Editing Patrick Henry (section)

== Revolutionary lawyer and politician (1760–1775) ==
===Parson's Cause (1760–1763)===
While at Hanover Tavern, Henry found time to study the law. How long he did so is unclear; he later said it was as little as a month. On the advice of a local lawyer, Henry in 1760 applied for a lawyer's license, appearing before the examiners—prominent attorneys in the colonial capital of Williamsburg. The examiners were impressed by Henry's mind even though his knowledge of legal procedures was scant. He passed in April 1760, and he thereafter opened a practice, appearing in the courts of Hanover and nearby counties.<ref name = "a" />{{sfn|Kukla|pp=30–40}} Henry became a skilled lawyer because in court "he displayed quick wit, knowledge of human nature, and forensic gifts."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Gruberg|first1=Marin|title=Patrick Henry|url=https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1164/patrick-henry%20the%20original|publisher=The First Amendment Encyclopedia presented by the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies|access-date=August 28, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230828201423/https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1164/patrick-henry|archive-date=August 28, 2023|url-status=live|year=2009}}</ref>

The droughts of the 1750s had led to a rise in the price of tobacco. Hard currency was scarce in Virginia, and salaries in the colony were often expressed in terms of pounds of tobacco. Prior to the drought, the price of tobacco had long been two[[Penny (British pre-decimal coin)|pence]] per pound (0.45 kilograms) and in 1755 and 1758, the Virginia House of Burgesses, the elected lower house of the colonial legislature, passed the [[Two Penny Act]], allowing debts expressed in tobacco to be paid at the rate of twopence per pound for a limited period.{{sfn|Campbell|p=28}} These payees included public officials, including Anglican clergy—Anglicanism was Virginia's established church—and several ministers petitioned the [[Board of Trade]] in London to overrule the Burgesses, which it did. Five clergymen then brought suit for back pay, cases known as the Parson's Cause; of them, only the Reverend [[James Maury]] was successful, and a jury was to be empaneled in Hanover County on December 1, 1763, to fix damages. Henry was engaged as counsel by Maury's parish [[vestry]] for this hearing.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=39–41}} Patrick Henry's father, Colonel John Henry, was the presiding judge.{{sfn|McCants|p=40}}

[[File:Parson's Cause by Cooke.jpg|thumb|left|''Patrick Henry Arguing the Parson's Cause'' by [[George Cooke (painter)|George Cooke]]]]
After the evidence was presented proving the facts at issue, Maury's counsel gave a speech in praise of the clergy, many of whom were in attendance. Henry responded with a one-hour speech, ignoring the question of damages, but which focused on the unconstitutionality of the veto of the Two Penny Act by the king's government. Henry deemed any king who annulled good laws, such as the Two Penny Act, as a "tyrant" who "forfeits all right to his subjects' obedience", and the clergy, by challenging an impartial law designed to bring economic relief, had shown themselves to be "enemies of the community".{{sfn|McCants|pp=118–119}} The opposing counsel accused Henry of treason, and some took up that cry, but Henry continued, and the judge did nothing to stop him.{{sfn|McCants|p=119}} Henry urged the jury to make an example of Maury, for the benefit of any who might seek to imitate him and suggested the jury return damages of [[History of the British farthing|one farthing]].{{sfn|Kukla|p=45}} The jury was out for only moments and fixed damages at one penny. Henry was hailed as a hero. According to biographer Henry Mayer, Henry had "defined the prerogatives of the local elite by the unorthodox means of mobilizing the emotions of the lower ranks of religious and political outsiders."{{sfn|Mayer|p=66}} Henry's popularity greatly increased, and he added 164 new clients in the year after the Parson's Cause.{{sfn|Campbell|p=37}}

===Stamp Act (1764–1765)===
[[File:Patrick Henry Rothermel.jpg|thumb|upright|''Patrick Henry Before the Virginia House of Burgesses'' (1851) by [[Peter F. Rothermel]]]]

