Ainsley Becnel     4-20-2012

Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny

In “Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny,” Frank Freidel chronicles the life of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd and longest serving President of the United States. It covers a great amount of detail beginning with Roosevelt’s early career, concentrating on his Presidency, and ending with his untimely death in 1945 just before his greatest accomplishment was realized. The below is a summary based off the information provided by Freidel in Roosevelt’s biography, followed by a review and critique of Freidel’s work.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was born to a prominent, aristocratic family in New York.  He attended Groton, a boarding school in Massachusetts and then went on to study at Harvard. He was not the first Roosevelt to enter the political arena. Roosevelt’s ancestor Isaac Roosevelt was one of the first New York State senators and his cousin Theodore Roosevelt was President. Franklin’s deep admiration for Theodore influenced his decision to enter public service.  He began his career as a corporate lawyer and married his fifth cousin, Eleanor, who was also a big influence in his life and can even be considered an extension of his power further down the road.

Under the guidance of Theodore, Franklin ran for a New York State Senate seat in 1910 and won. Franklin immediately went to work against the Tammany Machine that dominated the Democratic party at the time which taught him a valuable lesson in how to work and deal with political opponents. Franklin then joined the Wilson administration and became  the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for seven years. The promotion kept him in the public eye and provided him with ample experience in some presidential matters. One of the most valuable experiences gained was that of managing naval warfare during the Great War. It not only gave him an important lesson to be applied in the next war, but it also put him in the spotlight as “one of the outstanding young men among the Wilsonian progressives.” Franklin also gained political and campaigning experience while running for vice president.

In July, 1921, Roosevelt received the devastating diagnosis of poliomyelitis which nearly ended his political career. He spent the majority of the next eight years attempting to combat the illness and regaining the use of his legs. As a result of his illness, Roosevelt established the Warm Springs Foundation in 1927, a safe haven for people combating polio. He spent a great deal of time at the resort over his career and even invested two-thirds of his fortune to create it. While not completely incapacitated from politics, Roosevelt slowly began to build up his political career by preparing to attain a high political office again. Al smith presented Franklin with the opportunity when asking him to run for Governor of New York. Franklin won in a landslide victory and took office in 1929. His work as Governor raised his political power and offered him the chance to run for President. Under the slogan of his “New Deal”, Franklin beat out Herbert Hoover with an electoral vote of 472 to 59. Within the first hundred days, Roosevelt had enacted nearly the entire “New Deal” plan including reforming the banking system, removing the U.S. off the gold standard, and providing relief for farmers.

As President, Franklin attempted to secure a peaceful foreign policy, but more importantly, he put into place his New Deal policies to aid in the U.S. economic recovery. When this failed to get the U.S. out of a depression, Franklin came up with the “Second New Deal” pouring large amounts of money into public works and social security. The economy did not fully recover right away, but that did not affect President Franklin’s approval rating. He was reelected in 1936 in one of the biggest election sweeps in American history carrying the electoral college 523 to 8.

President Roosevelt began his second term promoting hemispheric defense. After encountering heavy resistance to his world security measures like that of the League of Nations, he concentrated on building up home security in preparation of a war he feared was imminent.  Roosevelt also spent a considerable amount of energy attempting to reform the Supreme Court in his favor. He hoped to stack the court by adding justices who would not stand in the way of his New Deal reforms. Roosevelt did not get his way, but with a little luck was able to appoint enough justices who were like-minded.  The economy began to recover in 1937 and Franklin’s momentum with his progressive policies began to fade. He became more concerned with balancing the budget rather than standing up for blacks and the unions. He also fell short on his foreign policies by mishandling events, using covert and threatening tactics. He had enforced quarantines on Japan and attempted appeasements in the Spanish Civil War, but neither procured a better outcome.  In 1938, Roosevelt was losing momentum with his New Deal policies. Although he was victorious in the Supreme Court scenario, he was still having trouble with the Senate. He tried to purge the conservative democratic Senators who were preventing him from implementing his policies. Although unsuccessful in revamping the Democratic Party, Roosevelt did manage to reform the the executive branch’s administration by consolidating many federal agencies into single departments. 

Meanwhile, matters were growing dire in Europe due to the rising power of fascism. Roosevelt pursued peaceful actions as a deterrent from war, but none of the appeasements or quarantines quelled Hitler’s desire for power; rather, they postponed  the inevitable. When it was obvious that peaceful negotiations were not working after the Munich crisis, Roosevelt concentrated on building up the defence of the nation and aiding the democracies in Europe. He had hoped that the mass production of planes and ample aid to the democracies would intimidate Hitler from starting a war. Unfortunately it did little to discourage Hitler, and Germany invaded Poland, forcing France and Britain to declare war. Roosevelt kept the United States out of war since there was such disfavour among the population, but following the defeat of the Dutch and French armies the populace began to recognize the threat in Europe. Although Roosevelt did not formally enter the war, he continued to supply as much aid to the Allies as possible along with strengthening the U.S. military in preparation for war.

While war in Europe raged on, Roosevelt’s second term was coming to an end. He had speculated about running for a third term if Europe remained in peril, but there was a tradition against third terms that had yet to be broken. Nevertheless, Roosevelt decided to run and defeated Wendell Wilke with 449 electoral votes to 82, becoming the first and only president to serve more than two terms. Although Roosevelt maintained his favour with the public, there were still isolationists against U.S. involvement in the war making it difficult for Roosevelt to aid the Allies. Without the backing of the entire nation Roosevelt saw little hope in entering the U.S. into the war, but still vehemently pushed policies that would send armaments to the British and now the Soviet Union since Germany invaded Russia. He continued to build up the military in the face of the growing threat of the Japanese after they signed the Tripartite Pact. In an attempt to thwart Japan’s rise, Roosevelt cut off their entire supply of petroleum. As for Germany, he entered the U.S. Navy into a quasi-war with German U-boats doing everything he could, short of war. The embargo on Japan had finally made headway when they began peace talks, but it turned out to be a ruse when on December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in a surprise attack, providing a basis for a formal declaration of war.  Roosevelt had been waiting for one of the Axis powers to shoot first so that he would have a united nation standing behind him rather than a hesitant, uncertain one.

