his older brother William opened their own store, which promptly failed.

At age eighteen, not yet having found his profession, Henry married sixteen-year-old Sarah Shelton, whose dowry was a 600-acre farm called Pine Slash, a house, and six slaves. Henry’s first attempt as a planter ended when fire destroyed his house in 1757. After a second attempt at storekeeping proved unsuccessful, Henry helped his father-in-law at Hanover Tavern, across the road from the county courthouse, and began reading law.

By 1766, nearing his twenty-fourth birthday, Henry decided to become a lawyer. Self-taught and barely prepared, Henry persuaded the panel of distinguished Virginia attorneys that he had the intelligence to warrant admission to the bar. With his energy and talents, and some encouragement from his influential family, Patrick Henry established a thriving practice in the courts of Hanover and adjacent counties.

HENRY’S VIRGINIA

Patrick Henry’s political career began in December 1763 with his rousing victory in the Parsons’ Cause, a controversy rooted in the peculiarities of colonial Virginia’s tobacco-based economy that also became an important precursor of the American Revolution. Clergymen of the established Anglican church and other public officials in colonial Virginia received their annual salaries in tobacco – 16,000 pounds per a year for a clergyman. For decades the market price of tobacco had been about 2 cents a pound, but severe droughts in 1759 and 1760 drove the price of tobacco much higher. In response to this crisis, the colonial legislature passed a Two-Penny Act, which declared that contracts payable in tobacco should be valued according to the normal price rather than the higher “windfall” caused by the recent drought. Many of Virginia’s Anglican clergy, who already felt that their vestries paid them too little, protested the law. Eventually, the parsons appealed to colonial authorities in England, who overruled the Virginia statute and declared it void. This action aroused a controversy over the nature of British authority within the colony.

The Parsons’ Cause came home to Hanover County when the Reverend James Maury brought suit against the vestry for his back pay, and won. At that point the novice attorney Patrick Henry was asked to argue the vestry’s side when the jury convened to determine how much Maury should be paid. In a fervent oration that criticized the established clergy and challenged British authority, Henry persuaded the jurors of Hanover County to grant token damages of only one penny. Henry’s victory in the Parsons’ Cause enhanced his legal practice and launched a political career marked by similar moment of dramatic oratory.

Winning a seat in the House of Burgesses from Louisa County in 1765, Henry began his career in the lower house of the Virginia’s colonial legislature shortly after news had reached the colony of Parliament’s passage of the Stamp Act. Henry and entrenched leadership of the House of Burgesses agreed on the constitutional grounds for opposing the Stamp Act, but Henry was more outspoken and direct in his opposition to the Parliamentary taxation. By narrow margins on May 29-30, 1765, the burgesses endorsed Henry’s Stamp Act Resolves, which attacked Parliament’s claim of authority to tax the colonies and seemed to advocate resistance if the imperial government persisted in its course.

Henry’s Stamp Act Resolves, which were published throughout the colonies and Great Britain, established Henry’s place among the leaders of the American Revolution. Their passage was the occasion for one of his most famous orations, the “Caesar-Brutus” speech in which he suggested that the British monarch risked a fate like Julius Caesar’s assassination by Brutus, or Charles I’s displacement by Cromwell, if he permitted his government to disregard American liberty. Despite cries of treason from more cautious burgesses, his spirited remarks achieved their effect. With attendance at the session thinned by the early departure of many members, Henry introduced and carried five of an intended seven resolutions, finding it necessary to hold back two of the stronger ones that faced defeat. When one was later rescinded, but the newspapers printed versions of six or all seven resolutions, quickly establishing Henry’s reputation as an uncompromising opponent of imperial policy.

As tensions between the colonists and the British government persisted during the next few years, Henry remained a member of the Burgesses, occasionally challenging the older leaders but always joining them in opposition to British policies. His public career was balanced by the needs of a growing family and his law practice. After scarcely a decade’s labor in the county courts, Henry in 1769 was admitted to practice before the General Court, the highest judicial body in the colony.

