Scholars: It is good to read examples of analytical writing because it helps you understand how to write your own analysis essays. The habit of reading and studying models (examples) is the best way to learn how to write more effectively. Below is an analysis that I wrote on Patrick Henry's Speech in the Virginia Convention.
MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. [Patrick Henry begins by complimenting the previous speakers in the Convention, establishing his good character (ethos).] But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. [With diplomacy and aplomb, Henry shows that he respects those with whom he disagrees. He uses the metaphor of seeing a subject in "different lights." This light metaphor will appear again within the speech.] This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. [Henry's words add to the serious tone of the occasion, persuading members of the Convention that they should consider the matter of breaking from their mother country deeply, as well as listen carefully to what he is about to say. Henry captures the attention of his audience.] For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. [Henry establishes a "binary" argument. Establishing an argument where you offer only two choices is actually a logical fallacy. There are always more than two choices in a debate. However, binary arguments are clever because the speaker/writer has a fifty percent chance that the audience will side with him.] It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. [Henry makes an emotional, religious, and ethical appeal here, knowing that many in his audience believe in God (common ground), and therefore will be persuaded.] Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. [Henry is establishing his patriotism and moral commitment (ethos), eliciting respect.]
Mr. President, [This is the president of the Convention, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg, not the president of the United States, which did not yet exist] it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? [Henry presents a convincing psychological truth--that most human beings are averse to uncomfortable realities. His doing so appeals to the logic of his audience (logos). He also uses figurative language--"illusions of hope"--and the allusion to the crew of Odysseus who were lured by the sirens to an island, Circe's home, where they were changed into pigs. This reference is clever because he knows that the members of the Convention were educated in the Greek classics. In addition, the implication is that if the colonists continue to appease King George III, they, in a sense, will be mere swine.] Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? [Henry makes great use of rhetorical questions throughout his speech. The previous rhetorical question that cites the "arduous struggle for liberty" is logical and ethical as the idea of liberty was the zeitgeist of the Enlightenment, the time in which this speech was delivered. The latter rhetorical question is a biblical allusion; again Henry is appealing to the common ground of a shared belief in Christian principles, as well as the classical educations of his audience members.] For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. [Henry establishes his bravery and willingness to endure harmful realities for the sake of truth (ethos).]
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. [Again, the light imagery is used eloquently to make the logical point that human beings must make decisions based on past experience--a point that is difficult to argue with. After all, only through our experience do we know how to handle future situations.] I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? [Using logos and rhetorical questions, Henry makes a strong argument by citing the actions, actually lack of actions, when the colonists implored King George, III, for fair treatment. Note his use of the loaded descriptor "insidious smile" to remind the colonists that King George and members of the British Parliament are not to be trusted.] Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. [In perhaps the most famous instance of betrayal in Western history, Henry alludes to Judas kissing Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, a sign to the Temple guards that Jesus was the sought-after insurrectionist against the Roman state. This allusion would have been particularly emotive (pathos) to the members of the Convention.]
Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? [Using reason (logos) in this rhetorical question, Henry points out the obvious--why would "friends" have navy ships with cannons pointed in their direction, and an army with guns walking the streets in the homeland of the colonists?] Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. [This exhortative marks a shift/transition in Henry's speech. He moves from establishing the context for his argument with sentences that are mostly suggestive to a more defiant and assured tone. His argument becomes explicit rather than implicit. His self-assured statements that follow will be taken more seriously because he has already established ethos. Had he begun his speech without laying the groundwork for his central argument, his speech would lack the potency that is now created.] These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. [The cadence of the speech (its rhythm is now becoming faster), with rapid-fire rhetorical questions followed by definitive retorts to his own questions, increases the tension and excitement among his audience. The loaded words “subjugation” and “submission” are likewise powerful.] They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. [Notice the imagery of slavery--"bind and rivet . . .chains" that Henry is utilizing. Slavery was a contentious, provocative issue among the colonists at this time. Henry makes use of the cognitively dissonant issue, and it is likely that the emotional punch of slavery is now being transferred to the colonists themselves. Effective speakers and writers allude to contemporaneous subject matter as vehicles for transporting people emotionally (pathos).]
And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. [The sentence structure/syntax is becoming shorter and more punctuated, as if to imitative the staccato rhythm of war drumbeats. Good rhetoricians are acutely aware that effective persuasion is created not only by words, but also by sound quality (cadence).]
Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. [Great orators have always made use of Nature imagery. Henry is no exception when he uses the metaphor of a storm for the coming war.] We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. [With fine use of parallel structure and punctuated, abrupt rhythm created by the semicolon, Henry continues to escalate the tension of his speech. He also uses the loaded word, "tyrannical," to further define the British government. In order to persuade the colonists, he is, in a sense, demonizing the English officials. In fact, his argument is a bit fallacious, as many in Great Britain were not "against" the colonists. In fact, some had great sympathy for their cause, but if Henry were to acknowledge such concord, he would weaken his own argument, and cause some in his audience to continue resisting a break from the motherland.] Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. [The punctuated fast rhythm continues with sentences that increasingly contain loaded language--"slighted," "violence and insult," "disregarded," "spurned," "contempt," "the foot of the throne." Henry is also answering the counterarguments that colonists have--"Shouldn't we try more diplomacy? . . . Perhaps King George can still be persuaded?"] In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. [Henry echoes the "illusion of hope" quote from earlier on. Good orators return to former images and metaphors in their speeches (this is called using tropes). The repetition adds to the strength of the ideas behind such figurative language. With each repeated image or metaphor, the audience is emotionally moved.] There is no longer any room for hope. [Henry states as fact that there is no possibility of reconciliation. His short declarative statement is commanding since it comes after he has, as a good lawyer always does, supported his argument with well-founded evidence.]
If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! [Henry makes excellent use of a periodic sentence with a series of anaphoric "if" clauses, creating suspense and excitement that builds to his crescendo declarative clause.] I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! ["I repeat it, sir" affirms Henry's bumptiousness, with the "sir" mitigating any perceived arrogance because it is a term of respect. Just as President Lincoln did in his Second Inaugural Address years later, Henry invokes God and the cause of righteousness. A great higher power is on the side of the colonists--"God of Hosts." Again, Henry is effectively appealing to the religious sentiments of his audience. His statement makes great use of both pathos and ethos.]
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? [Escalating the rapid pace of his speech toward its climactic close, Henry provides a flurry of rhetorical questions that anticipate the counterarguments of those in his audience.]
Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. [His reasoning is sound (logos). Henry provides ample support for acting now, rather than later. He also continues to frame his argument in terms of a higher cause--"God of nature," "holy cause of liberty" (ethos).] Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. [Henry riles up his audience members, complimenting them with "vigilant," "active," and "brave." He is appealing to their better angels, raising their spirits and lifting their confidence (pathos). And what better ally could one have than God? he suggests.] Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. [Lest anyone in the Convention still harbor doubts, Henry convincingly states that there is really no choice at this point. In the following sentences he makes references to skirmishes that have already occurred in the Northern colony of Boston. The fact is that the war has already begun.] There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! [Again, Henry uses the trope of slavery. The exclamatory sentences continue to build the excitement.] The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. [Through his confident, brave tone, Henry shows that he is a leader (ethos) and implies that others should follow his example.]
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! [Henry continues to reinforce his argument by responding to any doubts the members of the Convention are feeling. He also utilizes Nature imagery again with the storm trope.] 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? [The speech is closing; the cadence continues to become more punctuated through short rhetorical questions that are logically sound. He inserts, yet again, the metaphor of slavery, adding to the pathos of his argument.] Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! [Henry concludes with a wonderful aphoristic statement that will long be remembered because of its emotional impact and conviction. It is interesting to note that those present at the Convention said that Henry flourished an imaginary dagger, which he "plunged" into his chest. Today, such a dramatic gesture might be off-putting and deflate an orator's argument, but at the time, such dramatics would have elicited a highly emotional response in the audience. Which it did, as Henry's argument to go to war with Great Britain was a success. At the time of his famous speech, the colonists were divided about 50/50. After Henry's Speech in the Virginia Convention, the decision to break away from Great Britain was made.]
Background Information for the Speech
Patrick Henry delivered this speech on March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond Virginia, where 122 delegates were meeting. He spoke with notes, and there is no written record of the original speech in existence. The present text is a conflation of three people--Patrick Henry, Judge Tucker (a federal judge who claimed to have been present when the speech was delivered), and a biographer of Henry named William Wirt, who interviewed Judge Tucker. The fact that the speech ended with the famous quote, "Give me liberty or give me death" is most likely historically accurate, but the veracity of the other parts of the speech cannot be confirmed with certainty. It is likely, however, that much of the language, especially the imagery, is authentic, as people tend to well remember emotive words and figurative language. The fact is, however, that this speech was reconstructed from memory sometime between 1805 and 1815 (over thirty years later) while Henry's biographer, Wirt, worked to finish his book with the assistance of Judge Tucker.
The information in the above background
paragraph was culled from Lend Me Your Ears, by William Safire, an
excellent guide to some of the greatest speeches in history.