Roosevelt immediately took action mobilizing the military and organizing the government for war. After congress passed the War Powers Act, Roosevelt had more control than ever over the affairs of the U.S. He created the War Production Board in order to manage and raise productivity for wartime materials. He proposed the 1943 budget to congress amounting to an astounding 59 billion dollars. While the budget was reaching numbers higher than ever, inflation was on the rise and the public made Roosevelt aware of it. He had to deal with the problems at home as well as abroad. At one point, Roosevelt bullied congress into passing a law designed to stabilize prices of farm commodities with the threat of using his wartime powers. He fortunately did not have to follow through with his threat and attempted to stay focused on managing the war.

In the pacific campaign against Japan, Roosevelt largely left the planning and implementation to his admirals, but when it came to Germany and Italy Roosevelt was directly involved. Managing the war proved difficult for Roosevelt, especially with having to coordinate all of the United States’ military efforts with that of their Allies. When the military advisors recommended the cross-channel invasion into France, Roosevelt had to hold off because Churchill didn’t fully support the notion, rendering such an attempt futile. Lacking Britain’s full support for a cross-channel invasion, it became necessary to proceed with a campaign in North Africa. Roosevelt was determined to rebuild the French army in Africa in order to invade and push through Italy into the heart of Germany. The North African campaign was a success and gave easy access into Italy. Roosevelt and Churchill both agreed that invading Italy was a good idea based on how poorly it had fared in the war. With another win in sight, victory seemed to creep closer, paving the way for post-war talks between the Allies.

The leaders of the three great powers of the Allies , Churchill of Britain, Stalin of the Soviet Union, and Roosevelt of the United States met in Tehran to discuss the future of the weaker countries after the war. Each of the leaders had his own agenda and differing opinions on the matters that were being discussed, but they compromised with each other in order to ensure stability in the world. Roosevelt achieved his main goal of getting Stalin’s word that the Soviet Union would enter the war with Japan after Hitler was defeated, which allowed him to focus on more pressing matters at home.

Roosevelt’s third term was coming to an end and the war was not yet over. This left Roosevelt with the decision to seek a fourth term in order to insure that the war not only concluded, but that there were safety measures in place to prevent another war from breaking out. In seeking a fourth term, Roosevelt had to tread lightly on how he handled the issues on the homefront like raising taxes and a labor draft because they greatly affected the outcome of the upcoming election. He also was battling his deteriorating health with constant medical problems that were becoming more dire and frequent. With the election coming up, showing signs of deterioration would have diminished his chances of winning, which is why Eleanor and Admiral McIntire who is his? continually lied or hid the truth from the press and even Roosevelt himself. Winning the election was vital to securing a lasting peace and of such great importance that Roosevelt’s poor health was not reason enough to back down. Roosevelt was so eager to win the election that he chose his Vice Presidential candidate based solely on how many votes he would draw rather than considering who might have to lead the nation if his health continued to decline. While not his first choice, Roosevelt still used all of his weight and chicanery to make sure that Harry Truman would be nominated at the Democratic convention.

Roosevelt spent little time campaigning in 1944 compared to his three previous elections due to his poor health.  Instead, as Commander in Chief he concentrated on the war effort, planning the strategy and tactics to use in the Pacific and coordinating with the Allies. In doing so, he was still indirectly promoting himself for the election by making the public aware of his primary concern which was to win the war and maintain peace. The little campaigning that Roosevelt actually did consisted of defending himself against Republican attacks and answering difficult questions on sensitive issues. The opposition’s candidate, Senator Dewey, along with other Republicans, made multiple attempts to tarnish Roosevelt’s image by attacking his poor health and perpetuating rumors about his dog. Dewey could have used the fact that Roosevelt possessed knowledge of Japanese fleet movements before the bombing at Pearl Harbor to his advantage in the election but was persuaded against doing so by General Marshall. Dewey lost the election by a small margin in the popular vote, blaming it on Roosevelt’s dirty politics:  talking about an issue that the candidates had agreed not to mention. Regardless of how he won, Roosevelt was still President, and now that the election was over with, he was able to proceed with his plans to end the war and all future wars for that matter.

Roosevelt knew that in order for there to be lasting peace there had to be an entity that could prevent future wars.  The participation of Stalin and Churchill was necessary to create such an entity. The United Nations, as he called it, would bring together all nations into a unity that would guarantee peace based on mutual respect and cooperation. Roosevelt cemented this proposal at the Yalta conference while discussing and deciding on post-war issues such as the division of Germany, the independence of Poland, and the Soviets’ role in the war on Japan. It was the one thing that Roosevelt wanted to make sure came out of the Yalta conference, and he even conceded on certain issues with Stalin in order to achieve it.

Victory was in Roosevelt’s grasp. Not only was the war in Europe almost over, but the foundations had been established for the creation of a United Nations.  Japan was alone, with no allies left, making it easier to defeat. Everything Roosevelt hoped to accomplish in his final term seemed to be coming true. Unfortunately, he did not live long enough to witness the end of the war and the fulfillment of his plans.  Franklin D. Roosevelt died on April 12th of a brain embolism, shocking not only the entire nation but the entire world as well.

Frank Freidel used a plethora of sources to compose his biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Not only did he use Roosevelt’s memoirs, but he went so far as to include notes taken by the Chinese and even the recorded impressions of Roosevelt by an ordinary sailor. Freidel constructed the biography in a generally chronological manner by reviewing Roosevelt’s life in segments which are sometimes even divided between groupings on subject matters since there were so many significant events that occurred during his lifetime. It appears that he believed that the vast amount of information on Roosevelt was too much to ingest without organization and compartmentalization for the reader’s benefit, and perhaps for his also.  While Friedel's layout solved the problem of too much information, it also caused a great deal of confusion on how Roosevelt actually lived through his Presidency by jumping back and forth through certain periods of time again and again.

