Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

Opinion

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

An engraving from a painting of Patrick Henry delivering an address before the Virginia Assembly. From the New York Public Library.

Getty Images, Smith Collection/Gado

In Federalist 10, explaining some of the protections of the new Constitution in 1787, James Madison observed that, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm….” The Founders defined tyranny as the legislative, executive, and judicial powers all being combined in the hands of a single individual or small group of people. So, they divided these three powers into separate and independent branches of the government that checked and balanced each other, preventing this accumulation of power. If, however, the people elected an authoritarian president and a legislature of toadies, who allowed this president to install a compliant judiciary, this protection could be lost. Hence, when asked shortly after the Constitutional Convention concluded in 1787 what the delegates had created, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Echoing Madison, the Supreme Court in 1866, in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), wrote, “Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln” as they overturned Lambden Milligan’s conviction before a military commission under martial law in Indiana during the Civil War. Milligan was charged with aiding a secret society that gave material support to the rebellion, conspiring to free Confederate prisoners, and conspiring to raid northern arsenals to come to the aid of the South. The Court’s five-member majority ruled that martial law could not be imposed in states where the civilian courts were open and functioning. Four members of the Court disagreed because state courts could be open and functioning but be in the hands of rebels. Martial law may again be tested, but more fundamental questions are how to prevent the rise of a tyrant in the first place and what remedies are available should the voters elect one.


Ignorance and superstition are fertile grounds for the rise of a dictator. The dictator will promise to bring it all under control. He/she will pander to the nation’s less-thinking and vicious actors. With their aid, he/she can become president, the legislature can be populated with toadies, and the courts packed with loyalists or otherwise deprived of their power. Independent media and press are gradually eliminated as only state-approved podcasts and other media are allowed to cover the executive and his subservient Congress and judges. Opposition leaders and parties are prevented from participation in rigged elections that maintain a democratic façade as in Russia. Loyal military leaders are installed. Public and private institutions are forced to toe the line and fire employees who dissent. The dictator may seek new territory for the nation.

A citizenry educated in American history and civics is essential. If citizens do not understand how the American government was designed to work and how they can control it, they will not trust it and will or may seek to overturn it. Citizens and leaders must understand that once the courts have finally adjudicated a matter, such as that an election was not stolen, that is to be the end of the matter.

John A. Ragosta’s recent book, For the People. For the Country: Patrick Henry’s Final Political Battle, describes how the elderly, retired, and frail Patrick Henry, who had initially opposed the new Constitution without amendments, answered George Washington’s call in 1799 to reenter politics to oppose Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky and Madison’s Virginia Resolutions. These Resolutions essentially called on states to nullify federal law, specifically the Alien and Sedition Acts, which outlawed criticizing Congress and President John Adams. Washington saw the Resolutions as threatening to destroy the nation.

In his last speech, Henry declared that overturning the government was justified only when oppression was intolerable and could not be otherwise addressed. He noted that our system allowed for offensive laws to be otherwise addressed in that they could be repealed or changed by the people’s elected representatives. He contrasted it with taxation without representation in Parliament and the ignored petitions to the King that had left the colonials with no means to otherwise address British oppression.

Patrick Henry would observe today that our system still provides a means for perceived oppression to be otherwise addressed. Should people complain that the period between a presidential election and the inauguration is too short for the court’s consideration of an election contest, there are ways to lengthen that period by a constitutional amendment to move the inauguration date or by legislation changing the date for the presidential election. Even where a “wicked man” is elected to the presidency, along with a legislature of toadies, the people can change that legislature in two years, potentially enabling impeachment, change the legislature and president in four years, and exercise First Amendment and other Constitutional protections. People can also seek protection in the courts.

Henry would presumably say today that as long as these remedies are available, they must be used. If a tyrant refused to abide by or effectively or outright terminated these interdependent rights and remedies, Henry would again declare, “give me liberty or give me death.”

Daniel O. Jamison is a retired attorney.


Read More

How Republicans May Steal the 2026 and 2028 Elections
More than 95% of all voters in the United States use paper ballots in elections.
Adobe Stock

How Republicans May Steal the 2026 and 2028 Elections

“In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote.” - Donald Trump, July 26, 2024

“I should have” seized election boxes in 2020. - Donald Trump, Jan. 5, 2025

Keep ReadingShow less
FBI Search of Reporter Marks Alarming Escalation Against the Press
The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.
Getty Images, Manu Vega

FBI Search of Reporter Marks Alarming Escalation Against the Press

The events of the past week have made the dangers facing a free press even harder to ignore. Journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort (who is also the vice president of the Minneapolis chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists) were indicted for covering a public event, despite a judge’s earlier refusal to issue an arrest warrant.

Press‑freedom organizations have condemned the move as an extraordinary escalation, warning that it signals a willingness by the government to use law‑enforcement power not to protect the public, but to intimidate those who report on it. The indictment of Lemon and Fort is not an isolated incident; it is part of a broader pattern in which the administration has increasingly turned to subpoenas, warrants, and coercive tactics to deter scrutiny and chill reporting before it ever reaches the public.

Keep ReadingShow less
Police tape and a batch of flowers lie at a crosswalk.
Police tape and a batch of flowers lie at a crosswalk near the site where Renee Good was killed a week ago on January 14, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Getty Images, Stephen Maturen

Who Is Made To Answer When ICE Kills?

By now, we have all seen the horrific videos—more than once, from more than one angle.

The killings of Renée Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti weren’t hidden or disputed. They happened in public, were captured on camera, and circulated widely. There is no mystery about what occurred.

Keep ReadingShow less
March in memory of George Floyd

Black History Month challenges America to confront how modern immigration and ICE policies repeat historic patterns of racial exclusion and state violence.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Black History Month 2026: When Memory Becomes a Moral Test

Imagine opening a history textbook and not seeing the faces of key contributors to America's story. Every February, America observes Black History Month. It started in 1926 as Negro History Week, founded by historian Carter G. Woodson, and was never meant to be just a ceremony. Its purpose was to make the nation face the truth after erasing Black people from its official story. Woodson knew something we still struggle with: history is not only about the past. It reflects our present.

We celebrate Black resilience, yet increasing policies of exclusion expose a deep national contradiction. Honoring Dr. King’s dream has become a hollow ritual amid policies echoing Jim Crow and the resurgence of surveillance targeting Black communities. Our praise for pioneers like Frederick Douglass rings empty while state power is deployed with suspicion against the same communities they fought to liberate. This contradiction is not just an idea. We see it on our streets.

Keep ReadingShow less