
‘Liberty or death' wasn't Patrick Henry's most important advice for Americans
On March 23, I went to Historic St. John's Church in Richmond to travel back in time. That Sunday marked the 250th anniversary of Patrick Henry's speech to the Second Virginia Convention. Henry believed war with Britain was inevitable and punctuated his call for Virginia to establish an independent militia with his declaration 'I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!'
I wanted to see what it felt like to hear those words from the pews where the delegates would have absorbed them 2½ centuries ago. And in collaboration with St. John's Church, I also wanted to ask attendees what Henry's words mean to them today.
The Letters and Community team will be posing questions like these in the run-up to July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of the Independence, as America looks back to its founding — and forward, as we consider how those original ideals, conflicts and words carry us into the future.
Alyssa Rosenberg, letters and community editor
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
The conversation we need
We tend to overlook how fraught the Revolutionary period was. Those colonists who spoke for revolution, who otherwise supported and fought for revolution, risked everything. It is hard to fully grasp all they stood to lose: property, stature, livelihood and lives. Everyone understood that the British crown had the money, the power and the army to crush any resistance.
We can convince ourselves that such courageous choices in the face of real personal danger were made easier because there was such camaraderie and consensus among the individuals involved. But that is not the real story.
There were many bitter rivalries among the principals. Thomas Jefferson was pea-green with envy about Patrick Henry and considered him a braggart who nevertheless could move a crowd. George Mason and George Washington came to disagree intensely about a Bill of Rights for their fledgling nation and went to their dying days never speaking again.
Deep divisions existed throughout all the colonies over religion, politics, ethnicity, status and class, slavery. Colonists were divided over whether resistance to the crown, much less revolution, was treasonous.
The truth is that the revolutionary movement, like all great movements forward in this country, did not occur because everyone agreed. Great movements forward occur because a common cause becomes more important than individual differences and disappointments.
Great courage was required by men such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Washington, George Mason and James Madison. And so were forbearance and tolerance, patience and perspective.
Throughout all time and across the face of the Earth, ours is the only nation not founded on ethnicity or territory or religion. Ours is the only nation in human history founded on ideas, ideals and a system of government. When we do not know our history, when we do not care who or what came before us, when we no longer understand the foundation upon which our nation is built, then we do not know why we are Americans. And our differences — which have always existed — tear us apart, because we have no national identity that holds us together.
We must reconnect Americans to who and where we come from. We must reengage Americans who do not think our founding ideals or system of government has anything to do with them. We must reinspire our fellow citizens and remind them what it means to be an American.
Carly Fiorina, Lorton, Virginia
The writer is the national honorary chair of the Virginia American Revolution 250 Commission. This letter is adapted from her March 23 remarks at Historic St. John's Church.
A forgotten line
I had the privilege of portraying Patrick Henry at our reenactment of the Second Virginia Convention at Historic St. John's Church on March 23. One of the lessons that I and others in the cast hope to impart to our audiences is reflected in the first line of Henry's speech: 'No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as the abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house.'
The delegates at the convention engaged in a civil but passionate debate on Henry's resolutions to create a militia. The delegates respected one another, recognizing that all of them, even the ones who did not support Henry's resolutions, were patriots risking their lives and property simply by being present.
In my opinion, civil and respectful debate is lacking in today's political discourse. I and other cast members hope the audience understood that there was a time when big ideas were discussed and debated openly without personally offending or belittling people on the other side. Henry believed it was his duty to express his opinion. He stated that otherwise, he would consider himself 'guilty of treason toward [his] country and an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven,' whom he revered above 'all earthly kings.'
Anyone who was offended by the peaceful demonstrators who stationed themselves on the streets outside the church and on the church grounds during the reenactment and commemoration to express their opinions about how they want to be governed might have missed the point of Henry's speech: It is our duty to be active and engaged citizens to maintain our republic and not return to a monarchy, as Benjamin Franklin cautioned in 1787 after he signed the Constitution. Witnessing the peaceful and passionate demonstration before entering the church to recreate a 250-year-old moment and speaking to attendees and others after the presentation left me hopeful that Americans are still ready to fulfill that obligation.
Christopher Dunn, Richmond
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
The fight for freedom
That speech means the same thing to me today as the original meant to Patrick Henry 250 years ago. We the people have an obligation to defend our rights when they are being trampled on. Thank God that we don't have to do it with bayonets and muskets anymore! We are free Americans! We do it through the peaceful protests I saw outside the church, through the respectful speeches and reenactment I saw inside the church, and most important, through the ballot box. God bless America!
William Benedetti, Midlothian, Virginia
Freedom was very important to Patrick Henry, who lived in a time with a lot of self-governance and liked it. Unfortunately, people today take freedom for granted. Henry knew it would be very valuable, and needed to be nourished and protected vigilantly. We need to be reminded that freedom is not free.
Doug Rucker, Richmond
Patrick Henry was willing to take great risk and make sacrifices for the cause of liberty, and thus he played a major role in the birth of this nation. It inspires me to ask: Do we have the same courage today to stand up for liberty?