In the wake of the Parson's Cause, Henry began to gain a following in backwoods Virginia because of his oratory defending the liberties of the common people and thanks to his friendly manner. He boosted his standing further in 1764 by representing Nathaniel West Dandridge, elected for Hanover County, in an election contest before the Burgesses. Dandridge was alleged to have bribed voters with drink, a practice common but illegal. Henry is said to have made a brilliant speech in defense of the rights of voters, but the text does not survive. Henry lost the case but met influential members on the Committee of Privileges and Elections, such as [[Richard Henry Lee]], [[Peyton Randolph]] and [[George Wythe]].{{sfn|Kidd|pp=46–48}} In 1765, William Johnson, the brother of Thomas Johnson (who had been one of Henry's clients in the Parson's Cause) resigned as burgess for [[Louisa County, Virginia|Louisa County]]. As Henry owned land in the county (acquired from his father to settle a loan), he was eligible to be a candidate, and he won the seat in May 1765. He left immediately for Williamsburg as the session had already begun.{{sfn|Mayer|pp=69–70}}

The expense of the [[Seven Years' War]] (called the [[French and Indian War]] in North America) (1756–1763) had nearly doubled Britain's national debt, and as much of the war had taken place in and around North America, the British government looked for ways of directly taxing the American colonies. The 1765 Stamp Act was both a means of raising revenue and one of asserting authority over the colonies.{{sfn|Kidd|pp=53–58}} The Burgesses instructed their agent in London, Edward Montague, to oppose the measure, and other colonial legislatures similarly instructed their representatives. Considerable debate began over the proposed measure, and in Virginia pamphleteers developed arguments Henry had made in the Parson's Cause.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=49–56}}

Patrick Henry was sworn into a sleepy session of the legislature on May 20; many of the members had left town. On about May 28, a ship arrived with an urgent letter from Montague: the Stamp Act had passed. On May 29, Henry introduced the [[Virginia Resolves|Virginia Stamp Act Resolves]].{{sfn|Kidd|p=58}} The first two resolutions affirmed that the colonists had the same rights and privileges as Britons; the next two stated that [[No taxation without representation|taxation should be exacted only by one's representatives]]. The fifth was the most provocative, as it named the Virginia legislature, the [[Virginia General Assembly|General Assembly]], as the representatives of Virginia empowered to tax. Two other resolutions were offered, though their authorship is uncertain.{{sfn|Kidd|pp=53, 58–59}} Edmund and Helen Morgan, in their account of the Stamp Act crisis, suggest that Henry saw the Stamp Act as both a threat to Virginians' rights and an opportunity to advance himself politically.{{sfn|Morgan and Morgan|p=305}}

{{Quote box
| quote = If this be treason, make the most of it!
| author = — Henry addressing the Virginia House of Burgesses
| width = 16%
}}

There are no verbatim transcriptions of Henry's speech in opposition to the Stamp Act. Texts are reconstructions, for the most part based on recollections decades later, by which time both the speech and Henry had become famous. For example, Jefferson, still in his studies at the nearby College of William & Mary, recalled the splendor of Henry's oratory.{{sfn|Kidd|pp=51–53}} No attempt was made to reconstruct Henry's words until 1790, when [[James Madison]] wrote to former burgess [[Edmund Pendleton]], but Madison learned that Pendleton had not been present; a second attempt did not occur until Wirt began work on his biography of Henry in 1805. A French traveler whose name is not known and whose journal was discovered in 1921{{sfn|Morgan and Morgan|p=94}} recorded at the time of Henry's speech that "one of the members stood up and said that he had read that in former times [[Lucius Tarquinius Priscus|Tarquin]] and [[Julius Caesar|Julius]] had their [[Marcus Junius Brutus|Brutus]], [[Charles I of England|Charles]] had his [[Oliver Cromwell|Cromwell]], and he did not doubt but some good American would stand up, in favour of his country".{{sfn|Kidd|pp=51–53}} As Henry had seemingly called for the killing of King [[George III]], there were cries of "Treason!" in the chamber, including by Speaker [[John Robinson (Virginia politician, born 1705)|John Robinson]]. [[John Tyler Sr.]] (father of the future president), who was standing with Jefferson as they watched the session, called this one of "the trying moments which is decisive of character", and both recalled that Henry did not waver: "If this be treason, make the most of it!".{{sfn|Kukla|p=71}} 