Although the overall structure lacked in delivery, the individual chapters were quite successful in conveying their subject matter. Freidel carefully organized a vast amount of detail which manages to keep the reader interested and on point even through the tedious portions of Roosevelt’s life. The story that Freidel creates through each chapter is entertaining and intriguing enough to want to read on and on, with the only link between the chapters being Roosevelt himself.  This causes frustration for the reader as the biography repeatedly jumps in and out of subject matters like that of the War, the New Deal, and the elections. The reader is required to pay great attention to the few dates that are given in order to determine how each of the chapters relates to Roosevelt chronologically. In fact, there are times when, after reading multiple chapters, there is realization that the story is not progressing onward, but rather plodding through Roosevelt’s accomplishments and failures without interrelating them, causing the reader to question the significance or purpose of including them at all.  Although Friedel refrains from providing opinions or comments throughout the biography it is obvious to the reader that Freidel is enamored of Roosevelt and is glorifying and perpetuating his legacy.

“A Rendezvous with Destiny” is an excellent biography for anyone wanting to know more about Franklin D. Roosevelt or for someone just beginning research into his history. It offers a lot of information on the events surrounding his life and the world during his lifetime but little to none on the subject himself. It is impossible to know, without actually reading the memoirs of Roosevelt, what was left out about the inner workings of his mind.  Consequently, one feels unsatisfied in trying to understand Roosevelt as a person and the true reasoning for his actions. For learning about historical facts that comprised Roosevelt’s life, this biography is more than enough, but to truly understand the significance of the events covered, the real Roosevelt, and what affect his actions had on the world beyond his lifetime, a secondary book or further study would be necessary or recommended. 

 Featured Content 

July 2, 2020 – Observed on the 4th of July as the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776

Independence Day commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 by the Continental Congress declaring that the thirteen American colonies were no longer part of the British Empire but now the United States of America. In preparation for this patriotic observance, take a read of the Declaration of Independence (printed as an appendix to the Pocket Constitution) or learn about the U.S. Flag and Great Seal.

"The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment."Warren Burger, The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence, Pocket Edition, Senate Document 116-3

Related Resources

• Purchase a printed copy of the Pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence from GPO's online bookstore. 

• Join the National Archives  for its first-ever virtual July 4th celebration.

• Learn about the Declaration of Independence on Ben's Guide to the U.S. Government. 

• Learn about the history of Independence Day from the National Park Service  and the Library of Congress. 

About Featured Content Articles – This series of articles aims to highlight content available in govinfo related to various national observances, commemorations, anniversaries and more. See more featured content articles.

 Audio

https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/day-of-affirmation-address-june6-1966

DAY OF AFFIRMATION ADDRESS, UNIVERSITY OF CAPETOWN, CAPETOWN, SOUTH AFRICA, JUNE 6, 1966

Robert F. Kennedy

University of Capetown

Capetown, South Africa

June 6, 1966

Listen to this speech.

(As delivered)

Mr. Chancellor, Mr. Vice Chancellor, Professor Robertson, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Daniel, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I come here this evening because of my deep interest and affection for a land settled by the Dutch in the mid-seventeenth century, then taken over by the British, and at last independent; a land in which the native inhabitants were at first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem to this day; a land which defined itself on a hostile frontier; a land which has tamed rich natural resources through the energetic application of modern technology; a land which was once the importer of slaves, and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage. I refer, of course, to the United States of America.

But I am glad to come here, and my wife and I and all of our party are glad to come here to South Africa, and we are glad to come here to Capetown. I am already greatly enjoying my visit here. I am making an effort to meet and exchange views with people of all walks of life, and all segments of South African opinion – including those who represent the views of the government. Today I am glad to meet with the National Union of South African Students. For a decade, NUSAS has stood and worked for the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – principles which embody the collective hopes of men of good will around the globe.

Your work, at home and in international student affairs, has brought great credit to yourselves and your country. I know the National Student Association in the United States feels a particularly close relationship with this organization. And I wish to thank especially Mr. Ian Robertson, who first extended this invitation on behalf of NUSAS, I wish to thank him for his kindness to me in inviting me. I am very sorry that he can not be with us here this evening. I was happy to have had the opportunity to meet and speak with him earlier this evening, and I presented him with a copy of Profiles in Courage, which was a book written by President John Kennedy and was signed to him by President Kennedy's widow, Mrs. John Kennedy.

This is a Day of Affirmation – a celebration of liberty. We stand here in the name of freedom.

At the heart of that western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, all groups, and states, exist for that person's benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any western society.

The first element of this individual liberty is the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest; the right to recall governments to their duties and obligations; above all, the right to affirm one's membership and allegiance to the body politic – to society – to the men with whom we share our land, our heritage and our children's future.

Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard – to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives. Everything that makes man's lives worthwhile – family, work, education, a place to rear one's children and a place to rest one's head – all this depends on the decisions of government; all can be swept away by a government which does not heed the demands of its people, and I mean all of its people. Therefore, the essential humanity of man can be protected and preserved only where the government must answer – not just to the wealthy; not just to those of a particular religion, not just to those of a particular race; but to all of the people.

And even government by the consent of the governed, as in our own Constitution, must be limited in its power to act against its people: so that there may be no interference with the right to worship, but also no interference with the security of the home; no arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties on an ordinary citizen by officials high or low; no restriction on the freedom of men to seek education or to seek work or opportunity of any kind, so that each man may become all that he is capable of becoming.

These are the sacred rights of western society. These were the essential differences between us and Nazi Germany as they were between Athens and Persia.

