Transcripts For CSPAN2 Patrick Henry 20170917

Good evening. Im from the Smithsonian Associates and welcome to into the presentation of Patrick Henry. If you did not get a chance to buy the book it will be for sale afterwards. He will sign them at the table up front. Remember were able to bring you this program and so many others which i hope you have seen in the august issue of the associate which is a double issue. In fact, if youre here because youre interested in colonial history let me point you to a program on october 30 about espionage in the revolution. Thats coming up on monday october 30. Before we begin please silence your cell phones they do get reception here and youll be embarrassed if your phone rings on tv because the cspan group is here to record the presentation. So if youre sitting somewhere where tv light is bothering you please go ahead and find another seat because they will stay on. When we do get to q a, someone will run around with the microphone to make sure your questions are heard on camera. So be patient please. Our speakers john kugler historian who is right next and civilly about virginia and louisiana. Also former director of redhill. Again, the book is a big one, a lot of information about one of the Founding Fathers i went to get beyond give me liberty or give me death people dont know a lot about him. Welcome. Thank you for being here. Good evening and thank you for coming out. Henry was among other things such are lower and as we all know, a very successful one. One of the stories ive seen in a few places the peoples recollections of henry came from a couple of other somewhat younger attorneys. In the colonial time in virginia and then again after the American Revolution the county courts in which henry practice before he went to the General Court on the circuit courts after the revolution basically had their schedules set up so they met on the first monday of the month and then another county on the first thursday of the month and so on. They had these rigorous schedule set up so that attorneys who, among other things were, and still are in virginia very powerful in the legislature so attorneys could get from one court to the next in order to try their cases and serve their clients. After the revolution when henrys fame as an orator is wellestablished theres an attorney who finish the case was getting ready to head off to the next courthouse would he realize the great Patrick Henry was going to come into the courtroom after his case and argue. Therefore, this guy figured he could spare 20 minutes to hear Patrick Henry in person before he went on to the next courthouse. So he listened to Patrick Henry for about 20 minutes, then he looked at his watch and realized that an hour and ten minutes had passed and he was enthralled. I tell that story to remind you that im not Patrick Henry. And i can perhaps make 20 minutes feel like an hour and ten. Im going to try to talk about a couple of incidents but what i thought i would do tonight is speak to for headings, first i will introduce henry and say a few words about why another biography of henry seem to be appropriate. Second ill talk about the stamp act in the handout you have a reproduction of the same thing done in the 1830s that the Historical Society is showing henry for some reason they depict him speaking with an arm up maybe i should do that. At the parsons clause case in hanover courthouse, third i like to say a few words about Patrick Henry and his interaction was slavery. And finally, i want to talk briefly about henry and relationship to his contemporary and particularly jefferson especially washington i was thinking as we go through the evening as we move from one subject to another word any other time something is on clearly have a question, please holler. Im perfectly happy to go in whatever direction you want to go. The reason i never use powerpoint and never in the old technological they use slides is because im never sure what sequence the talks is going to end up in. But i very much enjoy questions and answers. So something comes up please feel free to holler and we will address it. There is a picture in the handout of st. Johns church in richmond which is the site of the liberty or death speech. In 1775. There is also plaque thats an interesting story, Edward Carrington from Charlotte County got to convention a bit late and the church was filled. So he stood outside her window st. Johns church and heard henrys liberty or death speech. At the conclusion of it he pronounced to whoever was around, let me be buried on the spot. And his family remember that and that is where he is planted. One of the difficulties of writing about Patrick Henry is that he not a penman. I guess may be of some space vehicle gets far enough away so you can pick up soundwaves that have been traveling for more than two centuries but its only under that circumstance that we would be able to have any record of what he actually said. There were no tape recorders, no video cameras and the like. What we do have his testimony and i think carringtons burial place is one form of testimony. People who heard and what were greatly impressed with his ability to communicate, he was i attribute his communication skills in a nutshell to two things, one, expected in one perhaps surprising. He was influenced as young man by the reverend Samuel Davies, a presbyterian evangelist in Hanover County who later ended his career at princeton university. Davies is young man, henry was taken by his mother to hear davies on sundays. She was a presbyterian evangelical this is the tail end of the great awakening. And she was into that revival thing where