to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.

He refers to the past behavior of the British empire and monarch as proof that it will continue to behave similarly in the future. He says that the king has received their petition with an "insidious smile"—insidious, in this case, meaning treacherous or harmful but attractive—suggesting that the king is showing them a friendly face but really harboring unfriendly thoughts. He argues that his fellow patriots should not trust that smile as a result, as it has never benefited them before.

Furthermore, he compares the situation to when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus with a kiss in the garden of Gethsemane. He uses this past example of betrayal—when someone acts as your friend but is really plotting against you—as a reason to disbelieve England now. As evidence, he points to all the soldiers stationed in and around Boston.

Inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general. It will take specific examples from past experience and from them draw a general conclusion.

In his speech, Patrick Henry uses inductive reasoning to contend that it is hopeless to continue on the road of trying to reconcile peacefully with the British. He bases this on the example of the past, in which, during a ten year period, peaceful methods to resolve their differences have failed over and over again. He states:

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!

He says that if the colonists continue to attempt to deal with the British using those failed methods, the colonists will continue to fail. Why would reconciliation work now if it is never worked before? All that the British are likely to understand, according to Henry, is what we might call the language of pain: warfare.

When an inductive argument is based on too few examples, it turns into the fallacy (mistake) of what is called "hasty generalization." In Henry's case, ten years of having their peaceful overtures spurned by the British offers enough examples to justify the conclusion that peaceful reconciliation won't work.

Let's begin with a definition and example of induction from a peer-reviewed academic resource, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every time I've walked by that dog, he hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog he won't try to bite me.

In Henry's "Speech to the Virginia Convention," he uses induction when he observes that with regard to the colonies' relationship with Britain, he can only predict what Britain will do in the future by remembering what it has done in the past. Here are Henry's own words:

"I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?"

Henry reiterates the point that the colonies have tried negotiation for a decade but nothing substantive has resulted. Using induction once again, he describes how the colonies have sent petitions, "remonstrated" (protested reproachfully), and asked Britain for change most humbly. He reminds his audience that Britain's response was to ignore their petitions, to answer their protests with violence, and to "disregard" their humble requests.  

Just like the example above with the dog, Henry believes there is nothing to indicate that Britain will behave any differently henceforward.