The Burgesses adopted the first five resolutions—the two others, which denied the right of any other body but the General Assembly to tax Virginians and which branded anyone who stated that Parliament had that right an enemy of the colony, were not passed.{{sfn|Kidd|p=53}} According to the Morgans, the passed resolutions differed little from language in petitions sent by the Burgesses to London in 1764, and the opposition to Henry may have been in part because he was an upstart in Virginia politics.{{sfn|Morgan and Morgan|p=97}} On May 31, with Henry absent and likely returning home, the Burgesses expunged the fifth resolution, and Royal Governor [[Francis Fauquier]] refused to allow any of them to be printed in the official newspaper, the ''[[The Virginia Gazette#Historical papers|Virginia Gazette]]''. With the official texts of the passed resolutions denied them, newspapers in the colonies and in Britain printed all seven resolutions, all of them presented as the resolves of the influential Colony of Virginia. The resolutions, more radical as a group than what was actually passed, reached Britain by mid-August, the first American reaction to the passage of the Stamp Act. In North America, they galvanized opposition to the Stamp Act and made Virginia the leader in opposition to Parliament's action.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=73–79}} According to Thad Tate in Henry's ''American National Biography'' article, "Not only in Virginia but across the mainland British colonies, Henry quickly established his reputation as an uncompromising opponent of imperial policy."<ref name = "a" /> The Morgans note "In Virginia the Stamp Act provided the opportunity for Patrick Henry's spectacular entry into politics".{{sfn|Morgan and Morgan|pp=204–305}}

=== Lawyer and landowner (1766–1773)===
Fauquier dissolved the Burgesses on June 1, 1765, hoping new elections would purge the radicals, but this proved not to be the case as conservative leaders were instead voted out. The governor did not call the Burgesses into session until November 1766, by which time the Stamp Act had been repealed by Parliament, preventing Virginia from sending delegates to the [[Stamp Act Congress]] in [[New York City|New York]]. Henry's role in the active resistance that took place in Virginia against the Stamp Act is uncertain. Although the lack of a legislative session sidelined Henry during the crisis, it also undermined the established leaders of the chamber, who remained scattered through the colony with little opportunity to confer as the public rage for change grew hotter.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=80–82}}

When the Burgesses eventually convened, Henry sometimes opposed the colonial leaders but united with them against British policies. In the late 1760s and early 1770s, Henry spent more time concentrating on his personal affairs,<ref name = "a" /> though he advanced in standing within the Burgesses serving on powerful committees.{{sfn|Campbell|p=72}} The Henry family moved to a new house on his Louisa County property, probably in late 1765, and lived there until 1769 when he returned to Hanover County. His law practice remained strong until the courts under royal authority closed in 1774. Jefferson later complained that Henry was lazy and ignorant in the practice of the law, his sole talent trying cases before juries, and accused Henry of charging criminal defendants high fees to get them acquitted. Norine Dickson Campbell, in her biography of Henry, found Jefferson's comments unfounded; that Henry's rates were moderate for the time and cited earlier historians as to Henry's competence.{{sfn|Campbell|pp=62–65}} Jefferson's comments came years after the two, once friends, quarreled.{{sfn|Kidd|pp=71–72}} In 1769, Henry was admitted to practice before the [[General Court of Virginia (colonial)|General Court of Virginia]] in Williamsburg, a venue more prestigious than the county courts.{{sfn|Kidd|p=71}}{{sfn|Campbell|p=xvii}}

Henry invested some of his earnings in frontier lands, in what is now the western part of Virginia, as well as in present-day West Virginia and Kentucky. He claimed ownership though many of them were controlled by the Native Americans, and he sought to get the colonial (and, later, state) government to recognize his claims. This was common among Virginia's leading citizens, such as [[George Washington]]. Henry foresaw the potential of the [[Ohio River|Ohio Valley]] and was involved in schemes to found settlements. Income from land deals in 1771 enabled him to buy [[Scotchtown (plantation)|Scotchtown]], a large plantation in Hanover County, which he purchased from John Payne, the father of [[Dolley Madison]]—she lived there for a brief time as a child. Scotchtown, with 16 rooms, was one of the largest mansions in Virginia.{{sfn|Kidd|pp=72–73}}