is henrys father was a staunch member of the anglican and his uncle was an anglican clergyman. Henrys mother used to take henry and his siblings to hear Samuel Davies. On the way home the story goes that she would quiz him as to what was said and how what was said. And so Samuel Davies was the tremendous influence on henrys oratorical skills. The other secret of his oratorical skills was that he was a good listener. By all accounts from the men that grew up with him henry could be very attentive. They talk about in social conversation that he could basically find out find out things about somebody by would seem to be a dallying conversation and stuffing getting people to talk to one another. He was an excellent empathetic reader of the eyes and sentiments of a jury. Or a legislative body or group of citizens gathered at the courthouse for polling place i sometimes like to compare him to colombo because you how colombo would be bumbling. Henrys speeches typically started off wishywashy and noneffective. I will say mumbling because he was always articulate. The seemingly without direction until he figured out by watching and interacting with his listeners until he figured out what was the best way to persuade them. Then he would start to become more articulate late in life henrys fans begin to recognize the point at which he went from just speaking to incredible flights of oratory. They usually happened when he sometimes would have very small hand written notes or something. But at some point in his presentations the glasses went up on the oratory began and his friends, his fans called it the work hands. Henry was born just a quick placement of a slave, he was born in 1736 and died in 1799. Washington was born in 32, also died in 1799. Jefferson is nine years younger burn and 43 and lucid well into the 19th century, and dying on the fourth of july 1926. The question sometimes asked and rebecca posted as to the fact that we remember henry for the liberty or death speech and cannot think of what else he may have done. Unlike many of his contemporaries, John Marshall and others among them henry does not have a place in the National Pantheon. In part thats because he never held National Offices. He attended the first and Second Continental Congress is in 74 and 1775 and was a prominent participant those events. In 1776 when congress was busy declaring independence and writing the declaration of independence henry was back in virginia helping to write the virginia constitution of 1776 and helping his friend and political soulmate which ill mention again at the close of our talk. Anything so far that is puzzling . Henry came into prominence, his father was a scots immigrant and had studied for years at the university of aberdeen. He did not technically have a degree from the university of aberdeen because apparently because i think this is in contrast with some elements in todays world faced with the fact that to get the sheepskin you had to pay extra, what the hell, were were to have the education, we dont need the sheepskins. Nowadays we can see on Television People who are prepared to sell you the certificate with no questions asked as to whether or not you have an education to go with it. So henrys father came to virginia in the 1720s, his uncle and namesake uncle came to virginia about 1730 as an anglican clergy member. They settled in Hanover County which is north of richmond eventually henrys father and married well and then it was a route to respectability that a lot of 18th century and then washington comes to mind, and in both cases a widow, wealthy widow henry probably studied mostly with his father and he did not formally go to school and then in virginia that appeals to children particularly who have been homeschooled, the homeschooling movement regards henrys very particular he learns, he does a couple of things and he tries his hand as a planter and merchant, his father tries to set him and his brother up with the store, they lack the credit thats necessary and 18th century virginias economy, they lack the deep pockets that their competitors, glasco and added berg scottish factors had numbness stored as a last for very long. Ultimately henry begins to read the, theres a completely open question as to how long he read the, some people say four weeks some people say six months, jefferson doesnt think he read it and all but he goes and passes the bar exam at the hands of george with who later becomes one of the first law professors in america at william and mary. And John Randolph who was attorney general, what ive done in your hand is reproduced a page from the bottom of one page and top of the next from the record books from 1760 when henry began the practice of law. This is when he went to goochland. This is south of hanover not south of the james river, south of hanover, west of richmond and this is when he came and began practicing law some of the other counties in that part of the world saw the records be destroyed in the civil war and so this was the earliest record we have of him coming to sign up and show his credentials as an attorney. One thing thats notable about the document as if you looked at it carefully it says george within John Randolph signed the authorization for him to become an attorney. If you look in Thomas Jeffersons memoirs youll see jefferson recollecting that george with never signed it. He would not have done such a thing. One of the things you have to contend with and writing about 18th century virginia in general is the fact that henry and jefferson were friends up until 1781 and after that point their friendship collapsed along with the invasion of virginia by