Richard Henry Lee, Rhetoric and Rebellion


Statement of Purpose and Method

“The Virginians speak in raptures,” John Adams wrote in 1774, “about Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry—one the Cicero and the other the Demonsthenes of the Age.”1 While posterity remembers many of Patrick Henry’s words because of his skilled biographer William Wirt, many Americans have largely forgotten the “Cicero” of their revolution.

If Lee is recalled at all, he is remembered as the man who moved for independence, Robert E. Lee’s great-uncle, or the leading writer in opposition to the United States Constitution in 1787. His role as a leader in pre-revolutionary Virginia and the Continental Congress ahs remained little known and less understood.2 Some historians and biographers have referred to Lee as a radical, one of a group who gained control of colonial legislatures during the Stamp Act crisis and led Americans into revolution by skillful political maneuvering.3 No doubt, Richard Henry Lee, who served continuously in the House of Burgesses from his first election in 1758 until it no longer existed, played a role in leading Virginia to war. But he was not a flaming radical opposed by a majority of respectable citizens. On the contrary, his selection to speak for Virginia in the congress of the colonies was popular among that colony’s leaders and their constituents alike.4

Indeed, Richard Henry Lee realized his aspirations to political leadership primarily by conforming to the role expectations of his society. He rose to prominence because he recognized the attitudes expected of leaders in his society; he reflected those attitudes; he never hesitated to capitalize on opportunities to defend them; consequently, in 1774, the men who controlled Virginia society chose Lee to represent Virginia at the First Continental Congress because they knew he did, in his life, represent them.

Two basic procedures will be followed in this study: description of the leadership role in Lee’s society and of Lee as he performed that role; description and analysis of Lee’s rhetoric in controversial issues between his entry into the House of Burgesses in 1758 and his selection as delegate to the Continental Congress in 1774. The classical rhetorical canons as defined and modified by research in communication, persuasion and social psychology serve as the method of analysis.5 From the classical period, rhetoric has meant the study of persuasion, a word variously used to denote the purpose of a speaker, a process, or the effects in receivers.6 Persuasion as used in this study of Lee’s rhetoric will refer to process, that process of communication by which agents induce changes in the behavior of others who participate with them in communication transactions.7

Three specific contributions of behaviorist research to the theory of human communication aid in understanding this definition of persuasion: awareness that communication is a process; thinking of the participants in the process as source and receiver instead of primarily as speaker and audience; and categorization of source stimuli as verbal and nonverbal. These insights broaden understanding of the means by which persuasive effects in receivers are achieved. To view persuasion as an interaction between speaker, audience and occasion is not new. The concept of process, however, emphasizes interaction rather than the static elements. Moreover, describing the participants in the process as source and receiver emphasizes communication, and hence, persuasion, as resulting from more than a speaker’s words or his arrangement and expression.8 In a rhetorical situation the visual and verbal stimuli emitted by a speaker interact with other stimuli from the total external and internal environment in which they are received. Receivers’ perceptions of these interactions become the real message of the communication transaction and hence the real instruments of any persuasion.9 Most important in understanding the definition of persuasion is the categorization of source stimuli as verbal and nonverbal.10 Students of persuasion have always noted the importance of the element termed delivery, but the concept of nonverbal stimuli is more useful because it more inclusively describes the source of persuasive responses.

Receiver response is “. . . the key facts in the communicative process . . . but analysis or explanation of the factors at work . . . leads to a systematic examination of the components of the entire proces. . . .”11 Therefore, subject to analysis in this study will be the persuasion of Richard Henry Lee: the communication situations involved; the effects he desired to create in his receivers; the means he chose to accomplish those aims; the effects of his efforts upon his intended receivers, as far as can be ascertained; and the interactions among these parts of the process.

The analysis involves two fundamental questions, each with corollary questions. The first is, what changes in knowledge, feeling, belief or action did Lee wish to induce in the people to who he directed his persuasive efforts? A corollary of this question is, what were the sources of his beliefs? The second fundamental inquiry is, what verbal and nonverbal cues and/or symbols did Lee use to achieve his persuasive aims? Corollaries are: why did Lee choose the specific means of persuasion he did; how many of the themes, appeals and tactics were role derived and how many arose from specific personal experiences?

