Historie Podcasts

Franklin Roosevelts anden præsidentens indledende tale [20. januar 1937] - Historie

Franklin Roosevelts anden præsidentens indledende tale [20. januar 1937] - Historie

Da vi for fire år siden mødtes for at indvie en præsident, stod republikken, enstemmigt i angst, her i ånden. Vi dedikerede os til opfyldelsen af ​​en vision - at fremskynde den tid, hvor der for alle mennesker ville være sikkerhed og fred afgørende for jagten på lykke. Vi i Republikken lovede os selv at fjerne dem, der havde vanhelliget det, fra vor gamle tros tempel. at ende med handling, utrættelig og frygtløs, den dages stagnation og fortvivlelse. Vi gjorde de første ting først.

Vores pagt med os selv stoppede ikke der. Instinktivt erkendte vi et dybere behov-behovet for via regeringen at finde instrumentet for vores forenede formål for at løse individets stadig stigende problemer i en kompleks civilisation. Gentagne forsøg på deres løsning uden hjælp fra regeringen havde gjort os forvirrede og forvirrede. For uden den hjælp havde vi ikke været i stand til at skabe de moralske kontroller over videnskabens tjenester, som er nødvendige for at gøre videnskaben til en nyttig tjener i stedet for en hensynsløs herre over menneskeheden. For at gøre dette vidste vi, at vi skulle finde praktisk kontrol over blinde økonomiske kræfter og blindt egoistiske mænd.

Vi i republikken følte sandheden om, at demokratisk regering har medfødt kapacitet til at beskytte sit folk mod katastrofer, der engang blev anset for uundgåelige, til at løse problemer, der engang blev anset for uløselige. Vi ville ikke indrømme, at vi ikke kunne finde en måde at mestre økonomiske epidemier på, ligesom vi efter århundreder med fatalistisk lidelse havde fundet en måde at mestre sygdomsepidemier på. Vi nægtede at lade problemerne med vores fælles velfærd blive løst af tilfældighedens vinde og katastrofens orkaner.

I dette opdagede vi amerikanere ingen helt ny sandhed; vi skrev et nyt kapitel i vores bog om selvstyre.

I år er det hundrede og femti år siden forfatningskonventionen, der gjorde os til en nation. Ved denne konvention fandt vores forfædre vejen ud af det kaos, der fulgte revolutionskrigen; de skabte en stærk regering med beføjelser til forenet handling, der var tilstrækkeligt dengang og nu til at løse problemer helt uden for individuel eller lokal løsning. For halvandet århundrede siden oprettede de forbundsregeringen for at fremme den generelle velfærd og sikre frihedens velsignelser for det amerikanske folk.

I dag påberåber vi os de samme regeringsbeføjelser til at nå de samme mål.

Fire års ny erfaring har ikke forladt vores historiske instinkt. De fastholder det klare håb om, at regering inden for samfund, regering inden for de separate stater og regering i USA kan gøre de ting, tiden kræver, uden at give sit demokrati. Vores opgaver i de sidste fire år tvang ikke demokratiet til at holde ferie.

Næsten alle erkender, at efterhånden som kompleksiteten i menneskelige relationer stiger, må også magten til at styre dem øges - magt til at stoppe det onde; magt til at gøre godt. Vores lands væsentlige demokrati og vores folks sikkerhed afhænger ikke af fraværet af magt, men af ​​at stille det til dem, som folket kan ændre eller fortsætte med angivne intervaller gennem et ærligt og frit valgsystem. Grundloven fra 1787 gjorde ikke vores demokrati impotent.

Faktisk har vi i de sidste fire år gjort udøvelsen af ​​al magt mere demokratisk; for vi er begyndt at bringe private enevældige magter i deres rette underordning til offentlighedens regering. Legenden om, at de var uovervindelige - ud over et demokrati - er blevet knust. De er blevet udfordret og slået.

Vores fremskridt ud af depressionen er indlysende. Men det er ikke alt, hvad du og jeg mener med den nye tingenes orden. Vores løfte var ikke kun at lave et patchworkjob med brugte materialer. Ved at bruge de nye materialer til social retfærdighed har vi forpligtet os til at opføre på det gamle fundament en mere varig struktur til bedre brug af fremtidige generationer.