H. Benson Dendy III, Richmond
The writer is a member of the Virginia American Revolution 250 Commission.
The leaders we miss
On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry and some of the delegates to the Second Virginia Convention knew the war had already started; others, such as Edmund Pendleton, were urging patience. Henry spoke directly about the threat of tyranny. He embraced that Boston's fight was Virginia's fight. He inspired delegates to act in the name of their fledgling country.
Today, a conflict is underway. It seems so sad that our leaders, whether Democratic or Republican, lack the individual courage to act with the resolve and clarity Henry displayed. Collectively, they act like sheep running to the shepherd or away from the wolf. Ultimately, the shepherd might want to eat his lambs for dinner. And the wolf might want the warmth or company of another being. These are sad times.
Billy McGuire, Manakin Sabot, Virginia
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
A forgotten legacy
Patrick Henry's famous speech was certainly a rouser. In the Virginia history textbook I studied in my seventh-grade public school more than 60 years ago, Henry was depicted as a great hero. But it's interesting that the speech is probably a reconstructed pastiche.
One line of the peroration, though unattributed, is probably borrowed, whether by Henry himself or the people who reconstructed his speech after the fact: 'Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace.' This is an almost verbatim echo of two prophets of the Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
But it might be too harsh to call Henry a plagiarist. He tended to wear his religion on his sleeve, to the irritation of Thomas Jefferson, drafter of the bill that became the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Jefferson said his bill attempted to assure religious liberty to 'the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian, the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and [the] infidel of every denomination.' The legislation barred compelled worship, religious discrimination and public funding of religion. Henry in turn offered a bill that would have provided tax funding for 'Teachers of the Christian Religion,' though taxpayers would have been able to select the recipients of their taxes. Jefferson's ally James Madison secured passage of Jefferson's bill in the legislature. Jefferson was so proud of his statute that he named it on his tombstone as one of his three greatest accomplishments.
It remains in the Virginia law books today, while Henry's famous speech is shrouded in doubt. And what might the Prince of Peace have thought of his would-be promoter's warmongering, even in service of independence? I'll go with Jefferson and real religious liberty for all.
Tom Edmondson, Alexandria
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: More people leave than arrive on current youth mobility schemes
On the BBC's Today programme on May 19, from around two hours and 21 minutes, Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the UK's youth mobility arrangements with other countries reduce net migration. Asked 'how do you know there will be fewer people coming here than leaving?' Mr Reynolds said: 'Well, I've got 13 schemes in action already and that's the evidence of them.' He later added: 'I tell you the evidence of the current schemes just so you know is that they're a net negative on immigration.' Around 24,400 youth mobility visas were issued to people wanting to come to the UK in 2024. Although figures are patchy for how many Britons go abroad, data from just three countries – Australia, New Zealand and Canada – suggests that 68,495 British citizens travelled to those countries in 2024 (the Australian data is for the 12 months to the end of June 2024). That would suggest that Mr Reynolds is right. However it does not take into account that Britons going abroad on these temporary visas will sooner or later come back, as will those who come to the UK. It is also not clear that this pattern will repeat in any similar deal with the EU. The UK population is much larger than those of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, so there are more Britons who can go to those countries than can come here. With the EU that is reversed. How many people come to the UK on a youth mobility visa? Government data shows there were 24,437 people who were handed a youth mobility visa last year. Most of these were from one of the 13 countries with which the UK has a reciprocal arrangement. A small handful of visas – 131 in total – were for people from countries other than the 13. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has suggested that these are the result of errors in data recording, or due to people having dual nationalities. The top three countries that sent people to the UK on youth mobility visas between January and December 2024 were Australia (9,754 visas), New Zealand (4,304 visas) and Canada (3,060 visas). How many Britons go abroad on youth mobility type schemes? Figures are patchy on how many British people have gone abroad on a youth mobility scheme. The Department for Business and Trade was unable to share data. Australia publishes a twice-yearly report into what it calls its working holiday visa programme. That is the Australian equivalent to the UK's youth mobility scheme. The latest such report covered the 12 months to the end of June 2024. That report showed that Australia issued 48,973 working holiday visas to UK citizens. Data from New Zealand is available on the website of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Using its migration data explorer produces a spreadsheet which shows that there were 9,486 working holiday visas granted by New Zealand to UK citizens in between January and December 2024. Canadian data does not appear to be publicly available, but the figures were provided to the PA news agency by the Canadian Department for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The data shows that in 2024 there were 9,972 work permits issued to UK and UK overseas territories citizens under the country's working holiday scheme, and a further 64 people had their permits extended. How do incoming youth mobility visas compare to outgoing? Net migration is a figure which subtracts the number of people coming into the country from the number of people leaving. The data cited above suggests that while 9,754 Australians came to the UK on youth mobility visas, 48,973 Britons went in the opposite direction. It must be noted that the time periods measured here are