Because persuasion relates directly to leadership and to social role, the analysis requires understanding of the leadership role. If leadership involves “interpersonal influence, exercised . . . through the communication process . . .” then persuasion is a means of leadership.12 A functional analysis of leadership involves description of the words and actions of group participants that result in group task achievements or climate control. Such an analysis reports which persuasive efforts result in leadership, but does not reveal why some rhetorical efforts succeed while others do not. Thus derives the necessity to include the concept of social role in rhetorical analysis.

Social role can be defined as a set of conscious and unconscious expectations the members of a social system hold regarding the actions and attitudes of those who hold positions within that system.13 A man recognized as a leader within a social system achieved his position because members of that system perceived him as conforming to their leadership expectations. Because individual members of a society have differing expectations and perceptions, because of the dynamic nature of events, and because of rhetorical efforts by men perceived as leaders, the leadership role in a given system may be modified. A leader’s initial success in achieving his position, however, depends on his being perceived as conforming to member’s role expectations.

Any leadership role has various attributes, but of interest in rhetorical analysis are the expectations of a society regarding leaders’ rhetorical efforts. A society will expect a leader to utilize some means of persuasion and eschew others. Indeed, some means will be required of him and others forbidden; and some means available to those who perform one kind of leadership role will be denied other leaders. Similarly, leaders will be expected to pursue some ends and reject others. The means and ends expected of political leaders in mid-eighteenth-century Virginia will be examined in this study of Richard Henry Lee.

The definitions and methodology prescribe the plan of the study. The second chapter analyzes the society of pre-revolutionary Virginia in describing the role of political leadership. The offices held by leaders of the colony and the methods of attaining those offices are outlined. The fundamental values and rhetorical themes expected of leaders are noted. Finally, the environment in which the leadership functioned is described. The third chapter considers Richard Henry Lee’s rise to leadership. Conclusions regarding his education and preparation are followed by examination of his rhetorical efforts in the House of Burgesses during three specific issues of controversy, which occurred between 1758 and 1764. Analysis of Lee’s rhetorical efforts regarding the slave trade, the Parsons’ Cause and Virginia’s paper money demonstrate that he rose to a leadership position within the House primarily because he adapted rapidly to the patterns of action and thinking expected of Virginia leaders. Lee’s activities during 1764–66 are related in the fourth chapter. These years span two crises in Virginia: the Stamp Act and the discovery of vast deficits in the colony Treasury. Lee’s rhetoric in both controversies extended beyond the House and reflected consolidation of his position as a political leader. Chapter five consists of description of Lee’s several rhetorical efforts in response to the continuing imperial crisis faced by Virginians beginning in 1767. Lee, now firmly established among the heads of the Burgesses, first reacted to British actions with protest. Finding the protests ignored or rejected, Lee, in company with a firm phalanx of Virginia leaders, reacted with stubborn defiance. When stable political conditions in England provided the opportunity for parliamentary leadership to act equally firmly, the 1774 crisis inevitably culminated in war. In chapter six the political leadership of Richard Henry Lee is analyzed from the perspective of fifteen years, and the hypothesis of this paper is re-examined.

Review of Literature

The study of Lee’s rhetoric from 1758 to 1774 relies primarily upon journals of the legislative bodies of which he was a member, Virginia state and county records, contemporary Virginia and Maryland newspapers and the letters and papers of Richard Henry Lee and his contemporaries. Most of Lee’s extant letters are published in two volumes edited by James C. Ballagh in 1912.14 The majority of other surviving Lee papers are included in The Lee Family Papers, 1742–1795 a microfilm collection of the Lee manuscripts in the archives of the University of Virginia, the American Philosophical Society and Harvard University.15 In this collection are many letters to and from the Lees, primarily Richard Henry and his brother Arthur. Also included are some papers of Richard Henry’s father, Thomas; his cousin, Henry; and his brothers, Thomas Ludwell, Phillip, and William. A few other letters to and from Richard Henry Lee are scattered in various archives: the Virginia State Library, Virginia Historical Society, the Shippen and George Washington collections at the Library of Congress, the Brock Collection at the Huntington Library, the research department at Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., and at Stratford Hall. The legislative journals of the Virginia Assembly, though not as complete as would be desirable, contain invaluable reports of Lee’s legislative activities in Virginia.16 Most colonial Virginia legislation is published in William Waller Hening’s collection of the laws of Virginia.17 Many documents relating to the revolution are collected in Peter Force’s American Archives.18