I dette formål er vi blevet hjulpet af præstationer i sind og ånd. Gamle sandheder er blevet genlært; usandheder er blevet aflært. Vi har altid vidst, at hensynsløs egeninteresse var dårlig moral; vi ved nu, at det er dårlig økonomi. Ud af sammenbruddet af en velstand, hvis bygherrer pralede af deres praktiske egenskaber, er overbevisningen om, at økonomisk moral i længden kan betale sig. Vi er begyndt at udslette den linje, der adskiller det praktiske fra det ideelle; og på den måde skaber vi et instrument med en ufattelig magt til etablering af en moralsk bedre verden.

Denne nye forståelse undergraver den gamle beundring af verdslig succes som sådan. Vi begynder at opgive vores tolerance over for magtmisbrug fra dem, der for profit forråder livets elementære anstændigheder.

I denne proces vil onde ting, der tidligere blev accepteret, ikke så let kunne overgives. Hårdt hoved vil ikke så let undskylde hårdhjertethed. Vi bevæger os mod en æra med god følelse. Men vi er klar over, at der ikke kan være nogen æra med god følelse, undtagen blandt mennesker med god vilje.

Af disse grunde er jeg berettiget til at tro, at den største ændring, vi har været vidne til, har været ændringen i det moralske klima i Amerika.

Blandt mennesker med god vilje tilbyder videnskab og demokrati sammen et stadigt rigere liv og en stadig større tilfredshed for den enkelte. Med denne ændring i vores moralske klima og vores genopdagede evne til at forbedre vores økonomiske orden har vi sat fødderne på vejen til varige fremskridt.

Skal vi stoppe nu og vende ryggen til den vej, der venter? Skal vi kalde dette det forjættede land? Eller skal vi fortsætte vores vej? For "hver alder er en drøm, der er ved at dø, eller en der er ved at blive født."

Mange stemmer bliver hørt, da vi står over for en stor beslutning. Comfort siger: "Bliv lidt." Opportunisme siger: "Dette er et godt sted." Frygtsomhed spørger: "Hvor vanskelig er vejen forude?"

Sandt nok er vi kommet langt fra stagnationens og fortvivlelsens dage. Vitaliteten er bevaret. Mod og tillid er blevet genoprettet. Den mentale og moralske horisont er blevet udvidet.

Men vores nuværende gevinster blev vundet under pres fra mere end almindelige omstændigheder. Fremskridt blev bydende nødvendigt under frygt og lidelse. Tiderne var på fremskridtets side.

Det er imidlertid vanskeligere at holde fast i fremskridtene i dag. Sløret samvittighed, uansvarlighed og hensynsløs egeninteresse dukker allerede op igen. Sådanne velstandssymptomer kan blive et tegn på katastrofe! Velstand tester allerede vedholdenheden af ​​vores progressive formål.

Lad os spørge igen: Har vi nået målet med vores vision om den fjerde dag i marts 1933? Har vi fundet vores lykkelige dal?

Jeg ser en stor nation, på et stort kontinent, velsignet med en stor rigdom af naturressourcer. Dens hundrede og tredive millioner mennesker er i fred indbyrdes; de gør deres land til en god nabo blandt nationerne. Jeg ser et USA, der kan demonstrere, at under demokratiske styreformer kan national rigdom omsættes til en spredt mængde af menneskelige bekvemmeligheder, der hidtil er ukendt, og den laveste levestandard kan hæves langt over niveauet af ren eksistens.

Men her er udfordringen for vores demokrati: I denne nation ser jeg titusinder af dens borgere - en væsentlig del af hele befolkningen - som i dette øjeblik nægtes størstedelen af, hvad de aller laveste standarder i dag kalder nødvendighederne af livet.

Jeg ser millioner af familier, der forsøger at leve af indkomster, så beskedne, at familiekatastroferne hænger over dem dag for dag.
Jeg ser millioner, hvis dagligdag i byen og på gården fortsætter under forhold, der blev betegnet som usømmelige af et såkaldt høfligt samfund for et halvt århundrede siden.

