posted by Curt, on July 13, 2008 04:30 pm

It's been a long time since I've posted one of these "influences" posts. This one was prompted by a paper written by a law school friend on Patrick Henry, national power, and the War Powers Resolution. His paper wasn't focused on Henry's well-known speech (which follows below). Instead, it focused on his arguments about the danger of consolidation of power, and suggested that they remained a good guide for us today. Essentially, he argued that the Anti-Federalists and their arguments shouldn't be consigned to history simply because they lost the battle over the ratification of the Constitution. I agree. But, this post is more about Henry's speech than the Anti-Federalists, because it has influenced me ever since I was a kid and my mom read to us about Patrick Henry in a bedtime story. That's how I fell asleep for quite a few years--to biographies of famous historical figures, and I'll be ever grateful for it.

In any event here's Patrick Henry's speech. My commentary follows:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them?

Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

With due respect to both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and even Lincoln, I doubt there is any other piece of American political rhetoric more inspiring. And it's been adopted as part of the American psyche.

But what does it really mean for America and Americans? Many look at our country today and would say that we have chosen life and peace over freedom and liberty. Granite countertops, big trucks, walk-in closets, fast food, and conspicuous consumption seem much more the vision and goals of the American future than does liberty. Perhaps, then, the words of Patrick Henry have become yet one more part of the vast list of contradictions between the way Americans view themselves and the way they actually are. Maybe there is little spirit left in our country, especially as compared to 1776, 1861, or 1941.

I actually don't think that is the case. If Americans of the past were always willing to make the difficult choice of liberty over security, why was there a need for Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine? The reality of our history seems to be that we always need a bit of prodding to take on the difficult tasks that must be completed to secure the liberty and unity of our nation. In other words, we don't like to make the choice between liberty and security until we're really forced to. That to me, seems to be the reality of the American experience. In 1776, 1861, and 1941, no less than today, Americans needed some prodding before they were willing to stand up and save the Union and preserve their liberties. And, in significant ways, it was rhetoric that called to memory America's vision of itself that moved Americans to action. It strikes me that one of the things that Patrick Henry's speech stands for is Americans' susceptibility to ideas--big ideas about the fact that they are still engaged in the cause for which their forefathers immigrated, fought, and worked. And when there is a combination of exigency and a person with the passion and skill to call those ideas to the forefront of America's mind and heart, we still respond in largely the same way that we did back in 1776. At such times, when we are forced to see the whole picture, to "know the worst," as Henry put it, we respond with our best. I have hope that it will continue. Simply because we're not convinced that it will doesn't mean that it won't. Not even Henry knew how those listening to him would respond to the challenge he issued. He couldn't know, and neither can we. But he had faith, as do I, that, when the challenged is issued in a way that Americans respond to, it will be met by the best that America can give.

So, Henry's speech is moving to me, both as a statement of what I believe and a statement about my country--about its virtues and faults. So much for my patriotic posting. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

posted by Curt, on November 7, 2007 01:24 am

This is the first in a line of posts that I'll be adding about ideas/writings that have had a significant impact on the development of my own opinions. I hope they'll be interesting posts and perhaps point the occasional reader to a source that I've found helpful.

One of the many good experiences I've had at BYU Law School is the professional development seminar available to first-year students during their first semester. Some at the law school refer to this (and somewhat derisively) as the "Sunday School" class because it is often LDS focused. I, however, as LDS and a future attorney, found it a very valuable experience. One of the "talks" that we read that I remember most was a BYU Devotional given by Bruce Hafen, probably sometime during the 1980s, entitled "Dealing with Uncertainty."

Elder Hafen's talk is directed at college students, who, he notes, when confronted with (1) the ambiguity and uncertainty of life, and (2) the gap between the real and the ideal often have a difficult time in dealing with it. Elder Hafen's talk is advice to college students who "yearn with nostalgia for simpler, easier times, when things seemed not only more clear but more under [their] control."

Elder Hafen sets out three possible approaches to dealing with uncertainty--the uncertainty about how the principles of the gospel should be applied to "particular situations in our lives," especially those that are "not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction." I'll quote from his talk in setting them out:

Approach 1: focus on the ideal and ignore the reality. These are those who have difficulty reconciling the gospel ideal with reality, and therefore simply ignore reality and live as though everything were the ideal. Elder Hafen's description of those who adopt approach one is amusing and substantially accurate:

For those in this category, the gospel at its best is a firm handshake, an enthusiastic greeting, and a smiley button. Their mission was the best, their ward is the best, and every new day is probably going to be the best day they ever had. . . . They are able to weather many storms that woudl seem formidable to more pessimistic types, though one wonders if they have somehow missed hearing that a storm was going on.