As the imperial crisis mounted after the Boston massacre of 1770, Henry in 1773 joined with other Virginians in the establishment of intercolonial committees of correspondence. Both the Boston Tea Party in December and Parliament’s subsequent enactment of the Coercive Acts and its closing of the port of Boston in 1774, the colonies drew closer together in their resistance.

Henry attended the first session of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in September 1774 as one of Virginia’s seven delegates and initially received several important committee assignments. Early in the session he demonstrated his powers as a speaker when he asserted that the old governments and colonial boundaries were swept away. “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders, are no more,” he declared. “I am not a Virginian, but an American.” Henry took his seat in the Second Continental Congress in May 1775 but did not play a major part in its cautious deliberations. When Congress adjourned on August 1, Henry set out for home and never again to held a continental or national office.

HENRY AND INDEPENDENCE

For the few months between the First and Second sessions of the Continental Congress, Henry returned to Virginia and organized a volunteer militia company for Hanover County while also coping with the tragedy of Sarah Henry’s puerperal psychosis, a severe mental illness that sometimes followed childbirth. When Sarah Henry died sometime in early 1775, Henry resumed an active leadership role in the Revolution, particularly at the second Virginia Convention at Richmond in March 1775. The Virginia delegates were divided between those who wanted only a peaceful solution to the imperial dispute and those who also were ready to prepare for military resistance. Henry led the call for preparedness and introduced a resolutions to that effect. He supported its passage with the legendary speech that closed with “Give me liberty or give me death!” Henry carried the day by no more than a half dozen votes.

Virginia’s royal governor, the earl of Dunmore, responded promptly to the threat of armed resistance. On April 20, l775 he dispatched a small force of British marines to seize powder and guns stored in the Public Magazine in Williamsburg. The raiders were discovered, but the attempt aroused violent sentiments that threatened to explode into bloodshed. A few of Virginia’s more cautious leaders, who had often opposed Henry in the legislature, were able to quiet the citizens of Williamsburg and head off a march on the capital by several volunteer companies that gathered at Fredericksburg. Patrick Henry was not as easily turned aside. He led his Hanover militia company to the outskirts of Williamsburg and demanded payment to the colony for the cost of the seized powder and arms before he finally agreed to break camp.

During Henry’s brief absence from Virginia for the Second Continental Congress, the military preparations that he advocated had come to fruition. The Virginia Convention formed two provincial regiments, and by a narrow vote appointed the inexperienced Henry as commander of the first regiment and the senior officer of the entire force. “I think my countrymen made a capital mistake,” said George Washington, “when they took Henry out of the senate to place him in the field.”

Henry had little difficulty recruiting troops from his growing body supporters, but in the end his political opponents thwarted his military ambitions. They dominated the Committee of Safety and dispatched the second regiment to fight Dunmore’s forces at Great Bridge, in Norfolk County, in December 1775. Early in 1776, when the two regiments were incorporated into the newly organized Continental army, Henry remained a colonel in command of his regiment was placed under the command of his former subordinates. He declined to serve, and his regiment threatened to resign in protest. Henry, however, in little-known moment that many historians regard as one of his finest, refused to let personal disappointment hurt the American cause, and he persuaded his men to accept their new officers.

Patrick Henry's short-lived military career was at an end but his political career was just beginning. As the colonies moved toward independence, Henry was elected to the last of Virginia’s revolutionary conventions, which met in Williamsburg on May 6, 1776. During the next two months the Virginians instructed their delegates at the Continental Congress to declare independence; wrote a new constitution for the state, and adopted the Virginia Declaration of Rights – a precursor of America’s Bill of Rights. Without assurances of a strong union between the colonies and foreign support, such as an alliance with France, Henry was initially reluctant to support independence. Once reassured on these questions, however, he participated in drafting Virginia’s resolution calling upon Congress to declare the colonies “free and independent states.” Henry also served on a large committee chosen to draft the Virginia Declaration of Rights; according to Edmund Randolph, another member of the committee, Henry drafted the fifteenth and sixteenth articles of the document. Henry generally approved the new constitution for the Commonwealth of Virginia, except for the insufficient authorities granted to the governor, who was elected by the legislature for a maximum of three successive one-year terms and denied any veto over legislation.