Jeg ser millioner nægtet uddannelse, rekreation og muligheden for at forbedre deres lod og deres børns lod.
Jeg ser, at millioner mangler midler til at købe produkter fra gård og fabrik og ved deres fattigdom at nægte arbejde og produktivitet til mange andre millioner.

Jeg ser en tredjedel af en nation dårligt indkvarteret, dårligt klædt, dårligt ernæret.

Det er ikke i fortvivlelse, at jeg tegner det billede til dig. Jeg maler det for dig i håb - fordi nationen, der ser og forstår uretfærdigheden i den, foreslår at male den ud. Vi er fast besluttet på at gøre enhver amerikansk borger til genstand for sit lands interesse og bekymring; og vi vil aldrig betragte nogen trofast lovlydig gruppe inden for vores grænser som overflødig. Prøven på vores fremskridt er ikke, om vi tilføjer mere til overflod af dem, der har meget; det er, om vi giver nok til dem, der har for lidt.

Hvis jeg kender noget til ånden og formålet med vores nation, vil vi ikke lytte til trøst, opportunisme og frygtsomhed. Vi vil fortsætte.

Overveldende er vi i republikken mænd og kvinder med god vilje; mænd og kvinder, der har mere end varme engagerede hjerter; mænd og kvinder, der også har kølige hoveder og villige hænder med praktiske formål. De vil insistere på, at alle myndigheder i den populære regering bruger effektive instrumenter til at udføre deres vilje.

Regeringen er kompetent, når alle, der sammensætter den, fungerer som forvaltere for hele folket. Det kan gøre konstante fremskridt, når det holder sig ajour med alle fakta. Det kan opnå berettiget støtte og legitim kritik, når folket modtager sande oplysninger om alt, hvad regeringen gør.

Hvis jeg kender meget til vores folks vilje, vil de kræve, at disse betingelser for effektiv regering skal skabes og vedligeholdes. De vil kræve en nation, der er ødelagt af kræft i uretfærdighed og derfor stærk blandt nationerne i sit eksempel på viljen til fred.

I dag genindvier vi vores land til længe værdsatte idealer i en pludselig ændret civilisation. I hvert land er der altid arbejdskræfter, der driver mænd fra hinanden og kræfter, der trækker mænd sammen. I vores personlige ambitioner er vi individualister. Men i vores søgen efter økonomisk og politisk fremgang som nation går vi alle op, eller også går vi alle sammen som ét folk.

For at opretholde et demokrati med indsats kræver en enorm mængde tålmodighed i håndteringen af ​​forskellige metoder, en stor mængde ydmyghed. Men ud af forvirringen af ​​mange stemmer stiger forståelsen for det dominerende offentlige behov. Derefter kan politisk ledelse udtrykke fælles idealer og hjælpe med deres realisering.

Når jeg igen aflægger eden som præsident for De Forenede Stater, påtager jeg mig den højtidelige forpligtelse til at føre det amerikanske folk frem ad den vej, som de har valgt at gå videre.

Mens denne pligt hviler på mig, skal jeg gøre mit yderste for at sige deres formål og gøre deres vilje, idet jeg søger guddommelig vejledning for at hjælpe os hver og en med at give lys til dem, der sidder i mørke og til at guide vores fødder på vej til fred .


Franklin Delano Roosevelts indvielse

20. januar, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt blev den første amerikanske præsident, der svoret i embedet i januar. Det var hans anden af ​​fire indvielser, den første havde været afholdt fire år tidligere den 4. marts 1933. Roosevelt ’s første indvielse var blevet overskygget af begyndelsen af ​​den store depression - inden for en uge efter tiltrædelsen havde den nye præsident erklæret en føderal helligdag.

Jeg sværger (eller bekræfter) højtideligt, at jeg trofast vil henrette USA's præsidentembede og vil efter min bedste evne bevare, beskytte og forsvare USA's forfatning.

Executive Ede of Office, The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription, artikel II, afsnit 1, paragraf 8. Amerikas grundlæggende dokumenter. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

Roosevelt ’s anden indledende tale var optimistisk med hensyn til de gevinster, der var opnået under hans første administration, mens han erkendte, at der var behov for meget mere. I sin tale delte han sin vision om nationens potentiale og udfordrede amerikanerne til at fortsætte i en samlet indsats for at tackle fattigdom.