their british. Henry made his reputation in the parsons clause. Its a complex legal theory. It had to do with the question of the legislative authority of virginias Colonial Legislature visavis imperial authority. And at issue was a temporary law that affected the way that persons were paid the parsons, group of anglican clergy member protested to england, the bishop of london who controlled the church in virginia protested to the board of trade, they got the law declared no one void. As a result set up a dispute over the legislative authority of whether the commonwealth or the colonies legislature had the authority to make these good laws for the good of the citizens or whether that was something that could be vetoed by parliament. Or by the king. So it makes the parsons clause phenomenally important in American History is its timing. Henry was arguing in Hanover County in 1763. As a result of the popularity that his arguments one at the very first opportunity that residents of Louisa County had to send him to the legislature they did so. He was suddenly in the lower house of burgesses in 1765 and so henry was there when the stamp act arrived in williamsburg. The arguments that henry used in that other virginians had developed in the parsons clause and a dispute over Church Governance and the authority of the legislature visavis king and parliament were suddenly now relevant to the stamp act. It is a coincidence of timing that put henry into a position of being important in American History and the element of timing that put virginia into the forefront of what becomes a concerted well organized colonial opposition to the stamp act in 1765 which ultimately as a result the colonists unified opposition the parliament repeals the stamp act in 177066. Whats important about the stamp act and its one of those things were almost all colonial and revolutionary historians will agree upon, theres probably too rich through those stole the world, most of them will agree that whats important about the stamp act is that its in the process of arguing over Parliamentary Authority in the stamp act that the american states and particularly the constitutional are at the core of the dispute with Great Britain that leads to the American Revolution and ultimately to independence. In the case of henry in the stamp act, he rates a series of resolutions, seven of him that are affirming the colonial legislations power he supports them in one of his famous speeches, where he points out and then george the third and at that point hes interrupted by the speaker of the house of burgesses crying treason, treason and henry is supposed to have change it by saying george may prophet by the example. So the governor is basically capable of leaning on the local to keep them from being published in williamsburg but copies of all seven of the revolutions the most radical not even introduced, copies of those are related to others and then throughout the colonies they basically lay out the backbone of the beginning of the american resistance to the stamp act. So he has that kind of prominence early on. At this point hes just barely 30 years old and one of the things this involvement with the stamp act is one of the reasons this book exists. Ten years ago i was working on the book that i imagined would be about virginia in the revolution and distinctive and attractive thing about Patrick Henry is a character in that story is that he was present at the beginning with the parsons clause in stamp act. He lived long enough to be present all the way through the constitution and in 1799 its the First American party system in the creation of the new government. So ten years ago is thinking i would write this book about the revolution in virginia under the conviction that virginias role of the National Story was a significant one. It is a said ten years ago i thought there is no reason to do a biography of henry because theres probably nothing new to say. Five years into this project, i realize there was new stuff to say. I cap stumbling upon new stuff, new documents and the like. Also because when you look at one character in his interaction with other people you see the mentions of the guy in wisconsin where i grew up guys is the nonsexist general nutrition pronoun, you see dimensions and the guy if youre simply going out to write a biography of one person. I think the book reflects that a number of different points not only new information that i was able to bring to bear to new sources but also insight into henrys interaction with some prominent contemporaries. Weve already mentioned jefferson washington, James Madison is another guy he worked with closely. John marshall in the 90s and his law practice. So ten years ago i would not have written this book. But here it is. Let me turn if i may to henrys involvement was slavery. We have a question. [inaudible question]. To get to the crux of the matter. I just want to make sure thats understood. Yes. The question, basically, going to the circumstances goes to the circumstances around the stamp act. The stamp act is a complex, a come mention and fascinating a complex and fascinating subject worthy of its own book, which i actually started working on a couple of months ago. [laughter] but what youre referring to is, in fact, the way George Grenville introduced the stamp act in parliament was to announce the 1764 that when parliament reconvenes, were going to propose the stamp act. Is so word of that did get back the colonies, and there were some embarrassing characters who did sign up to be stamp and Richard Henry lee was notable among them in virginia who initially didnt see the problem with this