After adopting Virginia’s constitution on June 29, 1776, Henry was promptly elected to the office he had described as a “mere phantom.” As the first elected governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Patrick Henry served three terms from 6 July 6, 1776, to June 1, 1779, and he was subsequently elected for two more terms from November 30, 1784 to November 30, 1786. Despite the weakness of his office, Governor Henry worked closely with George Washington to raise and equip the soldiers who won American independence. In 1778 Governor Henry sent Virginia troops under George Rogers Clark to hold the Old Northwest against the British and their Indian allies.

HENRY AND THE CONSTITUTION

When Henry left the governor’s office in 1779, his political influence was strong. His social standing was confirmed by his marriage, on October 9, 1777, to Dorothea Dandridge, who was from an old and prominent Virginia family and with whom he had ten children. Settling upon a 10,000-acre plantation in one of the newly created Southside counties that were was named for him, he declined election to the Confederation Congress in favor of his 1780 election of Virginia’s House of Delegates. Henry promptly emerged as one of its most influential members, rivaled only by Richard Henry Lee and James Madison. Shifting factions, rather than clearly defined parties, were characteristic of the Virginia legislature in the 1780s. Henry opposed many of James Madison’s efforts to enact reforms had been advocated by Thomas Jefferson, and he was always wary of fiscal policies that favored creditors over farmers and planters. Henry supported measures to provide the national government under the Articles of Confederation with adequate revenues, but was wary of giving other states too much control over Virginia’s future. Henry and his allies in the legislature passed only the occasional statute, often to provide relief to debtors, but they were generally successful in defeating or amending bills introduced by Madison and his allies. The major exception was Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom, which Madison steered to passage in 1786. Although strongly committed to religious freedom, Henry opposed Jefferson’s plan of total separation of church and state, favoring instead the continuation of public taxation for the support of all recognized religious groups.

Late in that same year, Henry declined reelection to the governorship, citing reasons of health and the need to look after his private affairs. A movement to strengthen the central government of the new nation was gaining force, which culminating in the Philadelphia convention of 1787. Henry remained committed to augmenting the resources of the Confederation government but suspicious of those who sought to replace it with a stronger central government. Virginia’s emerging Federalists hope that he might be won over to their viewpoint, and he was among those chosen to participate in the Philadelphia constitutional convention.

Henry declined the honor, citing a lack of funds. He was, however, clearly suspicious that the supporters of a stronger national government included many New Englanders who had favored a treaty with Spain in 1786 that, had it been ratified, would have sacrificed southern interests in the free use of the Mississippi River in favor of commercial advantages for northern merchants. When George Washington sent him a copy of the new constitution with a letter outlining its advantages in September 1787, just after the convention had adjourned, Henry composed a cryptic reply that made his deep reservations clear: “I have to lament that cannot bring my Mind to accord with the proposed Constitution. The Concern I feel on this account, is really greater than I am able to express.” By the end the year James Madison regarded Patrick Henry as the greatest threat to ratification by Virginia.

Henry ran as a delegate to the state ratification convention from Prince Edward County, where he then resided. When the convention met in Richmond on June 2, 1788, its members were closely divided. As the foremost spokesman for the Anti-Federalists, Henry detailed his objections to the document with eloquent reminders of the liberties for which Virginians had fought and confidence in the state’s autonomy. The unifying theme of all Henry’s speeches in 1788 was the abiding fear of any powerful government that was too centralized and too far removed from its citizens. He denounced the constitution as “clearly a consolidated government” that would destroy the rightful powers of the states. Its principles, he continued, were “extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous.” The Philadelphia convention, he asserted, had proposed “a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.” In the end, the Federalists outmaneuvered Henry with a strategy, which had already been successful in other states, of accepting ratification along with a slate of proposed amendments. This concession was enough to win over a small but critical group of moderate Anti-Federalists. Virginia ratified the Constitution by a vote of 89 to 79.

Convinced that individual liberties and Virginia’s interests remained at risk unless the Constitution was modified, Henry maintained unrelenting political pressure toward those goals. When the General Assembly convened on the heels of the ratifying convention, Henry commanded a strong majority of former Anti-Federalists that blocked Madison’s aspirations for a seat in the Senate and promoting a second convention to amend the Federal Constitution.