Lad os spørge igen: Har vi nået målet med vores vision om den fjerde dag i marts 1933? Har vi fundet vores lykkelige dal? Jeg ser en stor nation, på et stort kontinent, velsignet med en stor rigdom af naturressourcer ... Jeg ser et USA, der kan demonstrere, at under demokratiske styreformer kan national rigdom omsættes til en spredende mængde menneskelige bekvemmeligheder, der hidtil er ukendte ... Men her er udfordringen for vores demokrati: I denne nation ser jeg titusinder af dens borgere ... som i dette øjeblik nægtes størstedelen af ​​det, som de aller laveste standarder i dag kalder livets nødvendigheder ... Test af vores fremskridt er ikke, om vi tilføjer mere til overflod af dem, der har meget, det er, om vi giver nok til dem, der har for lidt ...

Indvielsesadresse Ekstern , Franklin D. Roosevelt, 20. januar 1937. The American Presidency Project.

Kongressen havde oprindeligt oprettet den 4. marts som indvielsesdag. Datoen blev flyttet til 20. januar med vedtagelsen af ​​det tyvende ændringsforslag i 1933.

Indvielsesfejringer har kørt spektrum fra Andrew Jackson ’s hæsblæsende modtagelse af Det Hvide Hus i 1829, til FDR ’s dystre krigssag i 1945, men et grundlæggende mønster af aktiviteter er blevet etableret gennem årene. Omkring middag slynges præsidenten i Capitol af chefdommeren i USA's højesteret. Efter at have taget den korte, 35-ordede ed, holder den nye administrerende direktør en indledende tale efterfulgt af en parade gennem byen og en aften med gallafester.

TR ’s indvielsesceremoni, 1905. USA: 1905. Theodore Roosevelt: His Life and Times on Film. Film, Broadcasting & amp Optaget lydafdeling


Franklin Roosevelts anden indledende tale

Da vi for fire år siden mødtes for at indvie en præsident, stod republikken, enstemmigt i angst, her i ånden. Vi dedikerede os til opfyldelsen af ​​en vision - at fremskynde den tid, hvor der for alle mennesker ville være sikkerhed og fred afgørende for jagten på lykke. Vi i republikken lovede os selv at køre dem fra vor gamle tros tempel fra dem, der havde vanhelliget det til at ende med handling, utrætteligt og frygtløs, den tids stagnation og fortvivlelse. Vi gjorde de første ting først.


Vores pagt med os selv stoppede ikke der. Instinktivt erkendte vi et dybere behov-behovet for via regeringen at finde instrumentet til vores forenede formål for at løse individets stadig stigende problemer i en kompleks civilisation. Gentagne forsøg på deres løsning uden hjælp fra regeringen havde gjort os forvirrede og forvirrede. For uden den hjælp havde vi ikke været i stand til at skabe de moralske kontroller over videnskabens tjenester, som er nødvendige for at gøre videnskaben til en nyttig tjener i stedet for en hensynsløs herre over menneskeheden. For at gøre dette vidste vi, at vi skulle finde praktisk kontrol over blinde økonomiske kræfter og blindt egoistiske mænd.


Vi i republikken følte sandheden om, at demokratisk regering har medfødt kapacitet til at beskytte sit folk mod katastrofer, der engang blev anset for uundgåelige, til at løse problemer, der engang blev anset for uløselige. Vi ville ikke indrømme, at vi ikke kunne finde en måde at mestre økonomiske epidemier på, ligesom vi efter århundreder med fatalistisk lidelse havde fundet en måde at mestre sygdomsepidemier på. Vi nægtede at lade problemerne med vores fælles velfærd blive løst af tilfældighedens vinde og katastrofens orkaner.


I dette opdagede vi amerikanere ingen helt ny sandhed, vi skrev et nyt kapitel i vores bog om selvstyre.