and thought it would be a nice, lucrative job and applied for it. But what happens then is that grenville and his party take a full year to actually pass the stamp act, and so the announcement of the stamp act does, in fact, cause the virginians to start talking. But as you, but as you indicated, its not until the act is actually passed in march of 1765 and then comes, arrives in virginia coterminusly with henrys being in the legislature that and youre absolutely right in referencing the pact that the old the fact that the older, more conservative, stodgy if you will, legislators in virginia were prepared not to take any action because they had protested to their agent in london and thought that that was sufficient. And its henry who basically stood up and said, no, thats not enough. One of the things that i argue in the book, in fact, is that among his preparation for his, for his resolutions about the stamp p act, i think its pretty clear that he had been in williamsburg on other business earlier, and that business took him to the capitol. And i suspect that he read all the files of the initial correspondence between the virginia leaders and their, and their agent earlier on. So what was going on in terms of the, to the extent that the stamp act in virginia and henrys involvement created a controversy among virginia leaders, it had less to do with disagreement over the principles than it add had to do than it had to do with the established leadership being a little bit affronted by this upstart nobody who came out of the frontier and has only been here for five days sort of stealing a march on them. If that makes sense. Thank you, thank you for your question. One of the things that, one of the things that im proud of in this book is that it documents henrys involvement with slavery more fully than weve ever had it hate out before. It laid out before. The topic is, of course, one of the great tragedies of American History. I was listening to john meacham the other night on might have been cspan, actually, talking about how the dispossession of the indians and the existence of slavery were the two sort of, the two original sins that beset american, American History. And theres certainly much to that perspective. So what im, what i tried to do is simply report and document henrys involvement with it and, frankly, complicity in the system of slavery, horrible as it was. And for this im actually very, very grateful to my editor because henrys first surviving comment about slavery is not made until the end of the 1760s by which time hes already, what, well in his 30s. And so many an early in an early draft of this book, thats where i took it up. And my editor said to me, john, you cant cothat jon, you cant to that. He grew up in a slave society. You need to talk about that. And, of course, he was absolutely right. And that puts a historian who is wedded to, in my case, wedded to the primary sources in a bit of a quandary as to, okay, now what do i do if henry didnt say anything about slavery that we know, that survives and stuff until, until he was in his 30s. What i ended up doing was looking at the nature of slavery as it was being practiced. Weve got studies of the slave communities in 18th century virginia and particularly theres some studies of hanover where henry was growing up in the 1730s and 40s. And then i found particularly helpful the positions taken by Samuel Davies, that presbyterian evangelist that we know henry heard. His sermons survive, and some of them speak about slavery. And also the positions that the Anglican Church took that his father, that his uncle, the reverend Patrick Henry, would have expressed. So basically i was able to start or or with where henry start with where henry, with the attitude towards slavery that henry grew up with as a young man. And they were fairly simple in the 1730s and 1740s. By their lights, these virginians felt that slavery was sanctioned by the bible and that the responsibility of a slaveholder was to treat his slaves well, to teach them to read so that they could read the scriptures and to bring them to christ. So that would be sort of where henry started in the 1740s. By 1773, we know because we have one of many let arers that henry letters that henry wrote to a quaker abolitionist named Robert Pleasants, and this one happens to be the most famous. In 1773 henry wrote a letter in which he basically says slavery is evil. You cant justify it by religion, you cant justify it in terms of all the principles of the enlightenment. Its an evil thing and yet here it is. And he said who would, who would suppose in this modern age that i am the owner of slaves, and he said slaves of my own purchase. One of the things i respect about henry in this passage and in many cases is his candor, his honesty. Unlike tidewater aristocrats who could say, well, gosh, you know, our familys had slaves for four or five generations, what am i supposed to do, henry is explicitly admitting his complicity in the institution of slavery when he talks about owning slaves of his own purchase and yet it is wrong. Sub subsequently, henry continues to be engaged in discussions of slavery particularly with robert please about please please sames. And pleasants. And basically, what i was able to do was find more documentation for the dialogue between pleasants and henry than had been seen before. Most of these things are at Haverford College where theres a large archive of quaker americana and such. So henry, for example, in when he was governor of virginia from 17761779, Robert Pleasants decided that he was going to start freeing some of his slaves and giving them land and trying to