The rhetorical technique Henry uses here is hypophora, commonly called a rhetorical question, in which a speaker poses a sequence of questions followed by an immediate response. One effect of this technique is to stir an audience to action. Since Henry speaks with such passion, these rhetorical questions drive him to greater and greater heights of agitation before he finally erupts with his infamous exclamation. The force of such emotion is contagious and serves as a pathos appeal to his audience.

Henry employs auditory imagery to emphasize that the war has already begun: the cry of the men, the strong wind that rushes from the north, and the clash of resounding arms. The “clash” of the resounding arms illustrates a call to war. The combined sounds speak to the urgency for the nation to come together and wage war with the British.

With the second iteration of the chain metaphor, Henry emphatically exclaims that the “chains are forged!” He uses an appeal to pathos, amplified by the auditory imagery of the clanking chains, to encourage his audience to revolt.

Here, Henry states that God will preside over the colonies by providing allies to help secure a victory over the British. Henry was correct about the raising up of “friends to fight our battles for us.” During the American Revolution, France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic would become American allies and provide necessary financial aid.

By 1775, the thirteen colonies had a population of roughly two and a half million people. Henry implores his audience, as well as all of the colonies to arm themselves. In citing the number of the population, Henry claims that the power and strength of nearly three million people would make the colonies “invincible.” This serves as an appeal to logos because Henry uses facts to determine the feasibility of a successful revolt.

Henry, a pragmatist by nature, discouraged relying too heavily on hope. He believed in action above thought, and was one of the earliest proponents in the resistance efforts against the British. With the use of visual imagery, Henry characterizes hope as a “delusive phantom.” The word “delusive” refers to the act of tricking while a phantom connotes an illusion or hallucination. By describing hope as a phantom, he compares it to something intangible, ephemeral, and unreal.

Henry’s grievances against the British for quartering soldiers in American houses laid the groundwork for two major pieces of legislation in the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Third Amendment to the US Constitution (1791). In the Declaration of Independence, the founders lay out a list of injustices forced upon the American people, including “Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.” About fifteen years later, the Third Amendment would prohibit the quartering of troops without consent.

Translated from the Hebrew word sabaoth, the word “host” refers to armies. First referred in the Old Testament, specifically 1 Samuel 1:3, the “God of hosts” is the God of the armies of heaven. In addition to an appeal to warfare, he calls on the God of war to aid the American people in their revolutionary efforts. This reflects Henry’s devout sense of faith, even in the case of war.

In this passage, Henry argues that hope is no longer enough to defend against British tyranny. The colonies must turn to fighting in order to keep the nation “inviolate,” meaning pure, and to maintain its “inestimable,” meaning valuable, privileges.

With the use of parallel structure, Henry reiterates each of his points and highlights how the British have wronged the Americans. This list also employs asyndeton and anaphora in the repetition of “our” at the beginning of each phrase. The vitriolic barrage of insults serves to further compound his point and rile up his audience in his favor.

Here, Henry appeals to his audience’s emotions by laying out all the ways that Americans have tried to ameliorate their relationship with the British: they have petitioned, remonstrated, supplicated, and prostrated. Using asyndeton and anaphora, whereby Henry speaks without conjunctions between the clauses and with the repetition of the phrase “we have,” he expounds his points with storm-like rage. This repetitive technique creates an emphatic, rhythmic quality that powerfully condemns the British.

In an appeal to logos, Henry states that arguing with the British is no longer possible or pragmatic–the American colonists have been arguing since the imposition of the Stamp Act in 1765 and to no effect. Henry urges his audience to turn away from argument and raise arms instead.

Henry employs metaphorical language to illustrate the control of the British over the thirteen colonies. According to Henry, the British army and navy had bound and riveted, meaning fastened, themselves over the colonies like a chain. This image conjures images of slavery and a master’s complete control over their subservient.

In an appeal to logos, Henry poses a series of rhetorical questions to his audience, asking them to consider why Great Britain would impose an army and a navy on the colonies if it were not trying to control them. He then employs hypophora by replying to his own rhetorical question, stating that these forces are here for no other purpose than to exert British colonial rule.

In a passage that exudes irony, Henry mocks the British Parliament’s lackluster response to the American colonists’ “Petition to the King.” He describes it sarcastically as a “gracious reception.” The British Parliament’s neglectful response enraged Henry and the other founders. Only a few months later, the Second Continental Congress reacted to the King’s response with the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms,” written by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson.

By peppering the speech with biblical allusions, Henry is able to make disparaging remarks about the British without consequence. Here, he compares the actions of the British to the kiss of Judas, an episode known as the Betrayal of Christ. In the New Testament, Judas kisses Jesus in order to identify him to the chief priests and have him arrested. Henry warns his audience to be careful of the British, who might appear friendly on the surface but who are actually vindictive and cunning.