I år er det hundrede og femtreds år siden forfatningskonventionen, der gjorde os til en nation. Ved denne konvention fandt vores forfædre vejen ud af det kaos, der fulgte efter revolutionskrigen, de skabte en stærk regering med beføjelser til forenede handlinger, der var tilstrækkelige dengang og nu til at løse problemer helt uden for individuel eller lokal løsning. For halvandet århundrede siden oprettede de forbundsregeringen for at fremme den generelle velfærd og sikre frihedens velsignelser for det amerikanske folk.


I dag påberåber vi os de samme regeringsbeføjelser til at nå de samme mål.


Fire års ny erfaring har ikke forladt vores historiske instinkt. De fastholder det klare håb om, at regering inden for samfund, regering inden for de separate stater og regering i USA kan gøre de ting, tiden kræver, uden at give sit demokrati. Vores opgaver i de sidste fire år tvang ikke demokratiet til at holde ferie.


Næsten alle erkender, at efterhånden som kompleksiteten i menneskelige relationer stiger, må også magten til at styre dem øges - magten til at stoppe den onde magt til at gøre godt. Vores lands grundlæggende demokrati og vores folks sikkerhed afhænger ikke af fraværet af magt, men af ​​at stille det til dem, som folket kan ændre eller fortsætte med angivne intervaller gennem et ærligt og frit valgsystem. Grundloven fra 1787 gjorde ikke vores demokrati impotent.


Faktisk har vi i de sidste fire år gjort udøvelsen af ​​al magt mere demokratisk, for vi er begyndt at bringe private enevældige magter i deres rette underordning til offentlighedens regering. Legenden om, at de var uovervindelige - ud over et demokrati - er blevet knust. De er blevet udfordret og slået.


Vores fremskridt ud af depressionen er indlysende. Men det er ikke alt, hvad du og jeg mener med den nye tingenes orden. Vores løfte var ikke kun at lave et patchworkjob med brugte materialer. Ved at bruge de nye materialer til social retfærdighed har vi forpligtet os til at opføre på det gamle fundament en mere varig struktur til bedre brug af fremtidige generationer.


I det formål er vi blevet hjulpet af præstationer af sind og ånd. Gamle sandheder er blevet genlært usandheder er blevet aflært. Vi har altid vidst, at hensynsløs egeninteresse var dårlig moral, vi ved nu, at det er dårlig økonomi. Ud af sammenbruddet af en velstand, hvis bygherrer pralede med deres praktiske egenskaber, er overbevisningen om, at økonomisk moral i længden betaler sig. Vi er begyndt at udslette den linje, der adskiller det praktiske fra det ideelle, og på den måde udformer vi et instrument med uanede magt til etablering af en moralsk bedre verden.


Denne nye forståelse undergraver den gamle beundring af verdslig succes som sådan. Vi begynder at opgive vores tolerance over for magtmisbrug fra dem, der for profit forråder livets elementære anstændigheder.


I denne proces vil onde ting, der tidligere blev accepteret, ikke blive let overgået så let. Hårdt hoved vil ikke så let undskylde hårdhjertethed. Vi bevæger os mod en æra med god følelse. Men vi er klar over, at der ikke kan være nogen æra med god følelse, undtagen blandt mennesker med god vilje.


Af disse grunde er jeg berettiget til at tro, at den største ændring, vi har oplevet, har været ændringen i det moralske klima i Amerika.


Blandt mennesker med god vilje tilbyder videnskab og demokrati sammen et stadigt rigere liv og en stadig større tilfredshed for den enkelte. Med denne ændring i vores moralske klima og vores genopdagede evne til at forbedre vores økonomiske orden har vi sat fødderne på vejen til varige fremskridt.


Skal vi stoppe nu og vende ryggen til den vej, der venter? Skal vi kalde dette det forjættede land? Eller skal vi fortsætte vores vej? For "hver alder er en drøm, der er ved at dø, eller en der er ved at blive født."


Mange stemmer bliver hørt, da vi står over for en stor beslutning. Comfort siger: "Bliv lidt." Opportunisme siger: "Dette er et godt sted." Frygtsomhed spørger: "Hvor vanskelig er vejen forude?"