The papers and some biographies of Lee’s contemporaries are especially helpful. The collection of documents relating to Virginians’ opposition to English acts after 1766 in the first volume of Julian Boyd’s edition of the collected papers of Thomas Jefferson is not equaled anywhere else in print.19 Also useful are the letters and papers of Edmund Pendleton, Landon Carter, George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Goerge Mason.20 Two biographies stand out as good sources of information about this particular period of Virginia history: David J. May’s Edmund Pendleton and Douglas Freeman’s George Washington.21

Few good secondary sources devote much attention directly to Richard Henry Lee. Only tow full-length biographical treatments of his life exist. The latest, published by Chitwood in 1967, is based on research conducted over most of a lifetime. Chitwood, who relies largely on the primary sources noted above and the biographical accounts noted below, devotes relatively little attention to Lee’s life before 1774. His interpretation of the revolutionary period is progressive in tone, and, as do most historians of that persuasion, he sees Lee as a radical. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence was published in two volumes in 1825 by Lee’s grandson and namesake, Richard Henry Lee II. This book seems based as much on family traditions as on the papers possessed by the grandson at the time. The author seems more concerned with vindicating and eulogizing a grandparent than with attempting to relate accurately the life story of the elder Richard Henry Lee. Moreover, the book lacks documentation and contains significant errors.

Several short sketches of Lee’s life exist, some of which add small, but useful pieces of information. Lee of Virginia contains wills and genealogical materials regarding all the colonial Lees, but is otherwise based largely on the grandson’s biography in its account of Richard Henry Lee.22 A section devoted to Richard Henry in the anecdotal but documented Lee Chronicle contains some economic and genealogical data not published elsewhere.23 The undocumented The Lees of Virginia relates a tale of Richard Henry’s personal life which seems based largely on the Lee Memoir and W. W. Wirt’s biography of Patrick Henry.24 Hendrick writes that the University of Virginia collection of Lee papers is among his sources. Some of the conclusions he draws cannot be supported from those papers, but neither do those conclusions expressly contradict anything found among the manuscripts. Orators of the American Revolution includes a speech supposedly given by Lee in support of his independence resolution, but the authenticity of this speech text is doubtful.25 No notes or references to it remain among Lee’s papers and he had quit writing his speeches long before 1776. The sketch in the Dictionary of American Biography comments on the Lee-Deane feud which dominated the lives of Richard Henry and Arthur Lee in the late 1770s.26 John Matthew’s essay, “Tow Men on a Tax,” briefly relating Lee’s opposition to the stamp tax refines the preliminary material from his unpublished dissertation.27 Matthews’ dissertation emphasizes the part of Lee’s life immediately following the years discussed in this study.

Cursory references to Richard Henry Lee’s persuasive tactics were made by Philip Davidson in Propaganda and the American Revolution.28 Obviously a work of that scope would not devote significant analysis to any one propagandist. In the first volume of A History and Criticism of American Public Address, Lee is mentioned in the chapter analyzing colonial speaking in America.29 George V. Bohman concluded that Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry were not only the two members of the Continental Congress who spoke most often; they were also the “best speakers” in the Congress. Again, however, a single chapter covering the entire span of colonial speaking could devote little attention to a single speaker.

Most of the primary sources referred to for insight regarding Richard Henry Lee are also useful in analysis and interpretation of his environment. Especially useful are the collected papers of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the diaries of Landon Carter. For study of the colonial South, many secondary sources are available. Historians relied upon for analyzing the intellectual and social environment of the Virginians from 1750 to 1774 fell into three categories: social historians, political historians and historians of the American war for independence.