A “snare” is a trap with a string and a noose used to capture small animals. The image of a foot trapped in a snare is used repeatedly throughout the Old and New Testament of the Bible, often to describe how God will prevent someone’s foot from becoming metaphorically ensnared. With this biblical allusion and the image of ensnarement, Henry compares British mistreatment to a trap. He encourages his audience to remain vigilant towards the British. This biblical allusions, like the others Henry uses, hint at British mistreatment without overtly renouncing it. This allowed Henry to make strong claims against the British without seeming treasonous.

The adjective “insidious” describes something that is full of plots or wiles. An “insidious smile,” then, is like a veneer or mask that disguises treachery. Henry uses this image to illustrate the British Parliament’s underhanded dismissal of their petition. It suggests that the British received the petition but never addressed it seriously.

As a verb, “to solace” means to comfort oneself. With this term, Henry “wishes to know” what his fellow delegates have found comforting about British rule. Henry’s query is a rhetorical one, for he finds no source of solace in the actions of the British government. He urges his countrymen to no longer take solace and to revolt against their mistreatment.

Henry refers to the Stamp Act, the first direct tax on American colonists. Passed on March 22, 1765, this tax required American colonies to pay a tax on printed paper, including newspapers and legal documents. The purpose of the tax was to subsidize the costs of the British army in the colonies.

Henry alludes to Psalm 119:105, a passage from a book in the Bible written as an anonymous prayer to God. The speaker of Psalms asks that God light their way forward, as a lamp to guide their feet. In this allusion, the lamp that lights Henry’s path is not God, but the “lamp of experience.” He asks his audience to recall the past in order to avoid repeating mistakes. This allusion also appeals to ethos because it conveys that Henry has experienced and observed the British imposition for the “last ten years.”

In an appeal to ethos, Henry vows not to be ignorant and to open his eyes and ears to the truth. He establishes his credibility as a loyal and dedicated American who will both confront the truth of British mistreatment and provide a solution for the American people.

Both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible make reference to eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear to describe God’s followers who do not attend to his teachings. Henry alludes to these passages (Isaiah 6:10, Jeremiah 5:21, Ezekiel 12:2, Matthew 13:15, Acts 28:27, and Romans 11:8) to compare his audience to such ignorant disciples. With this rhetorical question, Henry encourages his audience to remain vigilant.

In Greek mythology, a siren, similar to a mermaid, was a female creature who lured sailors into shipwreck with their beautiful voices. Henry warns his audience with this allusion, asking that they ignore the similarly tempting but dangerous “illusion of hope.”

According to Henry, remaining quiet is not only an act of treason against the country but also a betrayal of the “Majesty of Heaven.” To the audience of the Second Virginia Convention, such a powerful statement would have appealed to their Christian morals and values. These men likely saw Henry’s devotion to the “majesty of heaven” as an indication of his credibility and wholehearted devotion to the country.

The word “treason” describes the act of betrayal. In an appeal to ethos, Henry claims that, should he keep his opinions to himself and not share them with his fellow delegates, it would be akin to betraying the country. With this statement, Henry asserts his persistent devotion to the thirteen colonies.

Patrick Henry was an unapologetic and faithful Christian. Unlike several of the Founding Fathers—including Thomas Jefferson, who believed in the separation between church and state—Henry was adamant in his belief that church and state ought to be intertwined. In 1784, for example, he supported a “general assessment” bill whereby taxpayers paid a tax to a designated church. The bill did not receive much traction among his peers and was not passed. While the founders may have disagreed on the separation between church and state, they nevertheless supported the armed resistance against the British and many of them believed God would aid the American people. Henry’s steadfast Christian values are revealed throughout the speech in his use of biblical allusions and his direct calls to God for courage and strength.

According to Henry’s logic, there are only two potential outcomes to an armed resistance against the British: freedom or slavery. This extreme dichotomy likely resonated with the audience, which was largely composed of wealthy, slaveholding men. Although they were proponents of slavery, the audience—perhaps hypocritically—did not want to become slaves themselves, and would do anything to preserve their freedom.

Describing the question at hand as an “awful moment” speaks to the complex position of the American people. The word “awful” is especially contentious because it can mean, at once, dreadful and awe-inspiring. The decision to engage in war is not only a frightening decision, it is also one that must be taken seriously and respectfully. The word “moment” serves to define a time of great import or significance. The question Henry poses—whether or not to engage in war against the British—is an important matter. With this phrase, Henry speaks to the weight of this decision, to how awe-inspiring, terrifying, and incredibly important it is for the nation.

By 1775, war was nearly underway. Tensions mounted as Americans revolted against the “Intolerable Acts” and the British blockade in Boston harbor. The “question” Henry contemplates before the Second Virginia Convention is whether or not to enter into armed conflict with the British. His stance is made immediately clear: he suggests creating militias throughout Virginia. Henry attempts to persuade his fellow delegates to side with his revolutionary ideals.