They are the essences of our differences with communism today. I am unalterably opposed to communism because it exalts the state over the individual and over the family, and because its system contains a lack of freedom of speech, of protest, of religion, and of the press, which is characteristic of a totalitarian regime. The way of opposition to communism, however, is not to imitate its dictatorship, but to enlarge individual human freedom. There are those in every land who would label as "communist" every threat to their privilege. But may I say to you , as I have seen on my travels in all sections of the world, reform is not communism. And the denial of freedom, in whatever name, only strengthens the very communism it claims to oppose.

Many nations have set forth their own definitions and declarations of these principles. And there have often been wide and tragic gaps between promise and performance, ideal and reality. Yet the great ideals have constantly recalled us to our own duties. And – with painful slowness – we in the United States have extended and enlarged the meaning and the practice of freedom to all of our people.

For two centuries, my own country has struggled to overcome the self-imposed handicap of prejudice and discrimination based on nationality, on social class or race – discrimination profoundly repugnant to the theory and to the command of our Constitution. Even as my father grew up in Boston, Massachusetts, signs told him that "No Irish Need Apply". Two generations later, President Kennedy became the first Irish Catholic, and the first Catholic, to head the nation; but how many men of ability had, before 1961, been denied the opportunity to contribute to the nation's progress because they were Catholic, or because they were of Irish extraction? How many sons of Italian or Jewish or Polish parents slumbered in the slums – untaught, unlearned, their potential lost forever to our nation and to the human race? Even today, what price will we pay before we have assured full opportunity to millions of Negro Americans?

In the last five years we have done more to assure equality to our Negro citizens and to help the deprived, both white and black, than in the hundred years before that time. But much, much more remains to be done.

For there are millions of Negroes untrained for the simplest of jobs, and thousands every day denied their full and equal rights under the law; and the violence of the disinherited, the insulted and the injured, looms over the streets of Harlem and of Watts and Southside Chicago.

But a Negro American trains as an astronaut, one of mankind's first explorers into outer space; another is the chief barrister of the United States government, and dozens sit on the benches of our court; and another, Dr. Martin Luther King, is the second man of African descent to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent efforts for social justice between all of the races.

We have passed laws prohibiting discrimination in education, in employment, in housing; but these laws alone cannot overcome the heritage of centuries – of broken families and stunted children, and poverty and degradation and pain.

So the road toward equality of freedom is not easy, and great cost and danger march alongside all of us. We are committed to peaceful and non-violent change and that is important for all to understand – though change is unsettling. Still, even in the turbulence of protest and struggle is greater hope for the future, as men learn to claim and achieve for themselves the rights formerly petitioned from others.

And most important of all, all the panoply of government power has been committed to the goal of equality before the law – as we are now committing ourselves to achievement of equal opportunity in fact.

We must recognize the full human equality of all of our people – before God, before the law, and in the councils of government. We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous – although it is; not because the laws of God command it – although they do; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do.

We recognize that there are problems and obstacles before the fulfillment of these ideals in the United States as we recognize that other nations, in Latin America and in Asia and in Africa have their own political, economic, and social problems, their unique barriers to the elimination of injustices.

In some, there is concern that change will submerge the rights of a minority, particularly where that minority is of a different race than that of the majority. We in the United States believe in the protection of minorities; we recognize the contributions that they can make and the leadership they can provide; and we do not believe that any people – whether majority or minority, or individual human beings – are "expendable" in the cause of theory or policy. We recognize also that justice between men and nations is imperfect, and that humanity sometimes progresses very slowly indeed.

All do not develop in the same manner and at the same pace. Nations, like men, often march to the beat of different drummers, and the precise solutions of the United States can neither be dictated nor transplanted to others, and that is not our intention. What is important however is that all nations must march toward increasing freedom; toward justice for all; toward a society strong and flexible enough to meet the demands of all of its people, whatever their race, and the demands of a world of immense and dizzying change that face us all.

In a few hours, the plane that brought me to this country crossed over oceans and countries which have been a crucible of human history. In minutes we traced migrations of men over thousands of years; seconds, the briefest glimpse, and we passed battlefields on which millions of men once struggled and died. We could see no national boundaries, no vast gulfs or high walls dividing people from people; only nature and the works of man - homes and factories and farms – everywhere reflecting man's common effort to enrich his life. Everywhere new technology and communications bring men and nations closer together, the concerns of one inevitably become the concerns of all. And our new closeness is stripping away the false masks, the illusion of differences which is at the root of injustice and hate and war. Only earthbound man still clings to the dark and poisoning superstition that his world is bounded by the nearest hill, his universe ends at river's shore, his common humanity is enclosed in the tight circle of those who share his town or his views and the color of his skin.

It is your job, the task of the young people in this world to strip the last remnants of that ancient, cruel belief from the civilization of man.

Each nation has different obstacles and different goals, shaped by the vagaries of history and of experience. Yet as I talk to young people around the world I am impressed not by the diversity but by the closeness of their goals, their desires, and their concerns and their hope for the future. There is discrimination in New York, the racial inequality of apartheid in South Africa, and serfdom in the mountains of Peru. People starve to death in the streets of India; a former Prime Minister is summarily executed in the Congo; intellectuals go to jail in Russia; and thousands are slaughtered in Indonesia; wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere in the world. These are different evils; but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfections of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, the defectiveness of our sensibility toward the sufferings of our fellows; they mark the limit of our ability to use knowledge for the well-being of our fellow human beings throughout the world. And therefore they call upon common qualities of conscience and indignation, a shared determination to wipe away the unnecessary sufferings of our fellow human beings at home and around the world.

It is these qualities which make of our youth today the only true international community. More than this I think that we could agree on what kind of a world we want to build. It would be a world of independent nations, moving toward international community, each of which protected and respected the basic human freedoms. It would be a world which demanded of each government that it accept its responsibility to insure social justice. It would be a world of constantly accelerating economic progress – not material welfare as an end in of itself, but as a means to liberate the capacity of every human being to pursue his talents and to pursue his hopes. It would, in short, be a world that we would all be proud to have built.