Henry was a lifelong slaveholder from the time of his marriage at age 18.{{sfn|Kidd|p=15}} Henry professed that slavery was wrong and expressed hopes for its abolition, but he had no plan for doing so nor for the multiracial society that would result, for he did not believe schemes to settle freed slaves in Africa were realistic, "to re-export them is now impracticable, and sorry I am for it."{{sfn|Kukla|pp=100–102}} He wrote in 1773, "I am the master of slaves of my own purchase. I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living here without them. I will not, I cannot justify it."{{sfn|Kukla|p=124}} But the number of slaves he owned increased over time and as a result of his second marriage in 1777, so that at his death in 1799, he owned 67 slaves.{{sfn|Kidd|pp=15–16}} In 1778, Henry and other planters, believing there to be a surplus of slave labor in Virginia, easily brought the transatlantic importation of new enslaved Africans to an end.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Broadwater |first=Jeff |title=Madison, James and Slavery |url=https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/madison-james-and-slavery/ |access-date=February 23, 2024 |website=Encyclopedia Virginia |language=en-US |archive-date=February 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240224161232/https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/madison-james-and-slavery/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The planters supported the effort to limit slave imports for their own economic reasons and for fear of slave rebellions, but they did not seek abolition of slaves already in Virginia,<ref>{{Cite web |last=McBurney |first=Christian |date=September 14, 2020 |title=The First Efforts to Limit the African Slave Trade Arise in the American Revolution: Part 2 of 3, The Middle and Southern Colonies |url=https://allthingsliberty.com/2020/09/the-first-efforts-to-limit-the-african-slave-trade-arise-in-the-american-revolution-part-2-of-3-the-middle-and-southern-colonies/ |access-date=February 23, 2024 |website=Journal of the American Revolution |language=en-US |archive-date=February 23, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240223071110/https://allthingsliberty.com/2020/09/the-first-efforts-to-limit-the-african-slave-trade-arise-in-the-american-revolution-part-2-of-3-the-middle-and-southern-colonies/ |url-status=live }}</ref> although moving towards abolition said to be a reason for passing the act. With a surplus of slaves and the ability to import more African slaves cut off, Virginia later became a source of slaves sold south in the [[coastwise slave trade]].{{sfn|Kukla|p=125}}

===Renewed involvement and First Continental Congress (1773–1775)===
In 1773, Henry came into conflict with the royal governor, [[John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore]]. The governor, appointed in 1771, had sent British soldiers to [[Pittsylvania County, Virginia|Pittsylvania County]] to aid in apprehending a gang of counterfeiters. Once captured, they were immediately taken to Williamsburg for trial before the General Court, ignoring precedent that judicial proceedings should begin in the county where the offense took place or where the suspect had been captured. This was a sensitive matter especially because of the recent [[Gaspee Affair|''Gaspee'' Affair]] in Rhode Island, in which the British sought to capture and transport overseas for trial those who had burned a British ship. The Burgesses wanted to rebuke Dunmore for his actions, and Henry was part of a committee of eight that drafted a resolution thanking the governor for the capture of the gang but affirming that using the "usual mode" of criminal procedure protected both the guilty and the innocent.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=152–155}} They also penned a plan, adopted by the Burgesses, for [[Committees of correspondence|a committee of correspondence]] to communicate with leaders in other colonies to inform and coordinate with each other. The members included Henry.{{sfn|Mayer|p=175}}

Although Henry had by this time come to believe that conflict with Great Britain, and independence, were inevitable,{{sfn|Kukla|p=138}} he had no strategy for this. The Burgesses were sitting when in 1774, word came that Parliament had voted to [[Boston Port Act|close the port of Boston]] in retaliation for the [[Boston Tea Party]], and several burgesses, including Henry, convened at the [[Raleigh Tavern]] to formulate a response. According to [[George Mason]], a former burgess from [[Fairfax County, Virginia|Fairfax County]] who joined the committee in the work, Henry took the lead. Mason and Henry formed a close political relationship that lasted until Mason's death in 1792. The resolution that Henry's committee produced set June 1, 1774, the date upon which the Port of Boston was to be closed, as a day of fasting and prayer. It passed the Burgesses, but Dunmore dissolved the body. Undeterred, the former legislators met at the Raleigh Tavern and reconstituted themselves as a convention to meet again in August, after there was time for county meetings to show local sentiment. They also called for a boycott of tea and other products.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=139–141}}