Sandt nok er vi kommet langt fra stagnationens og fortvivlelsens dage. Vitaliteten er bevaret. Mod og tillid er blevet genoprettet. Den mentale og moralske horisont er blevet udvidet.


Men vores nuværende gevinster blev vundet under pres fra mere end almindelige omstændigheder. Fremskridt blev bydende nødvendigt under frygt og lidelse. Tiderne var på fremskridtets side.


Det er imidlertid vanskeligere at holde fast i fremskridtene i dag. Sløret samvittighed, uansvarlighed og hensynsløs egeninteresse dukker allerede op igen. Sådanne velstandssymptomer kan blive et tegn på katastrofe! Velstand tester allerede vedholdenheden af ​​vores progressive formål.


Lad os spørge igen: Har vi nået målet med vores vision om den fjerde dag i marts 1933? Har vi fundet vores lykkelige dal?


Jeg ser en stor nation på et stort kontinent velsignet med en stor rigdom af naturressourcer. Dens hundrede og tredive millioner mennesker er i fred indbyrdes, de gør deres land til en god nabo blandt nationerne. Jeg ser et USA, der kan demonstrere, at under demokratiske styreformer kan national rigdom omsættes til en spredt mængde af menneskelige bekvemmeligheder, der hidtil er ukendt, og den laveste levestandard kan hæves langt over niveauet af ren eksistens.


Men her er udfordringen for vores demokrati: I denne nation ser jeg titusinder af dens borgere - en væsentlig del af hele befolkningen - som i dette øjeblik nægtes størstedelen af, hvad de aller laveste standarder i dag kalder nødvendighederne af livet.


Jeg ser millioner af familier, der forsøger at leve af indkomster, så beskedne, at familiekatastroferne hænger over dem dag for dag.


Jeg ser millioner, hvis dagligdag i byen og på gården fortsætter under forhold, der blev betegnet som usømmelige af et såkaldt høfligt samfund for et halvt århundrede siden.


Jeg ser millioner nægtet uddannelse, rekreation og muligheden for at forbedre deres lod og deres børns lod.


Jeg ser millioner mangle midler til at købe produkter fra gård og fabrik og ved deres fattigdom at nægte arbejde og produktivitet til mange andre millioner.


Jeg ser en tredjedel af en nation dårligt indkvarteret, dårligt klædt, dårligt ernæret.


Det er ikke i fortvivlelse, at jeg tegner det billede til dig. Jeg maler det for dig i håb - fordi nationen, der ser og forstår uretfærdigheden i den, foreslår at male den ud. Vi er fast besluttet på at gøre enhver amerikansk borger til genstand for sit lands interesse og bekymring, og vi vil aldrig betragte nogen trofast lovlydig gruppe inden for vores grænser som overflødig. Prøven på vores fremskridt er ikke, om vi tilføjer mere til overflod af dem, der har meget, det er, om vi giver nok til dem, der har for lidt.


Hvis jeg kender noget til ånden og formålet med vores nation, vil vi ikke lytte til trøst, opportunisme og frygtsomhed. Vi vil fortsætte.


Overveldende nok er vi i republikken mænd og kvinder af god vilje mænd og kvinder, der også har mere end varme engagerede mænd og kvinder, der også har kølige hoveder og villige hænder med praktiske formål. De vil insistere på, at alle myndigheder i den populære regering bruger effektive instrumenter til at udføre deres vilje.


Regeringen er kompetent, når alle, der sammensætter den, fungerer som forvaltere for hele folket. Det kan gøre konstante fremskridt, når det holder sig ajour med alle fakta. Det kan opnå berettiget støtte og legitim kritik, når folket modtager sande oplysninger om alt, hvad regeringen gør.


Hvis jeg ved noget om vores folks vilje, vil de kræve, at disse betingelser for en effektiv regering skal skabes og vedligeholdes. De vil kræve en nation, der er ødelagt af kræft i uretfærdighed og derfor stærk blandt nationerne i sit eksempel på viljen til fred.