Just to the North of here are lands of challenge and of opportunity – rich in natural resources, land and minerals and people. Yet they are also lands confronted by the greatest odds – overwhelming ignorance, internal tensions and strife, and great obstacles of climate and geography. Many of these nations, as colonies, were oppressed and were exploited. Yet they have not estranged themselves from the broad traditions of the West; they are hoping and they are gambling their progress and their stability on the chance that we will meet our responsibilities to them, to help them overcome their poverty.

In the world we would like to build, South Africa could play an outstanding role, and a role of leadership in that effort. This country is without question a preeminent repository of the wealth and the knowledge and the skill of the continent. Here are the greater part of Africa's research scientists and steel production, most of its reservoirs of coal and of electric power. Many South Africans have made major contributions to African technical development and world science; the names of some are known wherever men seek to eliminate the ravages of tropical disease and of pestilence. In your faculties and councils, here in this very audience, are hundreds and thousands of men and women who could transform the lives of millions for all time to come.

But the help and leadership of South Africa or of the United States cannot be accepted if we – within our own countries or in our relationships with others – deny individual integrity, human dignity, and the common humanity of man. If we would lead outside our own borders; if we would help those who need our assistance; if we would meet our responsibilities to mankind; we must first, all of us, demolish the borders which history has erected between men within our own nations – barriers of race and religion, social class and ignorance.

Our answer is the world's hope; it is to rely on youth. The cruelties and the obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present which is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger which comes with even the most peaceful progress. This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the life of ease – a man like the Chancellor of this University. It is a revolutionary world that we all live in; and thus, as I have said in Latin America and Asia and in Europe and in my own country, the United States, it is the young people who must take the lead. Thus you, and your young compatriots everywhere have had thrust upon you a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived.

"There is," said an Italian philosopher, "nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Yet this is the measure of the task of your generation and the road is strewn with many dangers.

First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills – against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and 32 year old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. "Give me a place to stand," said Archimedes, "and I will move the world." These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in the isolated villages and the city slums of dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

"If Athens shall appear great to you," said Pericles, "consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men, and by men who learned their duty." That is the source of all greatness in all societies, and it is the key to progress in our own time.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs – that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities – no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. It is not realistic or hard-headed to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgement, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief; forces ultimately more powerful than all the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

It is this new idealism which is also, I believe, the common heritage of a generation which has learned that while efficiency can lead to the camps at Auschwitz, or the streets of Budapest, only the ideals of humanity and love can climb the hills of the Acropolis.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Aristotle tells us "At the Olympic games it is not the finest or the strongest men who are crowned, but those who enter the lists. . .so too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who act rightly who win the prize." I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged - will ultimately judge himself – on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

So we part, I to my country and you to remain. We are – if a man of forty can claim the privilege – fellow members of the world's largest younger generation. Each of us have our own work to do. I know at times you must feel very alone with your problems and with your difficulties. But I want to say how impressed I am with what you stand for and for the effort you are making; and I say this not just for myself, but men and women all over the world. And I hope you will often take heart from the knowledge that you are joined with your fellow young people in every land, they struggling with their problems and you with yours, but all joined in a common purpose; that, like the young people of my own country and of every country that I have visited, you are all in many ways more closely united to the brothers of your time than to the older generation in any of these nations; you are determined to build a better future. President Kennedy was speaking to the young people of America, but beyond them to young people everywhere, when he said "The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it – and the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

And, he added, "With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth and lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

I thank you.

• Tribute to John F. Kennedy at the Democratic National Convention, Atlantic City, New Jersey, August 27, 1964

• Day of Affirmation Address, University of Capetown, Capetown, South Africa, June 6, 1966

• Day of Affirmation Address (News Release Version), University of Capetown, Capetown, South Africa, June 6, 1966

• "The Image of America and the Youth of the World," with Gov. Ronald Reagan, CBS Television and Radio, May 15, 1967

• Remarks at the University of Kansas, March 18, 1968

• Statement on Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Indianapolis, Indiana, April 4, 1968

• Remarks to the Cleveland City Club, April 5, 1968

From <https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/robert-f-kennedy/robert-f-kennedy-speeches/day-of-affirmation-address-university-of-capetown-capetown-south-africa-june-6-1966>

 PATRICK HENRY

A REVOLUTIONARY

I. The Background of a Revolutionary

It is said that the truth lies in the eye of the beholder as well as that history is written by the victor. In the case of the American Revolution, Patrick Henry was the victor as well as the beholder. His faith in “natural law” and “natural rights” of man provided him with his truths while also allowing him to win over public opinion in matters of politics and philosophy. Patrick Henry's unparalleled skill as an orator and conviction regarding freedom lead to a lethal combination that paved the way for a social revolution and the termination of rule of Great Britain over the colonies. He also played a vital role before, during, and after the revolution concerning the creation of a form of government that was to be a Democracy to replace a Monarchy.

Patrick Henry was born on May 29th, 1736 in Hanover County, Virginia. His parents were not of the aristocracy in America, but they were well educated in the matters of Religion and the Classics and they shared their knowledge with their children. It is important to understand the education of young Patrick Henry because many who are influenced by the writings and opinions of Thomas Jefferson assume that Henry’s education was lacking. Thomas Jefferson assumed that Patrick Henry was not well educated portraying “him as a child of nature, one whose knowledge and insight came not from books but from intuition.” On the contrary, Henry read many books and understood them well enough to apply them to a new forming political arena. 

Patrick was well read in the Classics by his Father, John Henry, throughout his early life, while simultaneously being taught of faith and piety by his mother. John Henry was a well respected man in Hanover and was well educated back in England. John Henry not only cultured Patrick from age ten to fifteen, but he was also paid to teach other young boys in the community where he presided. Patrick learned Latin, Greek, math, ancient and modern history not only by his father, but from his uncle, the Reverend Patrick Henry. At the early age of fifteen, “he could read Virgil and Livy in the original.” Rev. Patrick Henry not only contributed to the formal education of the young Patrick, but also pressed upon him a sense of honor and obligation “to do my duty in that state of life unto which it shall please God to call me.”

