So at the end of the first lecture, we were talking about how Patrick Henry wins the Parson's Cause, becomes very well known in the piedmont of Virginia and very popular, moves to Louisa County and in the spring of 1765, he is elected to the House of Burgesses, the colonial legislature in Virginia. Now, it's a very interesting time for Patrick Henry to be entering politics. We've just won the French and Indian War known as the Seven Years War in Europe. It'd gone on for years, we..., Britain gets Canada and a lot of territory east of the Mississippi. But more importantly from Britain's perspective, this war had been very bloody and very expensive. So one of the things they were going to do is ask the colonies to help pay for the war, leading to the famous slogan "no taxation without representation." But the issue is really broader than just money; it really dealt with who's going to control here in the colonies. The issue that Henry had been speaking about in the Parson's Cause. Should the King in Parliament be controlling the local legislatures. Well in 1764, Lord Grenville, who's basically the Prime Minister, suggest a stamp tax. And the idea is that this is will be a tax applied locally throughout the colonies, and it would be on various paper goods, newspapers, cards, but also wills and trusts, land deeds. It was a tax that you really couldn't avoid. It was unlike an import duty where if you didn't want to buy the goods, you could just not buy the goods. This was going to be a tax on everyone. Well, many of the colonies protested, including the House of Burgesses, sned a protest in 1764, saying that the stamp tax is inappropriate; there should be no taxation without representation. But by the spring of 1765, when Henry arrives in Williamsburg for his first term in the House of Burgesses, word is beginning to filter back from England that the tax is going to be imposed anyway starting in November of 1765. And it appears that people are going to acquiesce. We had protested; England ignores our protests. Even Benjamin Franklin who's serving as a colonial agent in London basically says there's nothing else to do at this time. That we're going to have to go along with this tax for now. Well, enter Patrick Henry. Henry's a new, young member of the House of Burgesses. He meets with a number of others. He's not acting alone. George Johnson, John Flemming, and several others, and they draft seven resolutions in opposition to the Stamp Act. The first four are relatively mild. They basically repeat what the House of Burgesses had said in the fall of 1764. But then they go on. The fifth says, the local legislature, the House of Burgesses, has the "only and sole" power to tax. The sixth says there's no need to "yield obedience" to Parliament when it adopts an illegitimate tax. We don't have to obey Parliamentary laws. And the seventh says, it's a threat to the moderates in the colonies, that anyone who supports the Parliamentary tax was "an enemy" to the colony of Virginia. Well, on May 29th, 1765, happens to be Henry's 29th birthday. Henry rose in the House of Burgesses, he's a young, relatively unknown member, to support these resolutions in oppositions to the Stamp Tax. Now, there's very few people present. There are 114 elected members of the House of Burgesses, but only 39 are there. It's spring. Many of them have gone home to manage planting on their plantations. Most of them had decided there wasn't anything else that could be done about the Stamp Act. We're going to simply have to acquiesce. But Henry wasn't giving up. He makes his speech about taxation without representation as tyranny. And then he goes on to warn, "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third,"" and once again, people called "treason, treason." He seems to be threatening regicide. He's saying that Caesar is killed by Brutus; Charles is killed by Cromwell; and George III.... And he apparently catches himself at this point and says, "may profit by their example." In other words, the king won't be as stupid as they were. He will not allow this tyranny to continue. It's not entirely clear what he says next. Some say that he says, sort of sotto voce, "If this be treason, make the most of it." Maybe, the records unclear. But what is clear is that Henry's speech once again left people spellbound. Thomas Jefferson, who is still a student at William and Mary is actually in the back of the room, listening to the speech. And he later writes that Henry "appeared to me to speak as Homer wrote." Well this is high praise for Thomas Jefferson; he's a great lover of greek classics. Now many historians dispute this record to some extent because as often happens with Henry, a lot of this is not recorded until years after the fact. And in the 20th century, we do find a record from a French traveler who happened to be in Williamsburg and happened to be in the House of Burgesses and heard this speech. And he records that Henry had threatened the king, there is the cry of treason, and Henry apologizes for having threatened the king. Perhaps, but Henry is a very capable trial attorney. One of the oldest tricks in a criminal law attorney's