Reflection: Patrick Henry

Well, well, well, look what we have here; the crazy voice guy from Jonathan Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. The one that gets very worked up very easily and his voice gets almost violent, well, more so in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God than Speech to the Second Virginia Convention. I do not necessarily think that it is a bad thing that he was the voice though. I think that he is perfectly suited for reading these kind of passages. His emotion helps get the reader into the mindset of what the passage is even supposed to be about. I think that this man’s glorious voice represents what Patrick Henry sounded like when he gave his speech to the Second Virginia Convention. It gets the point across very well. It is very persuasive and moving, perfect for the kind of message that Henry was trying to convey to the members of the Convention. If anything would stir people up enough to even consider the idea of a revolution, it would be a speech like this. I know that for myself, I would have supported him; just listening to it got me stirred up and its over 250 years after he made the original speech!

Anyway, enough about the narrator’s magical, entrancing voice. What was the question again? Oh yes, I am tasked with analyzing the rationalism content in the story. This should not be that tough. I already have almost 250 words anyway. Half way there!

I will start off by quoting Henry in his opening statement: “There is no time for ceremony” (Henry 116). I think this helps set the tone for the rest of the speech. He brings up the importance in the matter of speed up later in the speech when he says:

“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?” (Henry 118).

It shows that Patrick Henry was definitely in the time period when people were shifting more towards a rationalistic approach rather than a view dominated by religious biases and tendencies when he backs up the quote I showed above by saying:

“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?” (Henry 118)

The reasoning helps get the message of action across to the audience. The definition of rationalism is that people “believed that all questions about life must be approached rationally and that truth must be discovered through reason” (Boucquey). That is exactly what Henry did. He is basically saying that right now, they are just lying around lying to themselves about peace while they are the strongest they are ever going to be. This is a very strong argument because it makes a lot of sense and it is actually true so it is good that he propelled people forth in the matter of action. He talked more of reason and realistic approaches rather than religious reasons and things such as that. He did mention God a couple of times, but let it be noted that he did use the words “us,” “our,” and “they” rather than “He” and “his” (by what I read).

Boucquey, Thierry, gen. ed. "rationalism." Encyclopedia of World Writers, 14th through 18th Centuries. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc.

Henry, Patrick. Speech to the Second Virginia Convention. Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 116-118. Print.