make them giving them the opportunity to be independent Small Farmers and make their way in the world. This was, as i say, this was in the 1770s, 1777 and 8. So its five years before this was legal in virginia. Virginia passed a statute in 1782 that allowed manumissions of slaves. And prior to that it was something that was a very rare happenstance. Henry, as it turns out, documented in these letters at haverford is a letter from pleasants to a philadelphia quaker in which he talks about the difficulties that he, pleasants, is having trying to free his slaves because his neighbors dont like it, and theyre threatening to use system arcane laws that were still possibly in effect from the colonial period to basically, to claim ownership of the slaves that pleasants freed under the notion that they should be, you know, they shouldnt they should be allowed to be free and so on. Henry clearly is involved, and pleasants correspondence reflects the fact that henry was supporting him and giving him legal advice as to how to, how to make this work, this manumission plan that pleasants is going to put into effect. And also he talks to pleasants about how were trying to change the laws. And then, of course, in 1782 virginia does pass legislation allowing slave holders, for whatever reason, to free slaves if thats something they wish to do. Its a law that stays in effect until about 1809 or thereabouts when its repealed. So its at the highwater point of virginias reservations about slavery. Yes, sir. Didnt that law require if someone were to man ument the slaves, they had to provide money to the state to assure that those slaves would not then become a burden on the rest of society . The provision that you just described, there were conditions to manumission under the virginia law. And one of them, one of the most, what, unsavory of those was the notion that after one year the freed slave needed to leave the commonwealth. So the virginia law does not indicate an embrace of a multiracial society. There were also some protections in the law. So, for example, you could not there was an age limit on how old the slave could be to be freed. Because what the legislatures didnt want to have happen was basically have planters work people into their own age and then suddenly fail to take care of them by freeing them at a point where they would then be destitute. Yeah. Yes, sir. You mentioned that one of the obligations of a slain owner was to slave owner was to teach the slaves to read so they could read the scriptures . Yes. But am i mistaken, i was under the impression there was legislation prohibiting the prohibiting, there was henry, this is, this is the 18th century, and that was, that was accepted, what youre referring to is, in fact, getting into the aint bell lumbar antebellum period, and typically those laws are trying to prevent what southern slaveholders would think of as outside agitators from teaching other peoples slaves to read. But as a slave owner, certainly in the 18th century and henrys time, it would have been not only legal, but people were encouraged to do this. But as you indicate and i think this is a notion, theres a notion around that somehow or other southern laws prevented anyone from teaching slaves to read, and there is, you know, there is indications that thats part of the law. But it typically is used not existence slaveholders against slave holders, but rather against what would you call it, reformers, liberals, you know, depending on, you know, whos doing the, what, the accusation. Its targeted at people perceived by the slaveholders in the legislatures to be meddling with the institutions. Does that make sensesome yeah. Yes. Yes, sir. Would you verify for me a statement i read in one biography as being either accurate or untrue . Sure. This said that he was very much against the constitution as originally proposed and to enflame and riot the good folks of virginia against it at that early stage, had a rallying phrase that theyre going to free your, fill in the blank. Nword. I, that is reported in a late 19th century or mid 19th century book about the Constitutional Convention of 1788. And i quoted it in my book. We, it does not, that particular line they will free your does not appear in the published records of the virginia debates of the constitution. On the other hand, there is an admonition by Edmund Randolph challenging henry against using, being too free with his language and asking henry to be more philosophical which i think is basically calling on, calling on him to be, to go to euphemism rather than be blunt. The question of henrys this is actually where i was going to go next. Because one of the, one of the interesting wrinkles in henrys thinking about slavery has to do with the federal constitution which he did oppose for hot of other reasons for lots of other reasons as well. But one of the things that henry recognized and he makes an argument, and i rely on a scholar from california who put all this forward in a pivotal article about 20 years ago, but henry makes what she called a structural argument for slavery. And what he argued was basically on the the constitution as it was devised in philadelphia in 1787 would give some delegated powers of taxation to the new federal government that it proposed. And henry saw that as being dangerous. The reason that he saw it as being dangerous in part had to do with slavery. And this is the funny wrinkle, if funny is the right word, the ironic wrinkle. Slavery was evil and repugnant and, therefore, northern legislators not familiar with slavery would suddenly have to confront it. Why would they have to confront it . Well, because