His younger sister's name is Deborah Bonham and he had a spn with the same name.
He died of stomach cancer on June 6, 1799.
Actually, he was suffering from stomach cancer so he took a dose of mercury medicine to kill himself. He died within two two hours.
Patrick Henry was a headstrong and determined political figure. He was the governor of Virginia and was a powerful speaker and leader for America.
Virginia Colony joined the other twelve in war, so I'd say that his speech did what he meant it to.
not good smiles because colonist said it was treason.
He was as pleased as punch.
"Give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry.
"I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry.
"If this be treason, make the most of it!" Patrick Henry.
America would probley not be affected that much, Germany would have taken most of Europe, but it would have taken a couple of years to take Russia completely, even if the Germans had won, they would have to spend millions, if not billions to rebuild and recover from so many losses, their empire would collapse and the resistance of the ussr, Britain, and France would prove too much for the Germans to handle, they would pull back to Germany and the long war would end in a stalemate.
We would most likely be taken over by Nazis!
Great comment #1. Absolute hit. Dear Jaded, please be informed that by June '44 Russia had recaptured most of the territory occupied by the Nazies and was building up its military potential rapidly. Less that 1 year later, Berlin was taken by the Soviet troops (ever seen this picture:http://English.pravda.ru/main/18/87/347/9934_victory.HTML). A 'D-Day' was no more important than a mosquito's bite in elefant's skin, pardon the allegory. The Red Army could have occupied the whole of Europe by, say, Autumn '45. I'm not saying this would have been good, but this was definitely possible.
The USSR could have easily beat the Axis powere on their on. We would have seen the USSR invade Europe from the East, and the British and its Empire would land in Sicily on their own, only later on, perhaps 1945-1946. The USSR would have been free to dominate Europe, with Britain and France over-shadowed. Britain beat the Japenese in Burma hands down in 1944-45, but I expect the USSR,as it did in real life, would have declared war on Japan and taken the place of the USA in laying down Japans post-war sanctions. Instead of a Nazi dominated Eurasia, we would be living in a Soviet dominated Eurasia, and probably Africa by the sixties-seventies, too. The USA would be in the second place that the USSR held in real life in the cold war.
Firstly remember this ...Japan would have attacked the USA regardless of the state of play in Europe in 1941. And the USA would have responded,and Gemany and Italy would have declared war on the USA in support of Japan ( Treaties)War for the USA was unavoidable. Secondly to those amongst you who belive that the USSR would have still beaten Nazi Germany, if the USA had not entered consider this.. The UK was, in late 1941, still very much in the war. It had stood firm against the threat of invasion (again), its commonwealth allies where fighting with her in Africa, the Middle east and Greece,and it was buliding its strength. Hitlers biggest single mistake throughout WWII was to turn on the USSR while leaving a Trouble-some and increasingly belligerent Britain behind him, He(Hitler) could not ignore the UK, and significant forces had to be commited to keep the pressure on the island nation. Had Germany been able to crush the UK in 1940, then Hitler would quite easily have found himself reviewing his troops in Red Square, instead he was thrown back when only 100miles short of the Russian capital. There are many Nations today who owe their continuance to a 26 mile wide stretch of water called THE ENGLISH CHANNEL.
probably the usa would under pressure to race for the atomic weapons. since we were the firt to bomb hiroshima and nagasaki. well Germany probably would have gained atomic weapons. we wouldn't because we have no reason to since we never entered ww2
Germany would of took control of every country in Europe. British troops would of been smashed with no mercy, absolute power over Europe would be in Adolf Hitler's hands. USSR is another question that should be asked, with it's great numbers of troops, tanks, rockets etc. Germany and the USSR would of fought for decades.
it probably wouldn't have affected America that much actually. They may have remained isolanist instead of getting very involved in other countrieS like they have since WWII and countinue to do today. However it would've affected the rest of the world although i agree with people the Nazis would've eventually been defeated by the Soviets even without American help but it would've taken much longer. It also depends if America aided the allies or completely stayed neutral, if America was totally neutral then Germany may just have conquered all of Europe and most of the rest of the world, if they didn't fight but gave aid to Britain and the soviets than the Nazis probly eventually woulda been defeated by say 1950 at the latest. The soviets probly woulda taken over all of Europe and made an agreement with England after defeating Germany meaning the Soviets likely woulda controlled all of Europe leaving England very vunerable as the only non communist country in Europe. The US and England probly eventually woulda launched an operation similar to D-Day to try to free Europe from the Soviets later on
I believe that without the united states industrial contributions russia would have not been able to defeat the Germans on there own. Americas lend lease policy helped russias troops have the best air and land equipment available surprising the Germans and boosting the red armys morale tremendously.
I am truly very sorry for your loss. I doubt there are any words of comfort I can give at this time that will help ease your pain.
You are one of the few fortunate people that had a great relationship and a wonderful wife, but then you must be some kind of wonderful yourself. Let yourself grieve for however long it takes as it's healthy. Don't allow family or friends push you into other relationships until you are ready. The pain of grief you are feeling is like someone has pulled your heart right out of your body and everything reminds you of your wife. The loneliest time of your life is at night when you are alone with yourself. In time you will realize how fortunate you were to have whatever time you had with her and there are those wonderful memories. You will never replace this wonderful lady that was in your life, but in the future you will meet someone else and I'm sure she'll end up being a very close second to your lovely wife.