Throughout the speech, Henry equates the loss of liberty with slavery. By doing so, he sets up a choice between peaceful subjugation and violent revolution, with no middle ground. If the colonists are willing to live in chains, then they can avoid a war. However, in one of the most famous lines of rhetoric in American history, Henry provides his answer to that choice: a life without freedom is not worth living. He shifts “the question before the house” away from whether or not to engage in armed conflict with Britain and instead posits a much simpler choice: liberty or slavery, life or death. By establishing “liberty” and “death” as the only outcomes, Henry asserts that the colonies must fight since a life without liberty is not an option.

The adverb “supinely” applies to actions performed while laying face-up. “Supine” can also refer to the idea of failing to protest injustice or, colloquially, to “taking something lying down.” When Henry references “lying supinely on our backs,” he is indicating that if the colonists continue trying to make piece with the British, they will ultimately face their own subjugation.

This is Henry’s call to action to the assembly and his answer to the “question before the house.” Up until this point, Henry has been outlining the injustices that the British have inflicted upon the colonists. He has painted the colonists as long-suffering peace-seekers who have been repeatedly disrespected and rebuffed. In his call to arms, he employs the first-person plural pronoun “we” to indicate unity and the word “must” to indicate that fighting is no longer an option but rather a necessity. Henry has explained all of the ways that American liberty has been infringed upon. Now he appeals directly to the sense of patriotism of his listeners by stating that they must take up arms and defend their rights.

Henry uses a rhetorical question to highlight the aggression of the British government and the improbability of a peaceful end to the mounting tensions. The colonies had, up until this point, emphasized peaceful reconciliation and desired to remain a part of the British empire if the Intolerable Acts were addressed satisfactorily. The response by the British was to either outright ignore their appeals or, as seen in the case of the House of Burgesses, remove even more rights. They also increased their naval presence after the Boston Tea Party, leading to increased friction. By sarcastically questioning the peacefulness of Britain’s intentions behind their military escalations, Henry indicates that hostilities are imminent and that the time for peace is over.

Henry is referencing the “Petition to the King,” a document approved by the First Continental Congress in October 1774. It reached British Parliament in January 1775 and was given little attention. In fact, King George never formally responded to the petition. Henry draws on the irritation colonial leaders felt towards this blatant disregard for their petition in this speech, which was given nearly two months after the petition reached Britain. The petition addressed the “Intolerable Acts,” which were passed after the Boston Tea Party as a way to penalize Massachusetts for the act of rebellion. The language of the petition offered colonial loyalty to the crown under the condition that Britain agreed to repeal the offending policies.

Henry is addressing the president of the Second Virginia Convention, Peyton Randolph. Randolph was an influential politician in Virginia from a prominent family with deep roots in the politics of the colony. He served as the speaker of the House of Burgesses until it was dissolved by the British. Due to his position as speaker of the House, he was elected president of the first three Virginia Conventions, which continued the activities of the House of Burgesses. Randolph was also the president of the First and Second Continental Congresses in Philadelphia, though illness kept him from fully performing his duties in both cases. He was known as a political moderate and he clashed with the more liberal Henry during their tenures as representatives of the House Of Burgesses. He was also the first to bear the title of “Father of the Country.”

The Second Virginia Convention convened partly to address the failure of British Parliament to respond to colonial complaints about the “Intolerable Acts.” The Intolerable Acts were a set of laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 as a reaction to the Boston Tea Party. The Boston Port Act closed Boston Harbor until the colonists repaid the king for the destroyed tea. The Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the Massachusetts Charter and brought the colony fully under British control. The Administration of Justice Act gave British officials the right to be tried on British soil, meaning that any colonists accusing British officials would have to travel to Britain for the trial as well. The Quartering Act, which went on to inspire the Third Amendment to the Constitution, gave the Royal Governors of the colonies the right to house British troops in the homes of colonists and in unoccupied buildings. The Intolerable Acts galvanized the American revolutionaries, who felt that the acts were unreasonable and oppressive. The refusal of the British government to address colonial grievances had a direct hand in the outbreak of the Revolutionary War.

Patrick Henry (1736–1799) had a reputation as a passionate and skilled orator who could translate lofty political discussions into common language. Henry’s speeches were famous for their impromptu nature and animated delivery. His candid speaking style and tendency to shape his rhetoric for the common man helped spread revolutionary ideals to the masses. By promising to speak “freely” and “without reserve,” Henry appeals to ethos by establishing himself as an honest, straightforward voice. He also establishes a sense of urgency by rejecting ceremoniousness in favor of plain, direct speaking.

“The House” refers to the House of Burgesses (1619–1776), Virginia’s legislative body and the first group of elected representatives in the colonies. The Virginia Conventions were devised after the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, dissolved the House of Burgesses in 1774 to rebuke the representatives for their support of Massachusetts after the Boston Tea Party. However, rather than accepting their disbandment, the delegates decided to continue meeting without British oversight; it is this group that Henry addresses as “The House.” The House of Burgesses continued meeting in this capacity until 1776, when it transitioned into the House of Delegates.