For analysis of Virginia political and social history several first-hand accounts were important. For a sense of day-to-day plantation life, the diaries of Landon Carter, George Washington and Philip Fithian were excellent.30 Carter’s diary was especially useful when combined with Jack Greene’s analysis.31 Other first-hand reporters left helpful descriptions of Virginia life, once the bias or limited acquaintance of the writer was accounted for. Most used of these were The Journal of John Harrower and The Journal of Nicholas Cresswell.32 Other travel diaries also reflect the most obvious characteristics of Virginia life. Used in combination were those of the Reverend Andrew Burnaby and Colonel Adam Gordon.33 Mary N. Stanard explored the colonial Virginia newspapers and distilled a vivid description of the society.34 Most useful historians’ analyses of Virginia society were Carl Bridenbaugh’s Myths and Realities: Societies of the Colonial South, Jackson Turner Main’s Social Structure of Revolutionary America, Thad Tate’s The Negro in Eighteenth Century Williamsburg and two separate cultural histories by Louis Wright.35 Two biographies excelled in conveying a sense of the life style of the Virginia gentry: David J. Mays’ biography of Edmund Pendleton and Douglas Freeman’s biography of George Washington.

One recent standard political history of colonial Virginia exists.35 Its major inadequacy as background for this study is that the discussion ends with the year 1763. John Alden’s The South in the Revolution 1763–1789 and several monographs relating to specific revolutionary issues continue the political history of the later years.37 Some of these monographs provided analyses basic to this study. The idea of a pathway to power in colonial Virginia was derived from Charles S. Sydnor’s American Revolutionaries in the Making.38 Understanding the struggle by Virginia legislators to gain and then maintain their power comes largely from “The Coming of the Revolution in Virginia: Britain’s Challenge to Virginia’s Ruling Class, 1763–1776,” by Thad Tate and the several publications by Jack Greene.39 Greene’s most useful analysis was The Quest for Power: The Lower Houses of Assembly in the Southern Royal Colonies 1689–1776.40 Specific information regarding Virginia governmental structure was found in Albert Porter’s County Government in Virginia; Oliver P. Chitwood’s Justice in Colonial Virginia; S. M. Pargellis’ “The Procedure of the Virginia House of Burgesses” and James Leake’s The Virginia Committee System and the American Revolution.41 Many details of events and procedures were added from Lucille Griffith’s Virginia House of Burgesses 1750–1774.42

Among the myriad sources of historical analysis and interpretation of the American revolution, this study relied most heavily on recent writers who attempt to synthesize many older points of view. Most useful were Gordon S. Wood’s “Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution,” Thomas C. Barrows “The American Revolution as a Colonial War for Indepenence,” and Greene’s introductory essay in The Ambiguity of the American Revolution.43 Valuable as source of analysis as well as for its documents was the first volume of Pamphlets of the American Revolution 1750–1776, edited by Bernard Bailyn.44 His introductory essay in that volume provided an understanding of the intensity of the colonist’s sense of conspiracy within the British government while his essay, “Political Experience and Enlightenment Ideas in Eighteenth-Century America,” introduced the concept of diverging theory and fact in the government of Britain’s American colonies.45

Details of events between 1760 and 1774 were often taken from Lawrence H. Gipson’s multi-volume history of the first British empire.46 Details regarding specific events were also drawn from Edmund S. and Helen Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis; Thomas C. Barrow’s history of the customs service and his analysis of the origins of Grenville’s program of taxation; Leonard W. Labaree, Royal Government in America, and Oliver M. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution.47 Analysis of the intellectual climate employed the points of view expressed in Bailyn’s several articles, Randolph G. Adams, Political Ideas of the American Revolution, Edmund Morgan, “The American Revolution: Revisions in Need of Revising,” and Dumas Malone’s biography of Thomas Jefferson.48



1. L. H. Butterfield (ed.), The Adams Papers: Diary and Autobiography of John Adams (New York: Athenaeum, 1964), II, 113. This edition is reprinted from the original publication by Harvard University Press in 1961.