Once the new government went into operation, many Virginians who had supported the ratification suddenly found themselves opposed to the economic policies advanced by Alexander Hamilton. During the 1790s the commonwealth experienced a major political realignment in which many of Henry’s former Anti-Federalists joined forces with their former opponents to create the new Democratic-Republican party of Jefferson and Madison.

HENRY AND RED HILL

In declining health, Henry retired from the legislature at the end of 1790 and devoted himself to a busy law practice, winning cases in some of his most successful courtroom appearances. By the middle of the decade, however, his political allegiance took a surprising turn, shaped in part by the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, which Henry attributed to the deism of its leaders. Henry proved receptive to overtures from Virginia Federalists such as Washington, Henry Lee, and John Marshall who shared his increasing dissatisfaction the Democratic-Republican opposition led by Jefferson and Madison. Henry declined appointments as secretary of state, attorney general, justice of the Supreme Court, and minister to Spain, but he reentered politics in 1799 in response to controversies over the repressive measures that Federalists in Congress had enacted against their Democratic-Republican rivals. Henry never endorsed the Federalist’s Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, but he was equally alarmed by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1799 (written anonymously by Jefferson and Madison), which advocated state intervention against unconstitutional actions of the federal government. Disunion, he feared, would undo the revolution and lead to anarchy or tyranny. In the spring of 1799 Henry supported John Marshall, a moderate Federalist who had not voted for the Alien and Sedition Acts, for reelection to Congress. At the same time, in response to a direct request from his old friend George Washington, Henry ran again for a seat in the state legislature. He won easily after delivering his last public speech at Charlotte Court House, but he died at Red Hill on June 6, 1799, before the legislature convened.

On June 14, 1799, the Virginia Gazette announced the death of Patrick Henry. “As long as our rivers flow, or mountains stand,” said the Gazette, “Virginia . . . will say to rising generations, imitate my Henry.” Of the many Americans who were active in the American Revolution at the state level and who generally opposed ratification of the Federal Constitution, Patrick Henry was one of the few who rank among the truly major figures of American history. Unlike most of America’s political heroes, Henry never held high national office. By his oratorical prowess and his unfailing empathy with his constituents and their interests, Henry made the Revolution a more widely popular movement than it might otherwise have become. He explained the revolution to ordinary men and women in words they understood. As an eloquent spokesman for American liberty, Henry also expressed a distrust of centralized political authority that remains a persistent theme in American political culture. “It is not now easy to say what we should have done without Patrick Henry,” said Thomas Jefferson. “He was before us all in maintaining the spirit of the Revolution.”

Near his last will, Patrick Henry left a small envelope sealed with wax. Inside was a single sheet of paper on which he had copied his Resolutions against the Stamp Act. On the back, Patrick Henry left a message that he knew could only be read after his death. It began with a short history of his Resolutions against the Stamp Act, which had “spread throughout America with astonishing Quickness.” As a result, the colonies were united in their “Resistance to British Taxation,” and won “the War which finally separated the two Countries and gave Independence to ours.”

Whether America’s independence “will prove a Blessing or a Curse,” Henry continued in his message to posterity, “will depend on the Use our people make of the Blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary Character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a Nation. Reader! whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy Sphere, practice Virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. P. HENRY”

