Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death

Henry’s speech is at its core a rallying cry for American independence. Henry argues passionately in favor of this by juxtaposing the ideal of freedom with what he characterizes as the “tyranny” of British rule. He calls on his fellow colonists to fight for the former and resist the latter at all costs, with the speech’s famous closing lines implying that freedom is more important than life itself: “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!” (85).

As a short address designed for maximal emotional impact, Henry’s speech does not belabor the meanings of either “freedom” or “tyranny.” However, contextual clues provide insight into how Henry is using the terms. For example, he argues that the colonists have a natural right to freedom, which the British government has violated by imposing unjust laws and taxes. He talks, for instance, of the necessity of “preserv[ing] inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending” (84). Henry’s rhetoric here recalls the language of the Enlightenment—particularly British philosopher John Locke’s theory of divinely ordained “natural” rights such as life, liberty, and property, as outlined in The First Treatise of Government and The Second Treatise of Government. The defense of one’s freedom is therefore, in Henry’s words, a “holy” project, as such rights derive from God.

According to Locke, governments may only place limits on freedom with the consent of their citizens. This informs Henry’s characterization of British rule as tyrannical. Certainly, Henry suggests that the particular actions Britain has taken or may take—e.g., “disarm[ing]” the colonists or placing “a British guard […] in every house” (84)—would infringe on the colonists’ rights. Henry is here referring to the Quartering Act, which allowed British troops to be stationed in colonial barracks and possibly homes, creating an impression of constant British oversight and costing the colonies money. However, the mere absence of colonial representation in the British government would have made the latter de facto oppressive to Henry, as there was no mechanism for the colonists to “consent” to British rule. Henry’s speech stresses this by shifting focus away from the British Parliament to the even less democratic British monarchy, which he associates with brute force: “These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort” (83).

The dichotomy between freedom and tyranny that Henry’s speech establishes is therefore also one of rule by law versus rule by violence. In linking freedom to the consent of the governed, Henry not only looks back to thinkers like Locke but forward to documents like the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.