2. Exploration of Lee’s life and writing after his entry onto the national scene in 1774 has been more thorough. Writers who have concentrated their efforts on the last twenty years of his life include Oliver P. Chitwood, Richard Henry Lee: Statesman of the Revolution (Morgantown: University of West Virginia Library, 1967); Burton Hendrick, The Lees of Virginia (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1935), pp. 85–136, 179–213, 351C John C. Matthews, “Richard Henry Lee and the American Revolution” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, the University of Virginia, 1939); Richard Henry Lee II, Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence (Philadelphia: H. C. Carey & I. Lea, 1825).

3. Chitwood, pp. 28–67; Forrest McDonald (ed.), Empire and Nation: Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania by John Dickinson, and Letters from the Federal Farmer by Richard Henry Lee (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), pp. xii–xiv; Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution 1774–1781 (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), pp. v–xxii, 3–53.

4. Roger Atkinson to Samuel Pleasants, 1 October 1774, cited in Cazenove lee, Jr., Lee Chronicle, ed. Dorothy Parker (New York: New York University Press, 1967), pp. 127–28; Douglas S. Freeman, George Washington: A Biography (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), III, 373 plate.

5. In the years since Aristotle described rhetoric as the art of discovering the available means of persuasion, the word has acquired many widely differing meanings. Yet, as A. Craig Baird pointed out in 1965, the students, philosophers, practitioners and critics of rhetoric still have but one major goal. They aim to understand or use that process by which an audience is influenced to “think, feel, and act in harmony with the communicative purposes of the speaker or writer,” Rhetoric: A Philosophical Inquiry (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1965), p. 10.

6. Wallace C. Fotheringham, Perspectives on Persuasion (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966), pp. 5–6. Each of these uses has merit, each depending on the user’s point of view.

7. Primarily of interest in this study are human agents and their use of signs and symbols. Several elements of this definition are noteworthy. It encompasses negative persuasive effects, those receiver responses that are different from or contrary to the responses desired by the source, as well as the positive effects. Similarly, it includes both intended and unintended source stimuli. The definition relies heavily on the analysis of the communication process found in Dean C. Barnlund, Interpersonal Communication: Survey and Studies (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968), pp. 17–68.

8. One of the most obvious examples illustrates: that a male speaker had long hair would not be described as delivery, but in 1970 would have as decisive an effect on the responses to his verbal message as would have John Adams leaving his wig at home in 1770. The understanding of communication as process and of the participants as source and receiver relies largely on the writing of David K. Berlo, especially The Process of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), pp. 23–29.

9. The internal message perceived by a receiver may or may not bear close resemblance to the message intended by the source. Since the framework of speaker and listener focuses on only part of these message stimuli, it serves less usefully in discussing communication and persuasion than the source-receiver construct.

10. This categorization is now in widespread use. One of the most often quoted early users of the terminology is Edward T. Hall, The Silent Language (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1959). A useful division of nonverbal communication into sign language, action language and object language is made by Jurgen Ruesch, “Nonverbal Language and Therapy,” Communication and Culture, Alfred G. Smith, editor (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), pp. 209–10. The verbal-nonverbal terminology reminds us that communication, and hence persuasion, often occurs as a result of man’s actions as much as his words. While historical analysis cannot hope to recapture all the nonverbal persuasion a speaker employed, the new terminology at least widens the perspective as rhetorical analysis may employ.

11. Baird, p. 16.

12. Leadership is another term that has been subject to varied definition. The definition used here was enunciated by Robert Tannenbaum, Irving Weschler, and Fred Massarik, Leadership and Organization: A Behavioral Science Approach (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1961), pp. 24–26. This contextual definition has wide currency. Note for example, R. Victor Harnack and Thorrel B. Fest, Group Discussion: Theory and Technique (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964), pp. 187–89; Abraham Zaleznik and David Moment, The Dynamics of Interpersonal Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964), p. 414. Different emphases in the definitions exist, largely in the attempts to specify who or what is a leader, and in isolating the precise source of the leadership influence. Central to every contextual analysis of leadership, however, is the assumption that the means of leadership is interpersonal influence which must inevitably be exercised largely through the communication process. See Luigi Petrulla and Bernard M. Bass (eds.), Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), especially Part I, “Current Psychological Theories of Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior”; E. P. Hollander, Leaders, Groups and Influence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 3–29, 225–38; and Tannenbaum, Weschler, and Massarik, pp. 22–42.