legislate to haves legislatures have to levy taxes. And what everybody will try to do is make sure that the taxes weigh easily on our constituents and more heavily on their constituents. So henry says theres, here its built into if you give the power of taxes to a Central Authority like congress, its just axiomatic not as a matter of principle, but just as a matter of hardball taxation politics that theyre going to come after southern slaves. And theyre going to try to tax slavery out of existence. Thats the argument that he puts forward. And the argument only works with the premise that slavery is immoral, its evil, its repugnant. And those are, those are the positions that henried had voiced henry had voiced in 1773 as well. [inaudible] im sorry . Why would he have objected with that . Why would he object to [inaudible] why would he object to freeing the slaves. Basically, by that time that was something that there were a lot of virginians that were scared out of their minds that this would lead to social disruption and bloodshed. And those views, of course and again tragically were especially confirmed once the haitian revolution breaks out. And its at that point in 1789, 90 and so on, its at that point that henrys retiring from politics, and thats where his correspondence with this quaker abolitionist closes. And at that point, henry Still Believes that slavery is wrong, its evil, its repugnant, but what cowe do about it . What do we do about it . He cant figure out what to do about it. And so he and a lot of his generation come back to the position that is, tragically, very much like where they started out. Only now slavery is wrong, but we dont know what to do about it and so, therefore, we should treat our slaves well, teach them to read and bring them to christ. Now, in that transit the only thing that i think we can give henry and his contemporaries real credit for is declaring that its wrong. And theres, there is a sense in this tragic story of americas involvement with slavery, there is a sense in which we measure their failure by that moral standard that they tried to uphold that its wrong, its evil, it cant be justified. Make any sense . [inaudible] not a bit. [laughter] it is, it is, unfortunately, it is and long has been the Great American dilemma. Theres another question. What was it that a made it so difficult for them to come to any kind of resolution of the problem . Could you speak well, they found it repugnant, but they couldnt figure out what to do about it. What got in the way of them figuring out what to do about it . The question is what got in the way of their ability to do anything about slavery, and the answer to that would vary. There were virginians who believed that slavery was justified under property rights. If you go back, theres an article in the william and mary quarterly that published a bunch of 1780s petitions from counties in what we in virginia call the south side, south of the james river, between the james river and north carolina. Basically arguing that slavery was justified in the bibling, that old position, and that it was a property right that the virginians had defended against Great Britain, and any attempt to take away our slaves would be an affront to our property rights. Thats, from our perspective its an ugly argument, but i bring it up in part well, to answer your question, but in part because that is part of the climate of opinion in which anybody in polling ticks politics had to try to contend with making a change. So what the virginians did that was successful, they were able to end the slave trade, the importation of slaves into virginia, and they were in 1782 able to pass a law allowing slaveholders to free or manumit their slaves for whatever personal reason. But you did now, on the other hand, there have been, there are a couple of celebrated cases of prominent virginians, Robert Carter of the Carter Family is one of them, who actually got inspired by the ideals of the revolution and of liberty and stuff and did, in fact, free their, free their slaves. Theres a great book by my friend mel elie called israel on i think its israel on the appomattox, isnt it . Anyway, treating Robert Carters effort which was on a larger scale than Robert Pleasants effort to try to establish, free his slaves, give them land and start them out as slaveholders. But the other thing, of course, is that there is a great deal of fear thats unleashed by the haitian revolution indicating that, as jefferson puts it in notes on the state of virginia, that how can we free people who but its that same, its that same juxtaposition of the existence of slavery and the attachment to liberty. If you people who study the rhetoric of the American Revolution will point to the fact that quite aside from the institution of enslaved black people in america, that slavery in political discourse in 18th century britain had a distinct meaning which was to say that slavery was the complete absence of ones autonomy. It was the, it was the polar opposite of liberty. And, you know, theres a famous section in bernard baylins study of evolution which basically talks about the contagions of liberty and the way in which the language of politics in the 18th century inevitably draws the existence or the institution of enslavement as a labor system and regime and such. It draws it into question because of its juxtaposition with slavery and liberty. Yes, sir. Answer the phrase [inaudible] of 1820, justice is on one side selfpreservation on the other. The argument for liberty was that the right to hold slaves was a basic property right and [inaudible] theres no liberty that curtails property rights. So