Patrick Henry Was Right: Donald Trump, the Army, and a Growing Monarchy

“Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance?”

So thundered Patrick Henry in 1788, speaking at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in Richmond. Henry's warning passes from his time to ours, through the centuries. That message is eternal. Such is the way of great speeches. He spoke for liberty. As a lawyer, Henry knew how to look for loopholes, and he noticed a huge loophole in the Constitution. That loophole, which afflicts us this very day, is that a twisted president can apply military force to rob us of our liberty.

Patrick Henry warned that the president, in command of the army, and able to call up the militia, could at any moment become an irresistible tyrant. Looking to the future, with wisdom, insight, and fear, Henry’s words remind us in the 21st century about government’s true purpose. A government’s purpose is, he said, to protect, not prosperity, but our liberty:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

Indeed, harping on the theme of liberty, Henry made that one value his paramount goal:

“You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.”

Still, in this speech against the United States Constitution, Patrick Henry prophesied against the Constitution’s hidden dangers. He warned that the Constitution enabled the president to seize full power:

“Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority.”

Yes, he warned us about Donald Trump. President Trump recently nationalized the District of Columbia National Guard to move into Los Angeles and Washington DC and rid them of a supposed crime wave. Tennessee, a state that supported Trump, kindly dispatched its National Guard to help. Trump now threatens to nationalize the Illinois National Guard to control Chicago. This is political domination, not an anti-crime move, for Trump carefully ignores Memphis, Tennessee, St. Louis, Missouri, and Jackson, Mississippi, all of which have much higher crime rates than Washington or Chicago, but are in states that supported him in the last election. California, the District of Columbia, and Illinois, in contrast, voted for the Democratic presidential candidate and thus seem ripe for a military takeover.

Now, when we think about checks and balances, we might side with James Madison and think about how the states check the president, the president checks Congress, the courts interpret the law, and so forth. Politics, however, ultimately comes down to power: and that is why Patrick Henry alerted the young nation. He warned that it was necessary to have a check against the president’s command of military power. Indeed, he insisted, the best check was to have no president at all.

“Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress?”

That was accurate, for the United States Constitution does, indeed, empower the federal government to call up the state militias:

 

That, indeed, is exactly the constitutional weakness that Trump is exploiting at this moment. The militias (now called the National Guard) operate under state control, but the Constitution provides for the federal government to call them up.

In our own time, President Trump’s political opponents have repeatedly (and, in my view, correctly) accused him of breaking the law: of stealing government documents, encouraging an attack on the United States Capitol, and arresting people without due process. Yet, he remains free. So what? Patrick Henry warned us that no mere court ruling could be enough if the president commanded an army:

“If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him.”

Henry's comment about “Mr. Chief Justice” was pure sarcasm for, as Henry quickly explained:

“If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push?”

Is this not happening today? In our time, obedient to the president’s authority, the United States military can help Donald Trump intimidate, if not control, cities that resist him politically. It seems that the courts rule against Trump but cannot stop him. Henry’s point: a president with an army can flout the law. 

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?

Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” Speech: Greater than the Legend?

Furthermore, Henry warned, once the checks and balances break down under military force, who could stop the president as he marches to absolute power? For Henry gave the lie to the entire constitutional framework. That is, he pointed out the giant loophole in the Constitution’s checks and balances:

“But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition?”

That is why Patrick Henry condemned the presidency: for the army would obey the president as commander in chief, while the Constitution gave him power to command the militias:

“Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?”

Yes, recently, Illinois’ Governor JB Pritzker has promised to resist Trump’s military occupation, but what can he do, really? With the Illinois National Guard nationalized under Trump’s authority, the state can object but not resist. The Republicans in Congress have long abandoned any influence independent of Trump’s.

Rhetorical Flourishes in JB Pritzker's Speech against Militarizing Chicago

Now, some may say that I’m overreacting, and maybe I am. But Patrick Henry’s warning was prescient, and Trump is following the path that Henry warned about. Faced with opposition in the courts, and uncooperative behavior from Democratic states, Donald Trump has begun to abandon persuasion in favor of force: not the ballot, nor the gift of eloquence, but the power of the rifle.

No one can say that Patrick Henry lacked eloquence. He stated the danger in terms that no one could miss: “away with your President;” “absolute despotism;” “trample on our fallen liberty.”

Yet, Americans today apathetically fret over the price of eggs while a potential despot, who appears neither to understand nor appreciate the Constitution, mobilizes armies against his political enemies. Patrick Henry warned against that lukewarm attitude:

“Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe.”

Patrick Henry’s speech prophesied, and the prophesied future arrives. Let us never take our liberty for granted. The United States Constitution has served us well and might yet serve in the future. I tremble at any attempt to tamper with its noble, nearly sacred principles. All the same, the Constitution has its loopholes. A president who notices the loopholes, but who lacks a conscience, can work them to nefarious advantage. The courts cannot stop him. A Second Civil War should be avoided, for it would ravage the nation even more than the first one. Neither, however, do I wish to live under a king. The United States must remain the land of the free, and the Statue of Liberty still guards New York Harbor. Can we preserve our liberty?

Liberty. That word was, after all, Henry’s theme. Nearing his speech’s end, Henry reminded his audience – as he reminds us today – of government’s true purpose:

“The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants.”