The five [[Virginia Conventions]] (1774–1776) would guide the Colony of Virginia to independence as royal authority came to an end. Their work was advanced by many resolutions of county meetings, denying the authority of Parliament over the colonies and calling for a boycott of imports.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=141–143}} The first convention met in Williamsburg in the chamber of the Burgesses beginning on August 1; Dunmore was absent from the capital [[Lord Dunmore's War|fighting the Native Americans]] and could not interfere. Divided between those who wanted separation from Britain and those who still hoped for some accommodation, it met for a week; one major decision was the election of delegates to [[First Continental Congress|a Continental Congress]] in [[Philadelphia]]. Henry was chosen as one of seven delegates, tying for second place with Washington, burgess for Fairfax County, both receiving three votes less than Randolph.{{sfn|Mayer|pp=198–204}}

[[File:Washington Pendleton Henry cropped.jpg|thumb|left|19th century engraving of Washington (center), Henry (right) and Pendleton riding to Philadelphia for the [[First Continental Congress]]]]
As Washington's estate, [[Mount Vernon]], lay on the way from Scotchtown to Philadelphia, he invited Henry to stop there and to ride to Philadelphia with him. Henry and Pendleton, another Virginia delegate to the Congress and a political rival of Henry's, accepted the invitation.{{sfn|Mayer|pp=205–206}} Delegates and prominent Philadelphians took an intense interest in the Virginians, who had taken the lead in resistance to Britain but whom few in the other colonies had met. This was Henry's first stay in the North aside from a brief business trip to New York in 1770,{{sfn|Kukla|p=145}} but he found that his actions were well known.<ref name = "a" /> The sessions began on September 5, 1774, at [[Carpenters' Hall]].{{sfn|Mayer|p=209}} [[Silas Deane]] of Connecticut described Henry as "the compleatest speaker I ever heard&nbsp;... but in a Letter I can give You no Idea of the Music of his Voice, or the highwrought, yet Natural elegance of his Stile, or Manner".{{sfn|Kukla|p=146}}{{sfn|Mayer|p=212}} The secretary of the Congress, [[Charles Thomson]], wrote that when Henry rose, he had expected little from a man dressed as plainly as a rural minister. "But as he proceeded, [he] evinced such [an] unusual force of argument, and such novel and impassioned eloquence as soon electrified the whole house. Then the excited inquiry passed from man to man&nbsp;... 'Who is it? Who is it?' The answer from the few who knew him was, it is ''Patrick Henry''."{{sfn|Kukla|pp=147–148}}

Henry was involved in the first dispute within the Congress on whether each colony should have an equal vote, taking the position that there should be [[proportional representation]] giving the larger colonies a greater voice. He argued that colonial borders must be swept away in the need for Americans to unify and create a government to fill the void left with the end of British authority, "Fleets and armies and the present state of things shew that Government is dissolved. Where are your landmarks? your boundaries of colonies? The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American."{{sfn|Mayer|pp=212–213}} Henry lost the argument, and his theatrics made Congress's leaders afraid he would be unpredictable if placed on the lead committee charged with composing a statement regarding colonial rights. Instead, he was put on the next most important committee, one inquiring into commercial regulation. In the end, though, neither committee produced much of importance.{{sfn|Mayer|pp=214–217}} Henry believed the purpose of the Congress should be to mobilize public opinion towards war. In this, he found common cause with [[John Adams]] and [[Samuel Adams]] of Massachusetts, but not all were of that opinion.{{sfn|Mayer|pp=218–219}} According to Tate, Henry "turned out not to be an especially influential member of the body".<ref name = "a" /> The Congress decided on a [[Petition to the King|petition to the king]]; Henry prepared two drafts, but neither proved satisfactory. When Congress on October 26 approved a draft prepared by [[John Dickinson]] of Pennsylvania, who had consulted with Henry and also [[Richard Henry Lee]], Henry had already departed for home, and Lee signed on his behalf. The petition was rejected in London.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=155–156}}

After the birth of their sixth child in 1771, Patrick's wife [[Sarah Shelton Henry]] began to exhibit symptoms of mental illness, and one reason for the move from Louisa County to Scotchtown was so they could be near family members. Henry's biographer, [[Jon Kukla]] believes she was the victim of [[postpartum psychosis]], for which there was no treatment. At times, she was restrained in a form of [[straitjacket]]. Although Virginia had opened the first public mental facility in North America in 1773, Henry decided that she was better off at Scotchtown and prepared a large apartment for her there. She died in 1775, after which Henry avoided all objects that reminded him of her and sold Scotchtown in 1777.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=158–160}}