book, is that you say something you know you're not supposed to say, you introduce evidence that you know you're not supposed to give the jury, and when someone objects, you, "Oh, I apologize." But you know that the jury's heard it. So I don't think that the French traveler really is, in any way, dispels the history of Patrick Henry making this very inflammatory, very spellbinding speech to the people about what could happen if the king doesn't eliminate these taxes. Well, did it matter? Does Henry's speech have any effect? Only the first five resolutions passed. The four that had already been done the previous year, and the fifth one. And the fifth one only passes by one vote. So Henry doesn't even introduce the sixth and seventh. There's even a little question as to which one was the fifth, the sixth, and seventh. But Henry doesn't even introduce any more of the resolutions. Henry apparently is pleased with himself; he goes home because he has spring planting to manage as well. The next day, the conservatives in the House get together, and they basically get a vote to scratch the fifth resolution from the record, to delete it. And in fact, if you go to the House of Burgesses records, it's deleted so completely with ink, you can't even tell what the fifth resolution said. Well, Lord Fauquier, he's the Governor of Virginia, he writes back to England and says yes, these resolutions passed but there really wasn't anything to them; it's nothing new. There was some "very indecent language" used by this young attorney Henry but not to worry, nothing has happened. Well, then something amazing happens. The resolutions, not the four that are left officially on the books, but all seven, begin to appear in colonial newspapers. First in the Newport Mercury in Rhode Island, on June 24th. Then the Boston Gazette on July 1st. Then the Maryland Gazette on July 4th. Apparently someone had taken all of the resolutions, not just the four that are left on the book, and sent them to various newspapers. Well this is good politicking; it's good propaganda. We don't know exactly who did this although one suspects Henry was certainly involved. And we don't know whether they were intentionally trying to mislead. Or did they send these resolutions before the vote actually occurred, and they thought that they could get all seven resolutions passed. But the impact is very clear. Henry's oratory, like his "I am an American speech," has a very distinct political purpose. This is getting people worked up to understand that it's us against the king and Parliament. Well, people in these other colonies start to say if Virginia can do this, if Virginia can pass these resolutions saying Parliament has no authority, and if Virginia can say that anybody who pays this tax, we don't have to pay this tax, because Parliament doesn't do it and if you pay this tax you're an enemy to the colony, well, then maybe we should be doing something more ourselves. And so while it appeared in the spring as if we were going to acquiesce to the Stamp Tax, suddenly there's riots and opposition. And they tend to be centered in Massachusetts. Andrew Oliver, who's going to be one of the Stamp Act commissioners, his warehouse down on the docks in Massachusetts in Boston is torn apart limb from limb. Thomas Hutchinson's home in Boston, he was viewed as supporting the Stamp Act, probably unfairly, his home is torn apart in these Stamp Act riots. And we begin to boycott British goods. And the boycotts are very important, because we're going to get women and men both involved. Because if you're going to boycott consumer goods, you need the women involved too. And suddenly, there are huge crowds objecting to these Stamp Tax. And it's not just in Massachusetts, but it's occurring in Pennsylvania and New York, and South Carolina. Before Henry's speech and these resolutions, it looked like the Colonies were just going to swallow the Stamp Act. Franklin even says, we don't really have much choice. But this really activated the opposition, leading to a wonderful historic "what if?" question. What if Patrick Henry had gone home for his birthday and not offered these resolutions? The other thing that's happening, of course, is Henry's fame is beginning to spread through the colonies. People understand that it was Patrick Henry who had made this speech and introduced the resolutions. John Adams would later comment on Henry's resolutions saying that Henry would have "the Glory" of starting the American Revolution. After Henry's death, we find a paper with his will and so on, in which he has the seven resolutions as he introduced them. And he writes on that paper, "This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries, and gave independence to ours." A future Virginia governor talking about the Stamp Act Resolutions would say that Henry in the House of Burgesses "thundered forth the irresistible floods of eloquence which produced the American" Revolution. What a remarkable start to a political career for a very young attorney. The younger generation is beginning to assert control, and it's going to be control which is going to lead to the American Revolution.