Article Images
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 220: As historian [[Richard Beeman]] put it, Henry was a man who "did not bother to write much of anything down", a handicap when being evaluated by history.{{sfn|Beeman|p=302}} The lack of primary source materials regarding Henry—only a handful of papers and a few of his speeches survive—has frustrated Henry's biographers from Wirt (1817) to Beeman (1974): Wirt commented two years before publishing his book, "It is all speaking, speaking, speaking. 'Tis true he could talk—Gods! how he ''could'' talk! but ... to make the matter worse, from 1763 to 1789 ... not one of his speeches lives in print, writing or memory".{{sfn|Beeman|p=301}} Beeman, for his part, concluded, "the Revolutionary firebrand, whatever his achievements, possessed a miserable sense of history".{{sfn|Beeman|p=301}} This was a deficiency not possessed by Jefferson, who not only survived Henry by a quarter century, but who got to fill the vacuum of information about Henry with his own recollections and opinions.{{sfn|Beeman|pp=301–302}} Wirt did not print many of Jefferson's criticisms of Henry, who had irritated Jefferson to such an extent he was still criticizing Henry to guests at [[Monticello]] in 1824.{{sfn|Kidd|pp=246–247}} Jefferson's negative assessments of Henry, whether justified or not, have adversely affected Henry's historical reputation.{{sfn|Beeman|p=302}} Henry has always been acclaimed by Americans for the brilliance of his political oratory.{{sfn|Kidd|p=247}} Kukla wrote, "Henry explained the Revolution to ordinary men and women through America in words they understood—and inspired them to fight for liberty."{{sfn|Kukla|p=394}} Mayer argued, "Henry had forged a popular and partisan political style whose democratic implications took another generation to realize fully and accept. His career pointed the transition from the political squirearchy of the eighteenth century to the mass politics of [[Andrew Jackson]]'s day".{{sfn|Mayer|p=474}} In his study of Henry's oratory, David A. McCants suggested that Henry's position as great American orator of his day was not so much because of his "heroism and eloquence" but for adapting the clashing philosophies, religious and political, that met in Henry's Virginia, to create a new style of oratory that appealed to the masses.{{sfn|McCants|pp=3–5}} According to Tate, "by his unmatched oratorical powers, by employing a certain common touch to win the unwavering loyalty of his constituents, and by closely identifying with their interests, he almost certainly contributed to making the Revolution a more widely popular movement than it might otherwise have become".<ref name= "a" /> Kidd argued that the historical focus on the quality of Henry's oratory may result from a discomfort with the content of his speeches, especially his opposition to the Constitution.{{sfn|Kidd|p=247}} During the Civil War era, both sides claimed Henry as a partisan, [[abolitionist]]s citing his writings against slavery, and those sympathetic to the Southern cause pointing to his hostility to the Constitution. That opposition by Henry came to be seen by many writers, even those friendly to Henry, as a blot on an otherwise admirable career.{{sfn|Kidd|pp=247–249}} Beeman, writing in 1986, just before the Constitution's bicentennial, predicted that during that anniversary, "it will be hard to avoid depicting Henry as one of history's losers, as one too short-sighted to see beyond the bounds of his own native state to glimpse the promise of national greatness embodied in the federal Constitution."{{sfn|Beeman|pp=302–303}} | |||