==="Liberty or Death" (1775)===
{{further| Give me liberty or give me death!}}
[[File:Patrick Henry speaking before the Virginia Assembly.tiff|thumb|right|[[Currier & Ives]] depiction of Henry giving his famous speech]]
{{listen
| filename = Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death - read by Bob Gonzalez for LibriVox's Short Nonfiction Collection Vol. 026 (2012).ogg
| title = {{center|"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"<br><small>Read by Bob Gonzalez for LibriVox</small>}}
| description = {{center|Audio 00:08:51 ([https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty_or_give_me_death full text])}}
| pos = right
| type = speech
| image = [[File:His Master's Voice (small).png|70px]]
}}
Hanover County elected Henry as a delegate to the Second Virginia Convention, which convened at [[St. John's Episcopal Church (Richmond, Virginia)|St. John's Episcopal Church]] in the town of [[Richmond, Virginia|Richmond]] on March 20, 1775. Richmond was selected as better protected from royal authority. The convention debated whether Virginia should adopt language from a petition by the planters of the [[Colony of Jamaica]]. This document contained complaints about British actions but admitted the king could veto colonial legislation, and it urged reconciliation. Henry offered amendments to raise a militia independent of royal authority in terms that recognized that conflict with Britain was inevitable, sparking the opposition of moderates. On March 23, he defended his amendments, concluding with the statement he is well known for:

{{quote|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!{{sfn|Kidd|p=52}}<ref>{{cite web|title=Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!|publisher=Colonial Williamsburg Foundation|access-date=September 16, 2017|url=http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm|archive-date=September 16, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170916164524/http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm|url-status=live}}</ref>
}}

As he concluded, Henry plunged an ivory [[Paper knife|paper cutter]] towards his chest in imitation of the Roman patriot [[Cato the Younger]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hill |first=Patrick Henry's Red |title=Paper Cutter |url=https://www.redhill.org/paper-cutter/ |access-date=April 22, 2024 |website=Patrick Henry's Red Hill |language=en-US |archive-date=December 3, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231203232553/https://www.redhill.org/paper-cutter/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Henry's speech carried the day, and the convention adopted his amendments.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=170–172}} Still, they passed only narrowly, as many delegates were uncertain where the resistance urged by Henry and other radicals would lead, and few counties formed independent militia companies at the urging of the convention.{{sfn|McDonnell|pp=44–45}}

The text of Henry's speech first appeared in print in Wirt's 1817 biography, published 18 years after Patrick Henry's death.{{sfn|Raphael|p=147}} Wirt corresponded with men who had heard the speech and others who were acquainted with people who were there at the time. All agreed that the speech had produced a profound effect, but it seems that only one person attempted to render an actual text. Judge [[St. George Tucker]], who had been present for the speech, gave Wirt his recollections and Wirt wrote back stating that "I have taken almost entirely Mr. Henry's speech in the Convention of '75 from you, as well as your description of its effect on your verbatim." The original letter with Tucker's remembrances has been lost.{{sfn|Raphael|p=148}}

For 160 years Wirt's account was taken at face value. In the 1970s, historians began to question the authenticity of Wirt's reconstruction.<ref>Judy Hemple, "The Textual and Cultural Authenticity of Patrick Henry's 'Liberty or Death' Speech," ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 63 (1977): 298–310; see Ray Raphael, ''Founding Myths,'' 311 note 7 for additional discussions among historians.</ref> Contemporary historians observe that Henry was known to have used fear of Indian and slave revolts in promoting military action against the British and that, according to the only written first-hand account of the speech, Henry used some graphic name-calling that Wirt did not include in his heroic rendition.{{sfn|Raphael|pp=145–156, 311–313}} Tucker's account was based upon recollections and not notes, several decades after the speech; he wrote, "In vain should I attempt to give any idea of his speech".{{sfn|Raphael|p=149}} Scholars have argued to what extent the speech we know is the work of Wirt or Tucker.{{sfn|Raphael|p=148}}

=== Gunpowder incident (1775) ===
[[File:Patrick Henry broadside.jpg|thumb|right|Royal proclamation against Henry, 1775]]