69.19.14.44 16:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Henry is a descendant of the old French nobility family of "d'Aubigné". His ancestors include Agrippa d'Aubigné, a famous poet, whose father and whose family converted to protestantism (huguenots). He descends from Agrippa's son Constant and his first wife Ann Marchant. Constant's descendents married into the Winston family, as described in Constant d'Aubigné's biography on Wikipedia. Agrippa's biography is also available on Wikipedia. Cjbeale 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the glove in the Rothermel painting is not Henry's. It was thrown by the British officer (visible to the left of Henry's outstretched hand) seen pulling his sword out of its scabbard. The glove IS meant to represent a challenge -- throwing down the gauntlet -- but it symbolizes the British challenge to American liberties ... to which Henry was responding. The original painting is at Red Hill - The Patrick Henry National Memorial in Charlotte County, Virginia, which is to say that it is in the museum room here at the visitor center. - jk 69.19.14.44 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it warrant mention that he owned slaves? — Ruakh _TALK 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It goes beyond owning slaves. One of Henry's stated objections to enacting the Constitution was "They'll free your n*****s!" He wasn't just a slave-owner, but an outspoken advocate for slavery as an institution. 24.214.230.66 ( talk) 11:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any references in regards to that? According to this document from the Library of Virginia in 1773 he was against slavery. http://www.lva.virginia.gov/lib-edu/education/psd/nation/henry1773.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.202.186 ( talk) 16:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

---

We should probably include some of this information: "At the time Patrick Henry gave his famous speech, few people knew of the personal tragedy that he had been experiencing during the previous three critical years leading up to the Revolution. In 1772, after giving birth to her sixth child, Sarah Henry became deeply melancholic and, finally violent. Henry had her confined to a room in the basement and placed in a strait jacket to prevent her from taking her own life. She was attended to by a slave woman twenty-four hours a day. Each day Henry would open the trapdoor to the basement and went down to feed her himself. As the son of Sarah’s doctor later wrote that while Henry was fomenting rebellion and arousing his native land to arms, “his soul was bowed down and bleeding under the heaviest sorrows and personal distress. Daniel M. Roberts (e-history.com) contends that “those who look at the past must avoid too much speculation about how personal trauma affects political actions. But it is useful to consider how Henry’s quiet struggle to comfort a wife gone mad might have given intensity to his political rhetoric. Without evidence we cannot say for sure, but hearing the word of the Liberty or Death speech, one cannot help but wonder how his thoughts of a straight jacketed wife, in a dark basement room, struggling with a sickness that would not go away, might not have influenced the manner in which he spoke of the Colonies with a stubborn and intractable England.” Could Henry’s situation have inspired the words “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Sarah Henry would die later in 1775." From this link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember ( talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that Patrick Henry was notable at his time because he was the epitome of the "rags to riches" story that gave the lower classes hope for social mobility. Why isn't Henry's background discussed? Can someone add some of this? It doesn't seem right that his biography starts with his law career. 129.10.172.103 05:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Jordana

That is a myth that exists, but I don't think it's actually true. I'm not sure if it warrants mention as a prevalent myth. — Ruakh _TALK 14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Even so, his early background is vital to understanding his history. Is there any existing information about his life up until his law degree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.172.118 ( talk) 03:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best explication of Henry's Scotch-Irish background, especially in relation to his times and in terms of his 'class' background, is in the historian David Hackett's Fischer's "Albion Seed." It's not online, but available at any bookstore or library. A masterpiece. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 18:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the material takes a downward turn towards the end of the bio. Specifically the repetitive statements about Henry becoming a "federalist," as he was a determined anti-federalist, and becoming an 'opponent' of James Madison. None of it is cited, appearing like another attempt at an 'John Seigenthaler' point. Anyone else get this vibe? Aceholiday ( talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia only for research and do not edit or even understand the process. However, I am quite sure that Patrick Henry never married Dr. Allen Shelton, a professor from Buffalo State University. Can this be fixed, please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.110.246.49 ( talk) 20:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When I came to this page, it had a bunch of obviously untrue statements such as Henry was a sex offender, an illegal alien from Irag, etc. I undid the edit but from the history it appears that this page has been vandalized time and time again. I'm not sure how to get the page protected, but it seems to warrant protection. Tithonfury ( talk) 00:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for page protection. -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-10-06t22:11z

Two editors have deleted the reference in the article lede to Patrick Henry as a radical. The first time it was by an IP with no explanation and the second time a registered editor included this edit summary, "rephrase. radical is a loaded word. POV. passionate is more neutral. Also this whole sentence has no reference." I have added it back with a reference, but I disagree that there is anything "loaded" or "POV" about the use of the word "radical". The fact that there were radicals at the vanguard of the independence movement is a consensus opinion among historians. David Ammerman in "The Crisis of Independence", an article contributed to "A Companion to the American Revolution" (page 207) explains the divisions amoung American leaders at the time of the Second Continental Congress that is accepted by most historians -- Radicals who were prepared for independence, conservatives who hoped to change British attitudes through further petitions and persuasion, and moderates who hoped for reconciliation but still saw military action as necessary. There is no doubt that I am aware of that Henry fell into the first group and had been there since the Stamp Act crisis and the Virginia Resolves.