as paradox call and hypocritical as this viewpoint strikes us, there were people who were sincerely feeling they might be slaughtered in their beds and any attempt to abolish slavery was an enrichment of their own liberty. Yeah. Yeah. So were all faced with the confrontation of, frankly, of a very ugly system and human tragedies and their failure to live up to what we would have hoped they would have been able to do. Yes, maam. What, if anything,. [inaudible] and their relationship p to each other . Henry actually, henry sponsored legislation encouraging intermarriage between virginia settlers on the to frontier and native americans. So he was able at least to see that dimension of a multiracial society. Thought it would help bring peace to the frontiers. How are we doing on time . [inaudible] weve got about ten minutes. Ten minutes, okay. Hey, dad . [inaudible] okay. Could you talk about him and the establishment of freedom of religion in virginia and subsequently the bill of rights . Sure, be happy to. Henry the question is could i talk about henry and freedom of religioning and the bill of rights religion and the bill of rights. Henry grew up in a household that was where religious toleration prevailed. His mother on sundays went off to hear the presbyterian evangelist Samuel Davies. His father went to hear what everything indicates was his boring uncle and his [laughter] anglican sermons. Henry was and this is something that i chronicle in the book at several key places, henry was very, very active in his support of the baptists prior to the American Revolution. He faced off against some other influential virginians, notably Edmund Pendleton who was and archibald blair, kerry, rather, im sorry who were in Caroline County and in Chesterfield County were throwing them into prison. Henry went and argued on behalf of, in the court cases on behalf of the independent baptists. The problem with the independent baptists in the 170s was that they concern 1770s was that they did not acknowledge any authority of the colonial government. And is they constantly got themselves crossways. Because unlike the presbyterian evangelicals who were willing to go along with religious toleration and agree to certain rules having to do with meeting houses and stuff, the independent baptists in the 1770s wanted to be able to go wherever they went without any control by the state. So henry had a reputation, a very strong reputation by the time of the American Revolution of being interested in and supportive of the baptists. And the early baptists writing about the history of their denomination in virginia single him out as being one of the real heroes. It was on the basis of that that when he was governor and ive got a chapter in the book that talks about him meeting with two baptist leaders, and basically the deal was struck that the baptists would encourage their young men to go to fight for independence if the legislature, as they did, would allow the baptists to send ministers along with the troops. And thats what, thats the deal that basically was struck between henry and these two baptist leaders at scotchtowns in the years im surprised they havent done that earlier in the early years of his governorship. [laughter] henry was involved in writing the virginia declaration of rights right before the adoption of the constitution, and in fact, at least one participant in that, in those debates argues that henry was responsible for clauses 14 and 15 which had to do with certain republic civic virtues. And enthen in the case of the final and then in the case of the final clause, that had to do with religious toleration which was something that was put forward. Now toleration, of course, toleration supposes as virginia had an established church which has the authority and is supported by taxation, but tolerates, you know, dissenting groups. This would be the language of 18th century english religious discourse. Henry, in the 1780s, puts forward he and washington and Richard Henry lee and a number of other virginians and, for that matter, people throughout, leaders throughout history thought that it was really important to maintain virtue in the populace and this is something that they counted on, the churches and particularly the clergymen as educators to do. And so he put forward a statute in 1784 that would have established state support for teachers of the christian religion. You can argue that its i think ultimately he couldnt figure out how to do it in much the same way that we have figured out, that we havent yet figured out how to make a voucher system work for those people who are advocating this kind of thing in our own time. Inat any rate, henry put this forward, people debated it. Basically i think he realized that it, not only was it unworkable, but it was unpopular with all the religious groups that hed worked with before, with the baptists, with the presbyterians, the beginnings of the meth keys organization methodist organizations in virginia as well. So he, he basically abandoned his legislation and went off to become governor which enabled, gave James Madison the opportunity to rally what were basically henrys friends in the dissenting religious community in support of the bill that Thomas Jefferson had written in 1776, but its passed in 1785 and 86 which is the statute for religious freedom. And jefferson the difference, of course, is that the declaration of rights speak of religious toleration, the statute for religious freedom basically says the state should not have any involvement in support for religion, and it matters not, you know, how jefferson put it, what you believe as to whether theres one god or many god, neither picks my pockets nor breaks my bones. Yes, sir. So [inaudible] really want to get your thoughts on what is kind of one of the core premises, i guess, of this whole talk. If Patrick Henry is so accomplished and has done so many wonderful things, and youve convinced me of that now, right . 