13. The concept of role is also subject to many variations in definition. Lionel J. Nieman and James W. Hughes summarized eighty sources employing the concept and concluded that no consensus of meaning existed, “The Problem of the Concept of Role—A Re-survey of the Literature,” Social Forces, XXX (December, 1951), 141–49, cited by Theodore R. Sarbin, “Role Theory,” Handbook of Social Psychology, Gardner Lindzey, editor (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954), I, 224–25. Two fundamental viewpoints encompass most definitions, however. Role is either thought of as patterned behavior or the expectations of patterned behavior. To be clear in discussing the concept, role expectations, role perceptions and role enactments must all be considered. For the definition used here I have relied most heavily on Sarbin, pp. 223–38; and Edwin J. Thomas and Bruce J. Biddle, “The Nature and History of Role Theory,” Role Theory, Concepts and Research (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 8–15.

14. Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, ed. James C. Ballagh (2 vols.; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1912).

15. Paul P. Hoffman (ed.), The Lee Family Papers 1742–1795 (Microfilm Publications; 8 vols.; Charlottesville: University of Virginia Library, 1966).

16. J. P. Kennedy and H. R. McIlwaine (eds.), Journals of the House of Burgesses (13 vols.; Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1905–1915); H. R. McIlwaine (ed.), Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia (3 vols.; Richmond: Virginia State Library 1918–1919).

17. William Waller Hening (ed.), The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 (13 vols.; facsimile reprint; Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1969).

18. Peter Force (ed.), American Archives Fourth Series: Containing a Documentary History of the English Colonies in North America from the King’s Message to Parliament of March 7, 1774, to the Declaration of Independence by the United States (6 vols.; Washington: M. St. Clair Clark and Peter Force, 1837–1846).

19. Julian P. Boyd, et. al. (eds.), The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 1760–1776 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950).

20. Daivd J. Mays (ed.), The Letters and Papers of Edmund Pendleton 1734–1803 (2 vols.: Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1967); Jack P. Greene (ed.), The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall 1752–1778 (2 vols.; Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1965); George Washington, The Writings of George Washington,The Diaries of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (4 vols.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925); William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry: His Life, Correspondence and Speeches (3 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891); H. R. McIlwaine (ed.), The Letters of Patrick Henry (Vol. I of Official Letteres of the Governors of the State of Virginia. 3 vols.; Richmond: The Virginia State Library, 1926); Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason 1725–1792 (2 vols.; New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1892); Robert C. Rutland (ed.), The Papers of George Mason (3 vols.; Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970).

21. David J. Mays, Edmund Pendleton 1721–1803: A Biography (2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952); Douglas S. Freeman, George Washington: A Biography (7 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948–1957).

22. Edmund Jennings Lee, Lee of Virginia 1642–1892: Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of the Descendants of Colonel Richard Lee with Brief Notices of the Related Families . . . (Philadelphia: Franklin Printing Company, 1895).

23. Cazenove G. Lee, Jr., pp. 62–73, 116–85.

24. Hendrick, pp. 85–135, 179–213, 351–67.

25. Elias Magoon, Orators of the American Revolution (New York: Baker and Scribner, 1848), pp. 266–82. Note, for instance, the comment of Thomas McKean, “I do not recollect and formal speeches, such as are made in the British Parliament and our late Congresses, to have been made in the revolutionary Congress, though I was a member for eight years . . . We had not time to hear such speeches . . . ,” Thomas McKean to John Adams, 20 November 1815, Charles F. Adams (ed.), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), X, 177. John Adams commented similarly, “The Orators, while I was in Congress from 1774 to 1778 appeared to me very universally extemporaneous, and I have never heard of any committed to writing before or after delivery,” John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 30 July 1815, Lester J. Cappon (ed.), The Adams-Jefferson Letters (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), II, 451.

26. Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone (eds.), Dictionary of American Biography (22 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928–1958), XI, 117–20.

27. John C. Matthews, “Two Men on a Tax,” The Old Dominion: Essays for Thomas Perkins Abernethy, Darrett B. Rutman, editor (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1964), pp. 96–108.