This speech reaches to our time, for Patrick Henry’s warnings are eternal. Henry's eloquence was neither beautiful nor inspiring: no, it was terrifying. Patrick Henry knew perfectly well that the convention would ratify the Constitution. He understood that his speech was futile. Indeed, he apologized for its length. After he finished, Virginia’s Governor Edmund Randolph (who had served at the Constitutional Convention) immediately complained that the speeches had grown so long as to impede the convention’s business: “it will take us six months to decide this question.” Well, we probably have all attended meetings like that, haven’t we? So, I don’t think Patrick Henry was really speaking just to the convention. He was speaking universally. He was warning us. He warned us about loopholes. Will we listen?

by William D. Harpine

____________

N.B. Yes, like other Virginian leaders of that era, Henry owned slaves. Like most of them, he rested uneasily as to whether enslaved persons were entitled to liberty. It took a horrible civil war to settle that question. Pray that we avoid another one.

Unlike Henry's more famous "Liberty or Death," which was reconstructed many years after the speaker's death, most of this speech to the Ratifying Convention was recorded live by a shorthand reporter. Thus, we are blessed with a good text of what he actually said. 

Research note: The Belgian theorists Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca explain that an audience is best viewed as a construction of the speaker's mind. Patrick Henry was not merely speaking to the delegates, but also to the public audience that swarmed into the building. His words of universal wisdom also reach across time. So, let us not take a narrow view of what an audience is.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Portrait of Patrick Henry, US Senate, public domain

Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” Speech: Greater than the Legend?

Patrick Henry

On this date, March 23rd 1775, the future governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Patrick Henry, rose to speak at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia. Supposedly, his fire-breathing speech pounded the ear with violent metaphors:

“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!”

He ended by shouting, “Give me Liberty, or Give Me Death!”

No one questions whether Henry spoke that day, nor does anyone doubt Henry’s revolutionary fervor. The famous speech, however, is a forgery.

It is a forgery that does great disservice to Patrick Henry’s reputation. In real life, Patrick Henry, a trained lawyer, was known for a calm, reasoned style of speaking that appealed to the mind and conscience rather than to the hormones of rage. When we praise Patrick Henry as the man he never was, do we not do a great disservice to the thoughtful, creative leader that he was in real life?

Worse, how did we reach the point where we do not actually know what he said on such an important occasion?

To answer that question, we need to reflect on changes in technology and culture. Of course, in 1775, no one could make tape recordings or movies, much less iPhone videos. Most speeches were never recorded and thus were quickly forgotten. In some cases, the speaker might have had a prepared manuscript, which might or might not reflect the words that actually came out of the speaker’s mouth, and which might or might not be preserved for posterity. In other cases, a shorthand reporter might take detailed notes about the speech and produce a reasonably accurate transcript. In yet other cases, speakers would write up a text of the speech later—which might, or might not, reflect what was actually said—and publish it as a broadside or pamphlet. There was sometimes good money in that. Unfortunately for history, the group at St. John’s Church was planning rebellion and treason against the British crown, and it would have been the height of foolishness for them to keep excessively detailed records. So, they didn’t.

How do we know about this speech at all? Well, as it happens, in 1817, decades after the speech, Henry’s biographer, William Wirt, tracked down some elderly folks who had attended the speech and picked their brains to obtain their recollections. Wirt himself never met Patrick Henry. Wirt then produced a rather fanciful rendition that bore little resemblance to Henry’s character or ability. Wirt published his version of Henry’s speech in his 1817 book, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry.  On occasions when he could find accurate texts of other speeches, Wirt happily published them. We all know, however, that human memory fades and that we often remember things as we wished they had happened rather than according to what was real.

St. John's Church, ca. 1901

Wirt’s book in no way reflected the work of a professional historian or serious journalist. His book is a panegyric that turns Henry into something of a mythical patriotic figure. Indeed, near the end of his book, Wirt describes his subject as “the celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia; a man who justly deserves to be ranked among the highest ornaments, and noblest benefactors of his country.” That fawning praise is all well and good, and maybe Patrick Henry even deserved it. Unfortunately, neither Henry’s greatness nor Wirt’s admiration are substitutes for having an accurate text of his speech.

Yes, we can thank Wirt for (many years later) interviewing people who knew Henry personally and compiling details about the man’s life that otherwise might be forgotten.

At the same time, by imagining that Patrick Henry said things like “There is no longer any room for hope,” or “The next gale that sweeps from the north, will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms,” Wirt created the impression that Patrick Henry was a fire-breathing, passionate fear-monger. Wirt created a character, not a historical figure. Nothing is more at odds with what history knows about Patrick Henry’s oratory. We do have accurate texts of several of Patrick Henry’s speeches; all of them are calm, well-reasoned, and thoughtful. Patrick Henry spoke during the Age of Reason. His audience, which included future presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, could not possibly have been impressed by the rantings of a lunatic. Instead, they were concerned with fact and reason. More likely than not, in real life, that is exactly what Patrick Henry gave them. Only the murkiness of the past led anyone to think otherwise.

On a future occasion, I hope to write about one or more of Patrick Henry’s real speeches. In the meantime, it does a great disservice to Henry’s memory to portray him as the overwrought creature of a later, more romantic age. The founders of our republic, who were well-versed in political theory and history, were interested in creating a sound, well-governed republic. When we honor the United States of America’s founders, let us not join Wirt by imposing upon them the values of a less rational era. These people were leaders, not seething demagogues. Today, in the 21st Century, the partisanship against which those men often warned threatens to tear our nation to pieces. This would be a good time to harken back to the values of reasoned, calm, and logical discourse. 

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?

___________________

P.S. In an important research article, my distinguished colleague Judy Hample argues that “Liberty or Death” has “cultural authenticity” even though it lacks “textual authenticity.” What do you think? Feel free to comment below.

Images: U. S. Senate, via Wikimedia Commons; Library of Congress, via Wikimedia Commons.