different, the Australian data is for the 12 months ending June 2024, while the UK data is for the 12 months ending December 2024. Meanwhile the data suggests that 4,304 New Zealanders came to the UK while 9,486 Britons went in the other direction. Data further shows that 3,060 Canadians came to the UK in 2024, while 9,972 Britons went in the other direction. This suggests that for each of these three countries the youth mobility schemes are – as Mr Reynolds suggested – reducing net migration. In fact Australia alone appears to receive twice as many Britons (48,973) as all people who the UK receives from all 13 countries added together (24,437). However, it should be noted that because youth mobility schemes are time-limited, Britons going abroad and people who have come to the UK on such visas will eventually be forced to return. This means the UK's inbound migration figures should take into account not just Australians and Canadians – for example – coming to the UK, but also Britons returning from Australia and Canada after their youth mobility visas expire. If it is assumed that everyone returns then over a longer time frame the youth mobility programmes will have a neutral impact on net immigration because every Briton who leaves the UK will come back and every non-Briton who comes to the UK will leave. This does not take into account the people – both Britons abroad and non-Britons in the UK – who apply for a different visa to stay in their adopted country. Do these conclusions also apply to the EU scheme? The impact on net migration of the potential EU scheme will depend on the details of the agreement between London and Brussels. Madeleine Sumption, director at the Migration Observatory, told the PA news agency that the size of the cap on the programme would be vital for the impact on net migration. She said the fact the UK sends more people to Australia, Canada and New Zealand than it receives from them 'probably results from the fact that the UK has a much larger population than they do, so we just have more young people potentially interested in moving'. With the EU scheme, Ms Sumption said, the population sizes are flipped – that is to say the EU's population is much bigger than the UK, leaving more young people who might be willing to come here. Therefore the smaller the cap on the number of visas is, the more likely both the EU and UK will fill their quotas. If both fill their quotas – and the quotas going both ways are the same – then the impact on net migration will be zero. However if the cap is large then it is more likely that there will not be as many Britons going to Europe as are coming in the opposite direction, which will bring up net migration. But, as with the existing schemes, both Britons in Europe and Europeans in the UK will eventually have to leave unless they find another visa, which over the long run should mean that the programme has a neutral impact on net migration. BBC – Today, 19/05/2025 Migration Observatory – What is the Youth Mobility Scheme and how does it work? (archived) – Entry clearance visas granted outside the UK (archived page and spreadsheet, using tab Data_Vis_D02) Australian Department of Home Affairs – Visitor visa statistics (archived) Australian Department of Home Affairs – Working Holiday Maker visa program report (archived) New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – Migration data explorer (archived page and downloaded spreadsheet. To download the correct spreadsheet, instructions can be found at (archived): In dataset select 'W1 work decisions', in time period select 'calendar year' and in variables select 'application substream', 'application criteria' and 'decision type') Canadian data provided to PA news agency (archived) Madeleine Sumption profile (archived)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Christiane Amanpour Now Treats Travel To U.S. 'As If I Was Going To North Korea'
British journalist Christiane Amanpour said she treats travel to the U.S. under President Donald Trump 'as if I was going to North Korea.' The longtime CNN correspondent talked about her experience flying to the U.S. on her podcast, 'The Ex Files.' 'I must say I was afraid,' Amanpour told her co-host and ex-husband, Jamie Rubin, on Wednesday's episode. Amanpour was traveling to the U.S. last week to give a speech at Harvard University, which has come under increased attacks by Trump, including revoking the university's ability to enroll international students. Trump has also ramped up his attacks on immigrants, using agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to snatch people off the streets and imprison them without due process. And on Thursday, Trump announced that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the U.S. and seven others that would face restrictions. 'I'm a foreigner,' Amanpour said. 'I don't have a green card. I'm not an American citizen. I'm fairly prominent, and I literally prepared to go to America as if I was going to North Korea. I took a burner phone, Jamie. Imagine that. I didn't take a single … not my mobile phone, not my iPad, nothing, and I had nothing on the burner phone except a few numbers.' Amanpour said she also spoke to CNN security about what precautions to take. 'I've heard that many, including British citizens, have been stopped at the border and been questioned for hours and hours and hours,' she said. Thankfully, Amanpour said she went through airport security without any issues. 'I was welcomed,' she said. 'The immigration officer at Boston, where I came in, could not have been nicer. Huge sigh of relief I breathed.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Daily T: Is Farage coming for Scotland?
It's Farage's big test in Scotland. For years it was a political dead-end for Reform party leader - heckled in Edinburgh, chased from restaurants in Aberdeen, and repeatedly rejected at the ballot in today's Holyrood by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse, Reform UK is mounting a serious challenge. With Farage back in charge and his candidate Ross Lambie gaining ground in an SNP stronghold, could this be the moment his party makes a breakthrough north of the border?And while the Tories remain locked in internal warfare, we speak to Reform's most senior council leader, Linden Kemkaran, on how the party plans to cut spending with their own version of Elon Musk's DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) department, and why she wants to end taxpayer-funded English lessons for migrants. Watch episodes of the Daily T here. You can also listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.