"Radical" has been in the article lede for well over a year -- it seems that the burden of proof to delete it lies with those wanting to make the change. Before they take further action in the article I would expect them to make the case on this discussion page to change the existing consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was the editor who substituted 'passionate' instead of 'radical'. The way your sentence reads gives an impression that Patrick Henry was a radical among the people who wanted to break away from England. It implies that if George Washington walked into a room with Henry in it, he would point and say 'That Henry is a radical', implying that Henry's views are extreme and fanatical (Washington's POV for example). You explained here clearly that 200 years ago 'radicals' were people who didn't want to reconcile with England. Unfortunately people who aren't history buffs are not aware of that distinction. In today's common use the word radical is loaded as in Radical Islam for example. Why do you have such a problem with the word 'passionate' or another synonym that doesn't automatically create a distorted impression in the mind of average people? He was against the constitution yet at the time so were a number of other 'founding fathers'. He was very passionate in his beliefs, a charismatic and eloquent speaker but there were plenty of anti-federalists at the time and his views were far from radical. If you are taking the federalist position while describing Henry, perhaps he was a radical. It is the same as if today a liberal would call George Bush a radical and a conservative would call Nancy Pelosi a radical. Its POV. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 18:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question is, "Along with Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine, he is remembered as one of the most influential, radical advocates of the American Revolution and republicanism, especially in his denunciations of corruption in government officials and his defense of historic rights." Within the context of the historiography of the American Revolution there is nothing controversial about that statement. Indeed, two of the more imporatant works on the Revolution, Wood's "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" and Maier's "From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Oppositon to Britain, 1765-1776", use the R word right in their titles. If there are folks out there that can't get beyond the use of the word in "Radical Islam", then this can be a badly needed learning experience for them. I will go back and link the word to Radicalism (historical) which is how the matter is handled in the Thomas Paine article.

In my mind, "passionate" is not a synonym for radical in the context of the Revolution. The sentence refers directly to his role in the Revolution, not to his role as an anti-federalist opponent of the Constitution. Many leaders considered radical during the war would not be so considered in their later political lives -- Paine was always a radical but Samuel Adams, by the time of Shays' Rebellion, sided with the forces of conservatism. To further clarify that I will add a sentence to the lede mentioning Henry's oppositon. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I made the change from radical to passionate is because for the majority of the people (in my opinion) the sentence implies more than intended. Close your eyes and picture a 'radical revolutionary'. Names and faces of maybe Lenin, Che Guevara or Robespierre come to my mind. Those were radical revolutionaries. But Patrick Henry? I feel 'radical' implies more than it should and lumps Henry with those names when in fact he was definitely not a radical revolutionary compared to Robespierre, his contemporary. The term 'Colonial Radicals' in the book title you mentioned is used to describe people who were against making peace with England. I understand that this was the intended use of the 'radical' word in this article as well. This different usage was not explained in the introduction (until you linked it to Radicalism (historical). My goal when I write articles or edit is to make the information understood by students and not only experts. Thank you for clearing this up. I have no more issues regarding this. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The given webpage doesn't support the statement - rather than point out that Clinton was a "leading Antifederalist", it mentions as an aside that Clinton was also an anti-Federalist. Tedickey ( talk) 16:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Many people continue to lay claim that Patrick chained his wife in the basement including http://www.cracked.com/article_14870_7-great-men-in-history-why-you-should-hate-them.html