 Patrick’s studies were intensive, but it was common of the era for young boys to be educated in this manner. However, his studies of religion were quite vast for a young boy in his day and this is due to the plethora of religions in which he was educated. His father was a member of the Anglican Church and an Episcopalian; his mother was a Presbyterian and quizzed Patrick about the sermons she made him attend so as to ensure his understanding of the catechism. While on these religious visits with his mother, Patrick was introduced to the Rev. Samuel Davies whose sermons were “an exalted model of oratory worthy of imitation in his later political discourses.” Due to the various religions in which Patrick’s family was involved it is understandable why Patrick was “a recognized friend of all Christian denominations and a champion of religious toleration. “ Patrick gained an uncompromising faith in God and applied his religious convictions to his career as well as his life.

II. The Development of a Revolutionary

The career of Patrick Henry, like that of many successful people, was varied and unsuccessful early on. Patrick attempted to run his own business, a general store twice in his younger days, but failed both times. It was after these failures in business that Patrick decided to pursue a profession in Law. Having failed in business, Patrick succeeded well beyond expectations in the legal profession; in fact, he excelled as a lawyer despite the lack of traditional education and training as a lawyer. Patrick Henry could not afford to be educated in the law in England, nor did he have the time to work as an apprentice of an already established lawyer. Thus, he decided to educate himself and completed the required readings for a legal education “which is said to require the lucubration of twenty years, Mr. Henry devoted not more than six weeks.” Henry finished his study of the law in a minuscule amount of time by “reading the laws of Virginia and Coke upon Littleton [which] was not too unusual among law students in colonial Virginia.”

After his legal studies and preparation, Patrick Henry was required to pass the examination administered by prominent lawyers, one of which was John Randolph. Randolph was a member of the Virginia community and was of substantial wealth and influence. He also served as Virginia’s attorney general. Randolph thought very little of Patrick Henry and only agreed to examine him after he found out that he had already passed two examiners. During the examination conducted by Randolph, Patrick surpassed Randolph’s expectations. Randolph is quoted as saying of Patrick “if your industry be only half equal to your genius, I augur that you will do well, and become an ornament and an honour to your profession.” John Randolph was so impressed with Patrick Henry’s understanding of the law that he promised that he would never again judge someone based on appearances or assumptions as he did with Patrick. After Patrick Henry became a licensed lawyer and proved Randolph’s prediction right by winning many cases and establishing a reputation befitting of a great leader. It was in this profession that Henry was able to excel to the point where he would begin a revolution of inspiration which commenced with the case of the Parson’s Cause.

The Parson’s Cause was a legal case that took place in Hanover County, Virginia. It involved a clergymen of the Anglican Church and the County vestryman. The vestryman, Thomas Johnson, was being sued by the local clergymen, represented by Reverend Maury. Thomas Johnson was responsible for paying the local clergyman’s annual salary in tobacco which was 16000 pounds of tobacco per year. The tobacco crop was used as currency in payment of a salary. Due to the circumstance of a poor harvest in 1758, the price of tobacco rose from two to six pennies per pound. In order to prevent the vestrymen from becoming bankrupt, the Virginia legislature passed the Two Penny Act, which stated that the Anglican clergy could be paid a fixed rate of two pennies per pound of tobacco, a number far below the going rate at the time. This Act caused the clergymen to receive only a third of their salaries even though the drought affecting the tobacco crop had inflated the clergy’s salaries. The Two Penny Act was eventually vetoed by King George III of Great Britain. Consequently, Reverend Maury sued Thomas Johnson for unpaid wages effectively taking the side of the British Empire.

Patrick Henry had been practicing law for over three years and his reputation preceded him which is probably why he was hired to represent Johnson. Henry could not defend the client of the accusations brought against him because the jury had been chosen only to address the question remaining as to how much should be paid to Reverend Maury. Henry argued in favor of the Two Penny Act claiming “that the King had no authority to annul the law in question, and implied that by doing so he was a tyrant.” Henry furthered his argument by declaring that the Clergy, upon the Court’s decision, should be paid, but should also be punished for challenging the law in which they were supposed to uphold. The jury deliberated and very quickly awarded the Reverend Maury one single penny as compensation. The Parson’s Cause “solidified Henry’s local reputation as an orator, initiated his reputation as an American patriot, and … revitalized his interest in the study of the law.”

Although there is no account on the exact wording of Henry’s speech on that opportune day in the Hanover County Courthouse, there was a shared response by the Jurors, the visitors, and the justices. Nearly all in the Courthouse had the same awed reaction to Henry’s unbendable logic. They witnessed in Henry, his mastery of the English language they “now recognized the presence there of a great orator.” Patrick Henry not only won the case for his client, but also won the respect of much of the populace of Virginia. The Parson’s Cause was more than just a simple case in a courthouse; it was the first public challenge to the monarchy and its power over the colonies. Henry’s speech brought great rewards, but even more important, it was an enormous risk to his life since he in fact was committing an act of treason by questioning the King’s divine right. The Parson’s Cause resulted in “the established clergy’s loss of respect in the eyes of the public and a growing spirit of dissent against the monarchy.” It is even important enough to be looked at as “the commencement of the Revolution in Virginia.”