28. Philip Davidson, Propaganda and the American Revolution 1763–1783 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1941).

29. George V. Bohman, “The Colonial Period,” A History and Criticism of American Public Address, William N. Brigance, editor (reprint; New Yor: Russell & Russell, 1960), I, 38.

30. Greene; Freeman; Hunter D. Farish (ed.), Journal and Letters of Fithian Vickers Fithian 1773–1774 (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, 1943).

31. Jack P. Greene, Landon Carter: An Inquiry into the Personal Values and Social Imperatives of the Eighteenth Century (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1965) is a separate printing of Greene’s introduction to Carter’s diary. This essay is extremely valuable in analysis of the intellectual qualities of the Virginia gentry.

32. Edward M. Riley (ed.), The Journal of John Harrower an Indentured Servant in the Colony of Virginia 1773–1776 (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., 1963); Nicholas Cresswell, The Journal of Nicholas Cresswell 1774–1777 (London: Jonathan Cape, Ltd., 1925).

33. Lord Adam Gordon, “Journal of an Officer who Travelled in America and the West Indies in 1764 and 1765,” Travels in the American Colonies, Newton D. Mereness, editor (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961); Rufus R. Wilson (ed.), Burnaby’s Travels Through North America (Reprinted from the third edition of 1798; New York: A. Wessels Company, 1904), pp. 52–71.

34. Colonial Virginia: Its People and Customs (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1917).

35. (New York: Athenaeum Press, 1965), first published in 1952 by Louisiana State University Press; (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965); (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., 1965); The First Gentlemen of Virginia: Intellectual Qualities of the Early Colonial Ruling Class (San Marino, Calif.: The Huntington Library, 1940); The Cultural Life of the American Colonies 1607–1763 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962).

36. Richard L. Morton, Colonial Virginia (2 vols.; Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1960).

37. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1957).

38. American Revolutionaries in the Making: Political Practices in Washington’s Virginia (New York: The Free Press, 1965), originally published as Gentlemen Freeholders by the University of North Carolina Press in 1952.

39. William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XIX (July, 1962), 323–43

40. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1963). Helpful, in addition to those sources by Greene already cited were “Not to be Governed or Taxed, but by . . . our Representatives,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXXVI (July, 1968), 259–300; “Landon Carter and the Pistole Fee Dispute,” William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XIV (January, 1957), 66–69; and “Foundations of Political Power in the Virginia House of Burgesses 1720–1776,” William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XVI (October, 1959), 485Ǻ.

41. County Government in Virginia: A Legislative History 1607–1904 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1947); (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Vol. XXIII. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1905), pp. 9–123; William and Mary Quarterly, second series, VII (April, 1927), 73–86; (July, 1927), 143–57; (John Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Vol. XXXV. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1917), pp. 11–152.

42. (Northport, Ala.: Colonial Press, 1963).

43. William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XXIII (January, 1966), 3–32; XXV (July, 1968), 452–64; Jack P. Greene (ed.), The Ambiguity of the American Revolution (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 2–14.

44. (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, 1965).

45. This essay was revised and published separately as The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, 1967); “Political Experience and Enlightenment Ideas in Eighteenth-Century America,” American Historical Review, LXVII (January, 1962), 339–51. Bailyn amplifies the idea in The Origins of American Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968), pp. 66–91.

46. The British Empire Before the American Revolution (13 vols.; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1936–1967). Most used were the volumes subtitled, The Triumphant Empire, relating events following 1763.

47. (New York: Collier Books, 1962), a revision of the 1953 publication by the University of North Carolina Press; Trade and Empire: The British Customs Service in Colonial America 1660–1775 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967); “Backgrund to the Grenville Program, 1757–1763,– William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XXII (January, 1965), 93–104; (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, 1958), a reprint of the original published in 1930 by Yale University Press; (New York: A. S. Barnes & Company, 1963), first published in 1951 by the University of Pennsylvania Press.

48. (Durham, North Carolina: Trinity College Press, 1922); William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XIV (January, 1957), 3–15; Jefferson the Virginian (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1948).


Return to Richard Henry Lee, Rhetoric and Rebellion