The facts show this representation to be absolutely false and thus the section/

One editor cited Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past by Ray Raphael, this was than deleted with the comment "Removed content from NON-reputable source. Original source document has insufficient references. Just because it is a book doesn't make it reputable." The content in question was written in encyclopedic style and didn't seem scandalous in the slightest. I agree that just because something is in a book, it doesn't necessarily prove reliable source - but Raphael's book is not self-published and is available on Amazon.com, and the reviews I have seen don't discount his scholarship but question the need for such a work, as "every serious historian already knows this". In light of this I am restoring the segment, if you believe the work is unreliable and wish to delete it please explain your reasoning and arguments that Raphael is unreliable. Wowaconia ( talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no discussion for adding this section; it is out of place and distracting. This section should be deleted. Ebanony ( talk) 09:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum, the stamps should be decreased in size to be comparable to other images, and displayed gallery style, side-by-side. They take up too much space and throw the page off.

The National Archives of the United States, lists him as a Founding Father: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html

Besides all of his service during the war, his role as leader of the Anti-Federalists (the opposition to the unammended Constitution) played a direct part in causing a Bill of Rights to be amended to the Constitution after it was passed. Wowaconia ( talk) 18:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit request to Patrick Henry has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the caption of the Treason Speech under the Stamp Act tab, it states the speech was given in 1851, 52 years after Patrick Henry's death. Using my logic skills, I believe that the speech was given in 1751 instead of 1851. Xerxes5000 ( talk) 18:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It doesn't say the speech was in 1851, it says "an 1851 painting by Peter F. Rothermel" - which considering Rothermal wasn't born until 1817, seems quite likely. - Arjayay ( talk) 18:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Expanded the history of Patrick Henry's most famous speech using the existing reference of Raphael's Founding Myths (currently reference 11). These two paragraphs are from the Wikipedia article Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_death!. Copied text follows reference 11. ( Wizengy ( talk) 22:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

This edit request to Patrick Henry has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Append to fifth paragraph in section on Revolutionary War after, "... an event known as the Gunpowder Incident." Despite the contemporary revelry over Henry's famous "Give me liberty, or give me death" slogan, it should be noted that Henry never fired a shot in the Revolutionary War. ^[1] Instead he comforted on his modest farm received as dowery for marrying his already widowed wife, Sarah.

Squeeky Longhair ( talk) 22:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like some synthesis for a POV related reason. Stickee (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• He was instrumental in having the Bill of Rights adopted to amend the new Constitution and protect individual rights.
  • "Elliot's Debates: Virginia Ratifying Convention: June 27, 1788". Teachingamericanhistory.org. 1980-01-01. Retrieved 2010-03-19.

There is nothing at the cited source that says anything about Henry and the Bill of Rights. Further, the use of a primary source like this for a major interpretive assertion like this is innappropriate. Rather, we should cite established modern historians. Further, we should describe how he played this important role, instead of just asserting it. -- 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 ( talk) 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• President George Washington offered Henry the post of Secretary of State in 1795, which he declined due to opposing the president's Federalist policies. But, following the widespread executions and radicalism of the continuing French Revolution, Henry began to fear a similar fate could befall America, which had suffered populist unrest. In 1798 he spoke in behalf of the Federalist Party.[23]

• Henry supported the Federalist policies of Washington and Adams.

The second paragraph, just one sentence, is redundant. I'm deleting it. I'm sure that more info on this major shift in politics would be useful, though. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 ( talk) 20:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Connormah won't let IPs edit this page or his user talk page. Someone else will have to make this edit since I'm not trusted to do so. -- 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 ( talk) 20:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Patrick Henry has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit semi-protected}} template. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus if no one disagrees. -- 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 ( talk) 21:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: because it's not clear what changes you want to make. If you mean the second paragraph of the article (which would be in the lede), it is not just one sentence, and the lede is meant to be redundant: it's a summary of the article. If you meant some other paragraph, you'll have to be more specific. Also: consensus is not a race. Discuss your proposed change. If everyone agrees then you have consensus. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 21:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Patrick Henry infobox and article needs to include 'real estate speculator' among Henry's occupations --- in, fact Henry's large scale real speculation in to the western lands (present day western Virginia and Kentucky) brought Henry into conflict with King George III:

https://books.google.com/books?id=gY5eH5BtqkYC&lpg=PA142&ots=Nx1ycDxq2q&dq=Patrick%20Henry%20real%20estate%20speculator&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q=Patrick%20Henry%20real%20estate%20speculator&f=false

