March 23, 1775

I am not saying that Ted Cruz or Mike Lee are the modern versions of Patrick Henry, but in as much as the establishment (both Democrat and Republican) are calling them “radicals”, I thought it was appropriate to post the words of Henry, a true radical who fought for freedom and the birth of the United States against very, very long odds. Here is his famous speech, “Give me Liberty, or give me death” – I want you to read this, and then put yourself in the shoes of the Tea Party Republicans in the House and Senate. If you can read what follows and not be able to see that the bargains that we have made with our government have been broken by it, then you will never get it:

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 question 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!

22 thoughts on “March 23, 1775

  1. Utah:

    The following quote brings to light the true problems with our government from day one. “If you can read what follows and not be able to see that the bargains that we have made with our government have been broken by it, then you will never get it:”

    Our government has broken every compact it has ever made with the people of this Continent. Starting with the indigenous people of this continent, and yet we still believe they will keep their word with the Citizens? And I know the government is supposed to represent, we the people, but since it’s inception we have let it turn into Frankenstein’s Monster. Something we can not control.

  2. Utah:

    “If you can read what follows and not be able to see that the bargains that we have made with our government have been broken by it,…”

    If you think about it, our government has broken most agreements they have made with the people, beginning with the Treaties with the Native People of this continent. Why should we expect any different treatment of the American Citizen.
    We are the creators of this monster, Dr. Frankenstein, if you wish, and let it run out of control. Almost time for the villagers to appear with the pitchforks and torches to set things right.

  3. On the National stage…Cruz, Lee , Paul, Gohmert, Justin Amash ( and a few others) are Our ( the Conservatives) new emerging leadership !!

    In the states we have …Perry, Walker, Pence, Snyder……there are others too………. A new movement IS starting ! But I think it will be a Combined effort at the National level mixed with the Idea floated by Levin…..which is essentially a STATES initiative, meaning The People getting involved with changed at the State level.

    *Rand Paul* filibusterted against the Drone killing of American Citizens on American soil and in their homes……. *Ted Cruz* filibustered against the funding of ObamaCare and the forcing of Americans into a System they hate and which will destroy their Health-Care. Justin Amash led an effort to reign in the NSA….

    All 3 efforts where aimed at stemmimg the tide of Leftist Totalitarianism taking over in Washington ….. And we Conservative Americans stand behind them.

      • There are TWO Art. V convention proceedures the First is called via Congress…..the SECOND ( Levin’s book high-lights this one)….the Second bypasses congress and is called bt the States themselves via the States STATE representatives…..they then meet and go through the process of a States Convention to propose Amendments.

        This second process is DEFINED within the Constitution but is OUT of The Congess CONTROL……it was remedy put in the Constitution by Madison. “We the People” can be active and effective in our Own states….by Organizing locally and connecting up with other Groups in our states…then meet with our States Representatives to push the Process forward…..there are 10 states where legislators already looking into this…..and it’s been reported that another 10 potential states are looking as well……….. and Levin’s proposal has only been out since mid-August.

        Remember he is NOT proposing a Constitutional Convention ! THAT is key !!…..the Political Liars in Congress and in the Press will ( and are ) trying hard to confuse us……it is the merely the NORMAL Constitutional process to BYPASS Congress within Article V put in the Constitution for the very purpose of the States and the People to take back the intended power if The Executive and Congress itself became tyrannical……

        Simply put it is a Constitutional Process which bypasses Congress intentionally…..implying the power of the People and the States

        • Don, you are correct. I outlined the procedure here:

          . . . Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, How to modify “the written and adopted contract”:

          2/3 of both houses deem it necessary to propose amendments, or
          2/3 of the State’s legislatures call a convention for amendment, to propose amendments
          Amendments SHALL be for all intents and purposes part of the Constitution
          when RATIFIED by:
          3/4 of the State’s legislatures, or
          3/4 of State’s conventions called for ratification of the proposed amendments…

          • Texas – There have already been enough State requests for an Article V convention for Congress to issue a call for an Article V Convention. Read the link provided.