III. The Influence of a Revolutionary

Patrick Henry had answered an unanswerable question during the Parson’s Cause; should England rule the colonies with absolute power and give them no fair representation? This question arose again in a much wider arena during the Stamp Act Crisis of 1765. The Stamp Act was a tax implemented on any official document in the colonies to generate more revenue for England. Since it was enacted on all the colonies, there was a widespread reaction of anger among many Americans. Patrick Henry had just been admitted to the House of Burgesses, joining some of the most influential founding fathers, like that of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Although it was polite at the time to allow the older members to speak in the House, Patrick Henry wasted no time in proposing the Stamp Act Resolves after just nine days of accepting his seat. The Resolves challenged King George’s right to tax the colonies and were yet another incident in which many of the House of Burgesses, including the speaker, were crying “treason,” directed at Patrick Henry as he defended the Resolves with his great oratory skills. Patrick’s powerful words were so moving that even Jefferson complimented him by saying “They were great indeed, such as I have never heard from any other man. He [Patrick Henry] appeared to me to speak as Homer wrote.” Eventually after much debate, the House passed the resolutions and many newspapers printed the Resolves. Patrick was merely twenty-nine years old and had become the most influential man of Virginia. His resistance to the Stamp Act “proved to be the ‘alarm bell’ of resistance and the beginning of the revolution.” Many states followed suit with the resolves, passing their own after Virginia. Thus by the time the Stamp Act was to go into effect, all the stamps were destroyed and no one was willing to distribute them. The Virginia Resolutions that Henry had introduced spread across the continent like wild fire and “precipitated the collapse of the imperial system of English authority in early America.”

Over the next few years, Patrick Henry played a crucial role in the Virginia Assembly and was considered a leader of Virginia. His goal “was to unite the colonial Assemblies in concerted action against the Crown.” The growing dissent between the colonies and England manifested itself with Parliament attempting to hold the right to tax the colonies and the colonies consistently resisting the taxations. The pinnacle of this battle was reached when Parliament passed the Coercive Acts which essentially stripped down the government of Massachusetts and closed the Boston Port.

In response Henry and the Virginia Assembly passed a resolution condemning Parliament’s actions. After learning of the resolution, the Governor of Virginia dissolved the Virginia Assembly. While the strain between the colonies and England kept growing, delegates were chosen to attend the First Continental Congress and among them was Patrick Henry. Patrick spoke many times during the Congress and urged that extreme measures were necessary for the colonies to unite and defeat Britain. He “showed just how keenly he understood the real meaning of the present conflict and its outcome. “ While Henry was attempting to unite the colonies and declare independence, the Congress time and again took a passive stance to the matters in hopes of reconciliation with the homeland. Patrick Henry knew that the colonies were already in a state of ‘nature’ and “that he was in advance of most men on the subject of independence” and that war was inevitable. Although Henry attempted to share his insight with the Congress, the members of Congress were too inept to take part in the bigger picture. “Henry was one of the few men willing to face the truth. While others talked of reconciliation, he encouraged preparation; while others imagined peace, he envisioned war.”

Patrick Henry was not able to convince the Continental Congress of the actions that were a necessity, but he was successful in convincing the Virginia Convention on March 23rd of 1775. During the Virginia Convention Henry took it upon himself to instigate the measures necessary for independence. He proposed a motion to enable the colony of Virginia to produce and arm a militia. Many of the other delegates believed this to be too extreme of a measure.

It was in that resistance that Patrick Henry honed his oratory skills and gave a speech that is unequaled to any other in the case of the American Revolution. The Virginia Convention addressing military preparations was already a revolutionary step, but Patrick Henry’s speech on the matter took it one step further “for down to that day, no public body in America, and no public man, had openly spoken of a war with Great Britain in any more decisive way that as a thing highly probable, indeed, but still not inevitable.” Patrick Henry took a leap of faith during the speech letting every man present know of the truth and the consequences of the action that was not only necessary but inevitable in order to attain liberty. “Forbid it, Almighty god! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Patrick Henry had cornered the Virginia Convention so that it had only one of two choices, with one of the choices being unthinkable. Patrick showed the delegates, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, that “failure to move forward . . . would be more than cowardice. It would be treason against God Himself.” Needless to say, the speech was so brilliantly executed that it turned the tide of votes in the Convention and Virginia began preparations to arm itself for war. Patrick Henry was knowingly committing an act of treason by giving the speech, but he was fiercely turning the tables on the other delegates by pointing out that their inability to act would be treason to their duty to liberty. Henry’s speech inspired the revolution that was already inside his fellow American’s and secured his stature as the leader of Virginia. His speech also represented the “fundamental importance of securing liberty, even at the risk of death.” He was unquestionably elected again to the next Continental Congress. During the Second Continental Congress, the issues that Patrick Henry raised in the first session were accepted as undeniable and the new issue was who would be in charge of the Continental Army and how would it be supplied. 

Patrick Henry was an honorable man and when he “claimed his willingness to fight, and even die, if necessary, for liberty, he meant exactly what he said.” In May 1775, Governor Dunmore seized storages of gunpowder under orders from Great Britain. Henry was elected to captain of a small group of militia men in order to retrieve the silos of gunpowder that were seized. He had no fear of an opposition and no doubt that he and his men could reclaim the gunpowder. He began to march on Williamsburg and forced the Governor to back down and compensate the militia for the missing gunpowder.

Patrick Henry was guided by his faith in the just cause of the revolution and his faith spread confidence amongst his followers. He was elected after the Second Continental Congress to the position of Colonel and commander-in-chief of the Virginia army. Although it showed how revered he was, it was short lived because Henry had no experience in war or military matters and could not gain the full trust of the officers under his command. Henry resigned his post in February 1776 in order to maintain a sense of honor. Nevertheless, many believed that his true talents lay in his political powers of persuasion, not in military strategy. Washington is quoted as saying of Henry that “I think my countrymen made a capital mistake when they took Henry out of the senate to place him in the field”

IV. The Legacy of a Revolutionary

Patrick Henry joined his family after resigning his military post, but his oratory skills and conviction of freedom were needed again during the next and most important Virginia Convention. The question at hand during this convention was that of independence and a new form of government. It was difficult for Henry to gain support of a formal declaration of independence since the delegates were hesitant. He pushed the necessity of a clear declaration of independence as an issue and was able, by his oratory skills, to convince the delegates to unanimously vote in favor of independence. This was a decisive victory for Henry as “the knot had been cut by the sword of Henry’s tongue.” Unfortunately, Henry was unable to convince them of a “certified union among the colonies, and a friendly arrangement with France.” Both of these points eventually turned out to be true and necessary showing the perfect vision that Henry had for the course of a nation. Although the Declaration of Independence was in passage to Philadelphia, Henry hastily began work on the new government of Virginia.