Bee Cliff River Slob ( talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Patrick Henry. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix to source for http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s7.html
• Attempted to fix to source for http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/america7_brief/content/multimedia/ch07/documents_04.htm
• Attempted to fix to source for http://www.redhill.org/last_will.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Henry's wife, Sarah Shelton Henry, was declared legally insane after giving birth to her last child in 1771. Rather than being institutionalized, she was locked away in the basement of the family's estate in Virgina in a straight jacket for the remainder of her life. <Kim E. Nielsen, A Disability History of the United States 2012/>

We mention it, not as dramatically as you. We don't know how often she was placed in such a thing.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 07:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patrick Henry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030603170946/http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/henry.html to http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/henry.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

but think it is not all one hundred percent accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.43.7 ( talk) 13:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed the "Bibliography" section to a subsection. This is a relatively minor adjustment but as a section this title is usually placed first in the appendixes related to biographies or named "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography" per MOS:BIB. Using a separate source related "Bibliography" section is out of place, confusing, and relatively few articles use this style. We commonly practice placing relate subjects in a subsection so it seems appropriate to follow this with source links (generally listed), and links providing inline text-source integrity, that combined (directly related) form the citations. Otr500 ( talk) 21:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I need the date for my bibliography. Fidgetdab ( talk) 01:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Of what in particular?--07:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I know this isn't genealogy, but should one mention the father of his mother, Isaac Winston? Supposedly that Welsh side of his family is where he got his oratorical skills. Cake ( talk) 21:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I previously had made a revision of this page to remove the part about " a fight which has marred his historical image." in the introduction. Since then, user:Wehwalt has reverted this change on the grounds that the affirmation is supported in the legacy section.

I've read the Legacy and historical view section and still think it is a non neutral point of view. The section mentions Mr. Kid's opinion that his opposition to the constitution provokes discomfort and Mr. Beeman's opinion that he was a short-sighted looser, because he could not see the national greatness of the constitution. These to me, seem inherently non neutral viewpoints, which assume that the constitution was good, and consequently, opposition to it bad. I think these views do have a place in the section, but I do not think they support the categorical statement that this opposition marred his historical image. Whatever you think of him, the fact is that he opposed ratification of the US constitution. Whether it is thought by some to be a bad thing is the subject of further exposition in the article. Tigre200 ( talk) 16:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The statement is not meant to judge the worth of the opinions, simply that they are there. But if you feel the statement should not be there, I'm OK with removing it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I see you strike out "At the Convention, Henry, who was famous for his Give me liberty, or give me death! speach in 1775, now argued against the Constitution with the infamous words: "They'll free your niggers", as he tried to convince the slavholding delegats to vote against a strong federal government." Make more sense now to me.

"... a speech by Henry on the subject of the Constitution and Smith's own rebuttal", is this means, Henry have made some speech before the ratification convention， which I could found , Smith doesn't approved Henry's action so arrange students to read it loud, make him feel bad?-- Jarodalien ( talk) 08:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"At least three ships have been named in Henry's honor: the Civil War Confederate Navy steamboat CSS Patrick Henry, World War II Liberty ship SS Patrick Henry and the ballistic missile submarine USS Patrick Henry (SSBN-599)", perhaps add a footnote for this.-- Jarodalien ( talk) 08:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the links themselves provide the necessary verification in this case.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but I can't found source within the first article.-- Jarodalien ( talk) 11:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

While the current infobox mentions Henry's terms as governor, Virginia's governors of that era were elected by fellow legislators. Although I recognize this is a fine article, really much of his fame was for legislative activities (including orations). A longer infobox would not only illustrate his constituencies, it also would balance the long table of contents. FYI, I can't see whether this is mentioned in previously archived talk pages, so apologize if this repeats ground. Jweaver28 ( talk)

He represented, I think, some five or six counties. If this could be consolidated into one infobox entry, such as we do with William McKinley, I'd be fine with it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)