        • Didn’t read the provided link. If you had, The Friends of the Article V Convention are explaining the problems that are being encountered by those trying to get Congress to call a convention. The 49 of the 50 Sovereign States have called for a constitutional conventional under Article V.

          The Friends of the Article V Convention are no friends of Levin. You might want to read what is at the link before trying to explain what you know about the Article V in the Constitution. They are trying to get Congress to actually issue a call for one based on the State Calls that have been submitted to Congress already. And Congresses Response.

          • There are TWO ways the Article V works……. We all understand the First….and that the First is what the “Freinds of the Article V convention are after….

            It’s the SECOND method of calling a STATES CONVENTION for the purpose of Proposing Amendments ….. a process which largely BYPASSES Congress.

            In this SECOND method….. Congress DOES NOT ISSUE a Call… can’t… is in the States hands entirely.

            What is it about this you don’t understand ? Or are you purposely trying to Confuse the Issue …… Once again Levin IS NOT CALLING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION …. the process is Completely different.

            So I have to ask once again……Are you TRYING to confuse the two methods purposely Triper ???????

            • Don- Not confusing it at all. Read Article V. “…’or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,…’. Excuse Me but that states clearly that ‘Congress’ shall call a Convention. Not the Sovereign States. Congress has the responsibility to call the Convention and tell the States how to chose the representatives for the Convention. I did not think you had a problem comprehending what you read. Congress has already indicated that the representatives are to be elected. Now what don’t I understand?

              • Just for information purposes here is Article V.

                The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

            • Don.

              These are the only two procedures authorized under Article V. Congress writing the Amendment or the States requesting the Convention to Amend the Constitution. In the second method Congresses only control is acting as a clearing house for counting the applications and issuing a call for the Convention when 2/3 of the States have requested the call. The SCOTUS has issued four rulings on this procedure. Read the information at the website provided. The States do not hold individual Conventions. They meet together just as the original Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787. It is the only way you will get ONE Document out of fifty State delegations to put before the Individual States for ratification.

      • The FOA5C group has NOT read Levin closely….First off they say he has proposed 12 Amendments….which isn’t true, and is so obvious upon a reading that it is clear they gave a cursory glance at it at best…. OR are some kind of controlled oposition.

        Second….. the STATES themselves control the Process Levin is talking about….. a process defined clearly WITHIN Article V itself. Simply put the STATES call their OWN conventions, they don’t have to petition Congress for anything……and if the same Art V ratio passes the proposed Amendments then they become a Part of the Constitutional Amendments and thus of Law.

        Understand ?…..Congress is not and cannot be involved in this 2nd Process…..the Process BYPASSES Congress altogether.

        • Don: Please provide a reference for your take on the Article V process. The Constitution I have read says nothing about the States Calling their own Convention. And it sure Says nothing about the same percentage being required to ratify the Amendment.

          And yes, Congress, has no input into the Language of the Amendment. But they are required to keep track of the requests for a convention, AND issue a call to the States for a ‘Convention to propose amendments’ to the Constitution. Please read Article V. It isn’t very long and the writers were extremely translucent in their wording.

  4. Don: You are quite right in all regards. Our leaders are not the Establishment Republicans who have failed to grasp the change in our opponents. The new Democrat Party is not the party of Democrat moderates like Scoop Jackson or Tip O’Neill. The new Democrats are committed Collectivist radicals who despise everything that America has valued since 1776. Their heroes are not Jefferson or Madison or even Jackson, their founder. The Obamites’ heroes are Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Alinsky, who wrote their field manual. They have no integrity and they lie and deceive reflexively. They prefer to bring down the strong rather than helping the weak to become strong. They abhor American notions of individual freedom and personal responsibility and prefer to bully a nation of sheep, rather than lead as the first among equals. The Obamites are Americans in name only…as Obama has stated, they see themselves as citizens of a mythical world government, and are ready to deny America’s longstanding recognition as a “Shining city on a hill,” in order to further that Marxist illusion. Those of us who understand these deceivers must support those who can carry the truth to the American people and the conflict to our shared foes. Too much is at stake to sit idly by and do nothing. CDE

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.