Those in this category eliminate the frustating distance between the real and the ideal by, in effect, . . . cling[ing] to the ideal so single-mindedly that they are able to avoid feeling the pain that would come from facing the truth about themselves, about others, or about the world around them. I suppose it is this category that is so frequently represented in the letters to the editor of the school papers at BYU and Ricks, where such shock is occasionally expressed that some person or some part of the institution has fallen short of perfection and the writer is aghast--"surely not at the Lord's university."

Approach 2: focus on reality and become cynical about the ideal. For this model, Elder Hafen uses law students as his example--not surprising to me after 2 1/2 years of experience :). Those who adopt the second approach confront the gap between the real and the ideal but also becomes victims of that confrontation. While "grappl[ing] with the frustration that comes from facing bravely the uncertainties we encounter" is necessary to develop the spiritual maturity necessary to endure well in the gospel, Elder Hafen warns that this confrontation of the "real" can "be so complete that the iron rod fades into the receding mist and skepticism becomes a guiding philosophy." How about this indictment of law students (yes, even at BYU):

[B]y the time our law students reach their third year of study, it is not uncommon for them to develop such a high tolerance for ambiguity that they are skeptical about everything. Where formerly they felt they had all the answers, but just did not know what the questions were, they now seem to have all the questions but few of the answers.

I find myself wanting to tell our third year law students that those who take too much delight in their finely honed tools of skepticism and dispassionate analysis will limit their effectiveness, in the Church and elsewhere, because they can become too contentious, standoffish, arrogant, and unwilling to commit themselves. . . . The dangers of which I speak are not limited to out relations with others. They can become very personal, prying into our own hearts in unhealthy ways. The ability to acknowledge ambiguity is not a final form of enlightenment. Having admitted to a willingness temporarily to suspend judgment on questions that seem hard to answer, having developed greater tolerance and more patience, our basic posture toward the Church can, if we are not careful, gradually shift from being committed to noncomittal. That is not a healthy posture.

Indeed, in many ways, a Church [member] who moves from a stage of commitment to a stage of being tentative and noncommittal is in a worse position that one who has never experienced a basic commitment. The previously committed person may too easily assume that he has already been through the "positive-mental-attitude" routine and "knows better" now, as he judges things. He may assume that being submissive, meek, obedient, and humble are matters with which he is already familiar, and that he has finally outgrown the need to work very hard at being that way again. Those are the assumptions of a hardened heart.

Elder Hafen warns those who acknowledge the gap between the way things are and the way they ought to be against becoming "so aware of 'reality' that [they become] unresponsive to the whisperings of heaven."

Approach 3: acknowledge the real and pursue the ideal. Those who follow this approach when, confronted with uncertainty or difficulty, acknowledge the reality but give "the Lord and his church the benefit of any doubts that [they] have when [the] case seems too close to call." Elder Hafen uses the LDS hymn Lead, Kindly Light as the example of the third approach:

At level one, people either do not or cannot see that there are both a kindly light and an encircling gloom, or that if there are both, there is no real difference between the two. At level two, the difference is acutely apparent, but one's acceptance of the ambiguity may be so wholeheartedly pessimistic as to say, "Remember that the hour is darkest just before everything goes completely black."

How different are these responses from that calm but honest prayer at level three,

Lead, kindly light
Amid th'encircling gloom;
Lead thou me on . . .

I do not ask to see
The distant scene-
One step enough for me.

The person at level three acknowledges the difficulty or uncertainty and yet still pursues the ideal as best he or she can because of the assurances in their heart that it is both possible and right.

I remember the profound influence that Elder Hafen's words had on me two years ago when I first read them. They taught (and perhaps reminded) me that the principles of the gospel are just that -- principles -- and that the application of principles to the various situations in life is never a certain thing, as much as we may want it to be otherwise. I have since noticed the approaches to uncertainty that Elder Hafen described being played out in real life as members of the church who are certain (or what desperately to be certain) about the truths of the gospel deal with their reconciliation of this certitude with the uncertainty of life. Some abandon the certainty; others attempt to convert all of their own personal approaches to the problems of life into the principles of the gospel.

There are some things I am certain are right, there are others that I'm certain are wrong. But there are a great deal more that I am simply not sure about. I just go ahead and try and figure out the way I think the principles of truth should apply in the situations I'm confronted with and act accordingly. But, perhaps the most valuable thing I've taken away from what Elder Hafen has said is the fact that, in a great many situations, the fact that another feels differently from me is not concrete proof that either he or I have somehow gone astray.

I encourage anyone who actually reads to the end to look for Elder Hafen's talk and read the whole thing. I also appreciate any comments.