Only another person(s) who has gone through this loss can possibly understand how you feel. I suggest you join a "Grief Counseling Group" in your area and meet other people in the same circumstances. Men and women go to these meetings and it helps a lot to know you are not alone and eases the pain. There is great strength in these groups and I know you will get some comfort from them as well as a back-up system when you are feeling very down and lonely.
If you can post on this board again and leave the town/state you are in I would be happy to look up "Grief Counseling Groups" for you.
Remember, your wife really isn't gone and I am sure she is around you and she never really has passed away because she is in your heart and the hearts of family and friends. For each person we touch we leave an imprint on those lives and help people strive to become better human beings. It sounds as if your wife was one of these people that spread love, laughter and kindness throughout your lives. Keep the torch burning and continue with what she has instilled in you.
God Bless MarcyAnswerHello Marcy,
I lost my Loving Wife in the month of March, 2005. It was a sudden shock for myself and the entrire family. I have never in my entire life experienced such pain in my heart as have been going through.
I have felt as though I was not going to make it much longer!
We live in Lithia Springs GA. I do feel like I am the need of counseling.
I know my Wife is happy in HEAVEN. But I really wish that I had her here with me and the kids.
I pray to God everyday for strength and patience
Thank you for your positive words.
Well I truly am sorry for your loss, but your wife only wants you to be happy. So I suggest that you should just move on with life, go get another girl, BUT NEVER FORGET THE ONE YOU TRUELY LOVED. Your wife.... Never forget her... But be happy because I am sure that's what she wants!
a total of 17 kids in his first marriage he had 6 kids with Sarah Shelton an in his second marriage with Dorothea Dandridge he had 11 kids
Colonists could be taxed only by colonial assemblies.
He was a firm believer in states rights. He declined to attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787 saying he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy." Henry was an outspoken critic of the United States Constitution and led the Virginia opposition to its ratification arguing that it gave the federal government too much power and that the office of the Presidency could develop into a monarchy.
Most people interested in hula know that missionaries in the islands in the 1800s considered hula an "abomination" and preached vehemently against it. But few people know that their influence in government actually resulted in the enactment of laws that restricted the practice of hula for nearly a half-century. What were these laws? Were they ever repealed? Before addressing those questions, a little background is necessary. Prior to the Protestant missionary's arrival in 1820, hula was an integral part of everyday life. Some dances were sacred and could be performed only by selected individuals, while others were enjoyed by the population at large. Hula was one of the primary forms of Hawaiian artistic and religious expression. Its status was radically altered with the arrival of New England missionaries, whose ultraconservative religious sensibilities were severely shaken by the sight of "half-naked heathens" engaging in "lewd and lascivious" dances. Hiram Bingham, leader of the first group of missionaries, wrote that practically the entire Hawaiian population was "wasting their time in learning, practicing or witnessing the hula, or heathen song and dance," instead of tending to fields and families or attending church services. The preaching did not fall entirely on deaf ears. Kuhina Nui (regent) Ka'ahumanu, co-ruler with King Kamehameha II, was an early convert to Christianity and in 1830 issued an oral edict making hula forbidden, along with chants (olioli), songs of pleasure (mele), "foul speech and bathing by women in public places." Since written laws had not yet been instituted, the edict carried the full measure of traditional Hawaiian law (kapu), possibly to the extent of banishment or death for noncompliance, although Ka'ahumanu never issued such consequences. But after she died in 1832, her edict was largely ignored, and the people once again indulged in hula openly, although cautiously. According to noted Hawaiian historians Dorothy B. Barrere, Mary Kawena Pukui and Marion Kelly in their book "Hula Historical Perspectives," "Missionary influence, while strong, never wiped out the hula as a functional part of the Hawaiian society. Faced with this undeniable fact, the authorities sought to curb performances by regulation." The first written laws were enacted in 1840, but it was not until 1851 that the first law pertaining to hula was instituted. In that year the legislature adopted "An Act to Provide for the License of Public Shows," which required a license for any "public show, theatrical, equestrian, or other exhibitions of any description" for which admission was charged. The law did not specify a fee for the license, but did say that anyone found without one could be arrested and fined up to $500. It is interesting to note that the public display of hula was seen in the same light as certain questionable "theatricals" and "public shows" being promoted throughout the United States and Europe by master showman P.T. Barnum, with his traveling show of "human curiosities and circus wonders." Barrere and the others state that the hula performed for money was designed for an audience more "uncouth" than was traditional. "Many, if not most, of these dances were far from being stately, or dignified, or graceful hula performed for visiting dignitaries, and some were part of the repertoire of those dancers who performed for transient sailors, especially during the visits of the whaling fleets." The 1851 law did not regulate hula in private, so the dance continued to be practiced and enjoyed throughout the islands. In June 1858, in an attempt to extend the reach of the law, the Hawaiian Evangelical