On April 21, 1775, Governor Dunmore had the [[Royal Marines]] under his command [[Gunpowder Incident|seize gunpowder from the magazine]] in Williamsburg and take it to a naval ship. The gunpowder belonged to the government, to be issued in case of need, such as a slave uprising. Dunmore's actions outraged many Virginians. Henry had departed for Philadelphia, having been elected a delegate to the [[Second Continental Congress]], but a messenger caught up with him before he left Hanover County, and he returned to take command of the local militia. Seeking the restoration of the powder, or that the colonists be compensated for it, on May 2, Henry led his troops towards Williamsburg with, as Dunmore wrote, "all the Appearances of actual War".{{sfn|Kukla|pp=173–180}} By this time, word of the [[Battles of Lexington and Concord]] had arrived, and many Virginians believed that war with Britain had begun. With his troops reinforced by eager volunteers from nearby counties,{{sfn|McDonnell|p=64}} Henry likely had force enough to take Williamsburg and deal Dunmore a humiliating defeat, but increasingly prominent messengers urging caution slowed his advance, and in [[New Kent County, Virginia|New Kent County]], still some {{convert|16|mile}} from Williamsburg, three of Henry's fellow delegates to Congress helped persuade him to leave off his march. As Henry insisted the colonists be compensated, a member of the Governor's Council agreed to pay the value of the powder by [[Negotiable instrument|bill of exchange]].{{sfn|Kukla|pp=180–182}}

Although Dunmore issued a proclamation against "a certain ''Patrick Henry'', of the County of ''Hanover'', and a Number of his deluded Followers", 15 county committees quickly approved Henry's action, and when he finally departed for Philadelphia, he was escorted to the [[Potomac River|Potomac]] by militia who lined the shore, cheering as his ferry pulled away.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=183–185}} Not all approved; Henry's march appalled some moderates who feared he might provoke a conflict in which Virginia stood alone against Britain's might. They also saw him as a threat to the sanctity of property, for anyone's might be taken by Henry and his troops. As popular support for independence grew, opponents either joined in the movement or decided it was wiser to remain silent.{{sfn|McDonnell|pp=66–70}}

Henry belatedly arrived at the Congress on May 18, 1775.{{sfn|Kukla|p=187}} Jefferson later stated that Henry played only a supporting role, and though there is not a complete record, the fact that he was not written of as having an impact appears to confirm that. The Congress appointed Washington as head of American forces, an appointment that Henry supported.{{sfn|Kidd|pp=106–107}} At the end of the session, in August, Henry left Philadelphia for Virginia and would never again hold office outside its borders.<ref name = "a" />

While Henry was returning, the Third Virginia Convention in August commissioned him as colonel of the [[1st Virginia Regiment]], and he took up the appointment later that month. Although Henry had little military experience, this was not considered a major drawback at the time, and he was held to have distinguished himself in the march on Williamsburg. General Washington, though, felt that the convention had "made a Capital mistake when they took Henry out of the Senate to place him in the Field".{{sfn|Kukla|pp=189–190}} In September, Virginia's [[Committee of safety (American Revolution)|Committee of Safety]] placed Henry in charge of all Virginia's forces.{{sfn|Kidd|p=109}} Despite the high title, Henry was placed under tight civilian control, and to an extent the willingness of moderates to go along with the appointment reflected a view that in that position, the volatile Henry would be contained.{{sfn|McDonnell|pp=100–102}}

Henry moved to organize his regiment and had no difficulty recruiting men.<ref name = "a" /> As commander, he organized [[Virginia State Navy#American Revolutionary War|a navy]].{{sfn|Kukla|pp=201–202}} In November 1775, Dunmore, who though he had abandoned Williamsburg still held Norfolk, issued a proclamation offering freedom to any black slave or [[Indentured servitude|indentured servant]] willing and able to serve in his forces, which already included several hundred former slaves. Henry wrote to all [[Virginia militia#17th century|county lieutenants]], stating that the proclamation "is fatal to the publick Safety" and urging an "unremitting Attention to the Government of the SLAVES may, I hope, counteract this dangerous Attempt. Constant, and well directed Patrols, seem indispensably necessary."{{sfn|McDonnell|pp=140, 148–149}}<!-- quote on p. 149 -->

Henry saw no action himself, and there were murmurs in the convention against his command; some feared he was too radical to be an effective military leader. In February 1776, Virginia's forces were reorganized as they were placed under Continental command. Henry was to retain his rank of colonel but was placed under a former subordinate. Henry refused and left the army; his troops were outraged by the slight to him and considered leaving service, but he calmed the situation.{{sfn|Kukla|pp=201–204}}