Patrick Henry was appointed to a committee in order to produce a Bill of Rights and Constitution for Virginia. The end result set a precedent for the future of the colonies and the liberty of the people of the United States. The Virginia Bill of Rights highly influenced the United States Bill of Rights that allows liberty to its entire people. Henry played a prominent role in the creation of the Bill of Rights and his influence is easily shown in some of the articles. The first fourteen articles were written by George Mason, but the final two are attributed to Patrick Henry. The fifteenth article was “That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” The article takes its reader to the fundamental understanding of liberty and rights and how they are applied to government. The sixteenth article which is of more importance and more ably shows Henry’s influence states “That religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion.” Henry’s upbringing put him in the center of multiple religions and it is obvious why the freedom of religion bore a special place in Henry’s heart. The above article was of such great importance to the colonies that it led to the first amendment of the United States Constitution. Patrick Henry’s influence over the new form of government had grown vastly enough that he easily achieved election as the first Governor of the state of Virginia.

Patrick Henry was a recognized leader and was dependable to do his duty. His first term of Governor was in a state of war which made things all the more difficult. Henry stood up to each challenge that the office required. He dealt with the raids by British and Indian troops while simultaneously keeping order and moral at a high level. Henry also sent many aids to the continental army as it moved around in which “much of the success . . . [and] reason for the survival, of the continental forces under Washington was due in large part to Henry’s efforts.” Henry’s efforts kept the continental army alive and “went beyond his call of duty as Virginia’s governor.” Henry absolutely believed in the cause of the revolution and it permitted him to keep on point of the important issues while he was an executive. Most people would have shrunk to such challenges, but Henry faced them with no fear and no regrets. He adamantly charged in the presence of resistance. Henry served three consecutive terms as governor and was even offered another position to the Continental Congress thereafter. He humbly refused the post due to poor health, but still maintained a presence in the Virginia Assembly and even held the office of governor again for two terms. 

Henry’s poor health affected much of his later life and influence. He was unable to compete with the requirements of a political leader, yet he never gave up trying to influence the creation of a fair and just form of government. His final act consisted of resistance towards a new federal constitution. When the Continental Congress gathered in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation, they took it one step further by completely creating a new form of government with the United States Constitution. Patrick Henry believed in “a federation of independent and sovereign states” instead of a nationalistic government who ruled over all of the new states. Henry was unwilling to give a government that much power to rule over the states and he petitioned it any way he could. He believed that what America needed “was not a more powerful government, but a more virtuous people.” This made Henry and his sympathetic colleagues the “Anti-Federalists”. Patrick Henry argued that the Congress had no right to change the government and that by “drawing power from the people and not the states, the principle of ‘federalism’ was denied and the sovereignty of the states was destroyed.” Most importantly, Henry disputed “the weaknesses of the proposed Constitution and to offer amendments to correct these defects.” Henry may have lost the battle when the new Constitution was ratified by merely ten votes, but won over the opinions of the delegates in the form of amendments to the Constitution. “As a result, the U.S. Bill of Rights found its way into the Constitution, ratified in 1791, as the fruit of Henry’s labors.”

Patrick Henry achieved a great deal in his lifetime and was able to do so with unparalleled oratory skills and an undying belief in the rights deserved by a free people. Henry was a prominent lawyer, an irrefutable leader, a devout revolutionary, and a grand Statesman. He allowed his instincts and religious beliefs to guide him through turbulent times to safe harbor. Henry never sunk into following the masses and kept his eye towards the ultimate goal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Henry was and is undermined as one of the greatest founding fathers. His achievements can still be seen today throughout the complexity that is the democracy of the United States of America.

Hayes, Kevin J. The Mind of a Patriot: Patrick Henry and the World of Ideas. Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2008.

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. Tennessee: Cumberland House Publishing, 1997.

Wirt, William. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry. Philadelphia: J. Webster, 1818.

Tyler, Moses Coit. Patrick Henry. Boston: Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1887.

Morgan, George. The True Patrick Henry. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1907.

Einhorn, Robin L. “Patrick Henry’s Case Against the Constitution: The Structural Problem with Slavery.” Journal of the Early Republic Vol. 22 Issue 4 (2002): 549-573.

McCants, David A. “The Role of Patrick Henry in the Stamp Act Debate” Southern Speech Communication Journal Vol. 46 Issue 3 (1981) 205-227.

 Currently Under Construction

noun: e-learning;

1. learning conducted via electronic media, typically on the Internet.

   "successful e-learning depends on the self-motivation of individuals to study effectively"

What is eLearning?

Understanding eLearning is simple. eLearning is learning utilizing electronic technologies to access educational curriculum outside of a traditional classroom.  In most cases, it refers to a course, program or degree delivered completely online.

There are many terms used to describe learning that is delivered online, via the internet, ranging from Distance Education, to computerized electronic learning, online learning, internet learning and many others. We define eLearning as courses that are specifically delivered via the internet to somewhere other than the classroom where the professor is teaching. It is not a course delivered via a DVD or CD-ROM, video tape or over a television channel. It is interactive in that you can also communicate with your teachers, professors or other students in your class. Sometimes it is delivered live, where you can “electronically” raise your hand and interact in real time and sometimes it is a lecture that has been prerecorded. There is always a teacher or professor interacting /communicating with you and grading your participation, your assignments and your tests. eLearning has been proven to be a successful method of training and education is becoming a way of life for many citizens in the United States of America.