Society -- composed entirely of missionaries -- submitted a letter to Prince Lot Kamehameha, then minister of the interior, to plead for change. The letter described hula as "a very great public evil, tending ... to demoralize the people ... to divert them from all industrial and intellectual pursuits ... to lay waste their fields and gardens by neglect ... to interfere materially with the prosperity of the schools; to foster poverty and distress among the people." The missionaries' belief that Hawaiians should be participating less in hula and more in cultivating the land was shared by most of the sugar barons, who were struggling to obtain Hawaiian laborers. It was not that the Hawaiians refused to work, but that foreign diseases had decimated the work force. Opponents of hula did not quite achieve the impact desired -- an outright ban -- but their efforts did result in further legal restrictions. In 1859 the 1851 law was amended to include a $10 charge for a license -- a very large sum at the time. The penalty for violations was a fine of up to $500 and imprisonment of up to six months at hard labor. In a further attempt to restrict access, public hula was allowed only in Honolulu. In an article published in the Hawaiian Journal of History, "The Political Economy of Banning the Hula," Noenoe Silva, an assistant professor in political science at the University of Hawaii, sites six court cases that tested what constituted "public" hula. All the cases involved dancing at private residences where money was given to the host family or dancers. The first case was in 1863 on Kauai, when eight men and four women were convicted and fined $3 each. The case was appealed and the convictions overturned. Presumably, dissent from the Hawaiian community over the next five years put pressure on the Legislature to change or abolish these laws. In 1864 the penalty for performing hula commercially was reduced from a maximum $500 to a maximum $100, and possible imprisonment was reduced from six to three months. In that same year, on Kauai a man was convicted of dancing hula and fined $5. In 1866, four men and one woman were convicted on Kauai -- one man was fined $10; the rest, $5. In 1867 one man went to court but was acquitted, and in 1868 one man on the Big Island was convicted. In 1870 the fee for a license was reduced from $10 to $5, and the requirement that all commercial hula be restricted to Honolulu was repealed. In 1872 yet another case came before the court. As reported in the newspaper, eight people were arrested and arraigned in the Police Court on a charge of "promoting ... and abiding and assisting ... at a Hawaiian hula." A plea of not guilty was entered on behalf of the defendants, on the grounds that it took place in a private home. The article indicated that the case had "aroused much public interest" on both sides of the hula debate and that people were anxious to hear the ruling of the police magistrate so they could "understand what is actually the law of the land." A little more than one month after the incident, the newspaper published Police Magistrate Montgomery's ruling in Rex v. Kaluaioahu. He found all nine people innocent. His ruling was based largely on a witness's testimony that the dancing occurred at a child's first-birthday party in a private home. The child's grandmother "sat on a mat ... and gathered sums of money thrown to her ... that the sums contributed were free gifts and not a tax or charge, and that ... $80 may have been collected; that all the nine respondents took part in it, sitting on the floor and monitoring with their hands, and never performed standing." This case seems to have put the issue of what constituted public and private hula to rest, but the law of 1870 stayed in effect until 1896, three years after the overthrow of the monarchy, when it was finally repealed. According to Silva, this was largely due to the fact that "lawmakers of the new republic wanted to open Hawaii to more tourism, and they saw commercial hula as one means to do that." Today, hula is practiced freely and openly throughout the world. What a different Hawaii it would be if hula had been legally extinguished.
Patrick Henry and George Mason opposed ratification because they were Anti-federalists.
Patrick Henry was not a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1776, so he did not sign the Declaration of Independence. He also did not sign the Constitution in 1787. He refused to attend the Constitutional Convention because he was suspicious of Federalist aims to create a powerful central government.
== == == == == ==
the delegates of the second virginia convention
yes he was married he married to Dorthea Dandbride and Sarah Shelton. Sarah Shelton was his first wife but she died with the birth of child. Cool right?
by giving his speech
Patrick Henry made a speech denouncing the Stamp Act in the Virginia House of Burgesses on May 29, 1765. In response to cries of "treason" in the midst of his speech, Patrick Henry declared: "If this be treason, make the most of it."
Yes, Patrick Henry was an anti federalist
Patrick Henry opposed the Stamp Act in 1765 and was one of the early leaders of the Revolution, along with Samuel Adams and Thomas Payne. He is noted for his "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" speech. He was the first post-colonial governor of Virginia from 1776 to 1779 and served again as the 6th governor from 1784 to 1786. From 1780 to 1784 he served in the Virginia assembly. He was opposed to the new Constitution, arguing that the President would have too much power. He was also a lawyer and a planter.
What is pokediger1s password on roblox?
Asked By Wiki User
What is 103.468 rounded to the nearest liter?
Asked By Wiki User
What is 8 divided by 2(2 plus 2)?
Asked By Wiki User
Where is one most likely to find rocks that have become smooth and rounded?
Asked By Wiki User
How will Patrick Henry feel about the new constitution?
Asked By Wiki User
Was Patrick Henry a rebel?
Asked By Wiki User
What was the final result of Patrick Henry's speech?
Asked By Wiki User
How would America be different if the railroad was never built?
Asked By Wiki User