40 how come we as a nation dont know him and dont celebrate hill, and kind of relatedly, are you planning to write the hip how many musical [laughter] i dont think youd want to listen to any hiphop that i might write. [laughter] but if somebody else wants to do that, ill work with them happily. [laughter] the question is, basically, why dont we know more about him and so on. And i think part of the real reason of that is that he didnt hold National Office. Now, henry, henrys reputation which is a whole other story, if you will, henrys reputation in the 19th century was phenomenal. And, in fact, as it happens it was 200 years ago this year that the first biography of Patrick Henry was written by a man named william wort. That biography went through 24 editions before world war ii, its still in print. So there is a kind of a core and henrys, one of the things thats funny about scholars, scholars modern scholars scholars are lazy, okay . So one of the funny ironies about henrys reputation among scholars is that in 19th century he was thought to be important and, therefore, in 1890 there was a threevolume documentary edition of his life, correspondence and speeches. And it was not as good as wed like it to be today. But for a long time, it was better than we had for lots of other people. And then all of a sudden in 1950 the scholarship was overturned in terms of documentary editions by julian boyds addition of the jefferson papers. Sodsod the scholars who are interested in various subjects will go back to the sources, and the sources they go to are the papers of James Madison, of george washington, of alexander hamilton. And henrys, those three volumes of henrys stuff look like theyre just really old and outdated and hard to find, and theyre, you know, and so he gets sort of left out. But i really think that the reason that he, that he isnt that he wasnt elevated into the National Pantheon is that he never held National Office, National Office. And in the way that most of, most of the people that we think of as our, you know, National American heroes from that period typically held office. [inaudible] yes, sir. Why did he not seek National Office . Because virginia was his country. He did get offers, if wed had another half hour, we could go into it. He got offers from washington on many, many occasions to become an ambassador, to have a seat on the supreme court, to do this, that or the other thing. Henry and washington, despite the fact that they disagreed over the constitution, had forged a working relationship during the American Revolution, and there were some other events that i tell about in the book where washington always knew that henry had his back, and, in fact, speaks about that in the last years of their lives. And so basically by that time henry was not in good health after what, he retired from politics in 1791, 92 and then basically goes, his health goes downhill. Hes only 63 when he dies in 1799. If its real quick, we might be able to squeeze one in. Yes, sir. In terms of [inaudible] the great debate about those people who felt that the National Formation of the new United States had to be a confederation because you couldnt trust a central government, and they followed the enlightenment philosopher montesquieu. The winning side led, i think, by mason but washington and many others, was that you Confederation Just wasnt Strong Enough to work, and you needed the locke, hobbs sort of thing. It sounds to me from what youre saying that Patrick Henry might have been a follower of montesquieu and more in favor he was. Of confederation. Yeah. [inaudible] he, this again is more story than we have time for, but its here. You can read it. [laughter] but basically in 1784 and 5, henry recognized that Congress Needed to have more financial resources, improved financial resources. In a coffeehouse in richmond, he hailed Young Madison and said, hey, you write something up, and ill support it on the floor of the legislature. Between that conversation and the writing and ratification of the federal constitution, henry witnessed a bunch of chicanery in congress by some new england congressmen over whether or not they could swap the navigation of the Mississippi River for some special trade deal with spain which would have been great for new england fishermen. Henry felt betrayed and suddenly became aware of the way in which sectional interests could work against virginia. And thats one of the core moments in which, that turn his, that turn his sentiments and heed him ultimately to be lead him ultimately to be a very vigorous critic of the constitution during the ratification debates. My argument in the book is that basically he was playing political hardball and trying to achieve the kinds of amendments that he thought would make the National Government less dangerous to virginias interests. Now i know shes going to pull me off the stage with a finish so im, i want to say thank you very, very much for the opportunity to talk about henry. [applause] the book is for sale outside, and im going to take jon kukla outside to go sign them. [inaudible conversations] booktvs in concord, new hampshire. Up next we speak with author Howard Mansfield about his book, turn and jump, that explained how the concept of time zones came about. Time first meant where the sun was in the sky. Noon was where the sun is