I dag genindvier vi vores land til længe værdsatte idealer i en pludselig ændret civilisation. I hvert land er der altid arbejdskræfter, der driver mænd fra hinanden og kræfter, der trækker mænd sammen. I vores personlige ambitioner er vi individualister. Men i vores søgen efter økonomisk og politisk fremgang som nation går vi alle op, eller også går vi alle sammen som ét folk.


For at opretholde et demokrati med indsats kræver en enorm mængde tålmodighed i håndteringen af ​​forskellige metoder, en stor mængde ydmyghed. Men ud af forvirringen mellem mange stemmer stiger forståelsen for dominerende offentligt behov. Derefter kan politisk ledelse udtrykke fælles idealer og hjælpe med deres realisering.


Når jeg igen aflægger eden som præsident for De Forenede Stater, påtager jeg mig den højtidelige forpligtelse til at føre det amerikanske folk frem ad den vej, som de har valgt at gå videre.


Mens denne pligt hviler på mig, vil jeg gøre mit yderste for at sige deres formål og gøre deres vilje, idet jeg søger guddommelig vejledning for at hjælpe os alle med at give lys til dem, der sidder i mørke og til at guide vores fødder på vej til fred .


En kort historie om den amerikanske indvielse

Den første præsident, George Washington, blev indviet i Federal Hall i New York den 30. april 1789. Washington gentog eden, læst af kansler Robert Livingston fra New York, med den ene hånd på Bibelen: “Jeg sværger højtideligt, at jeg vil trofast udføre embedsværket som USA's præsident og vil efter min bedste evne bevare, beskytte og forsvare USA's forfatning. " Ved at etablere en skik, der er blevet fulgt af alle efterfølgende præsidenter, tilføjede Washington: "Så hjælp mig Gud" til sidst. I veltalende oplysningsform talte Washingtons indledende tale om "den store forfatter af ethvert offentligt og privat gode", "den usynlige hånd, der leder menneskers anliggender" og borgerlige dyd, der kræves for en vellykket regering.

Washington behøvede kun 135 ord for at fuldføre adressen ved sin anden indvielse i 1793. Omkring 48 år senere havde præsident William Henry Harrison brug for 8495 ord for at fuldføre sin adresse. Under denne adresse, der varede omkring to timer i det kolde vejr, undlod Harrison at bære en vinterfrakke og udviklede lungebetændelse. Han døde en måned senere.

Traditionen med præsidentoptog af både den valgte præsident og den snart kommende eks-præsident har sine rødder i indvielsen i 1837. På indvielsesdagen samme år mødtes Andrew Jackson og Martin Van Buren og rejste sammen til Capitol i en trævogn bygget fra resterne af U.S.S. Forfatning. Denne processionstradition er blevet fulgt af alle præsidenter med undtagelse af afgående præsident Andrew Johnson, der i 1869 forblev i Capitol-underskrivelseslovgivningen indtil middagstidens udløb.

Andrew Jackson ved indvielsen i 1829.

Tænkt på at være den største af alle adresser, holdt Abraham Lincoln sin anden indledende tale i marts 1865. Da Unionen var involveret i borgerkrig, påkaldte Lincoln Gud for hurtigt at afslutte kampene. Imidlertid erklærede han sin accept, hvis Gud ville tillade blodsudgydelse at fortsætte efter hundredvis af år med slaveri, fordi "Herrens domme er helt sande og retfærdige."

Under det tyvende ændringsforslag blev datoen for præsidentindvielsen flyttet fra marts til 20. januar, hvilket falder et par uger efter godkendelsen af ​​stemmerne fra valgkollegiet. Den sidste præsident, der blev indviet i marts efter et valgår, var Franklin D. Roosevelt i 1933. Efter genvalg i 1936 var Roosevelt den første præsident, der blev indviet under den nye ændring den 20. januar 1937.

Roosevelts indvielse i 1933 er også bemærkelsesværdig på grund af det, han gjorde før sin ed. FDR gik sammen med sin kone til St. John's Episcopal Church til en gudstjeneste om morgenen den 4. marts og skabte en præsidentlig præcedens for at deltage i en indledende gudstjeneste.

I 1961 blev John F. Kennedy USA’s yngste og første katolske præsident. Under sin indledende tale den 20. januar holdt han sine nu berømte ord: "Spørg ikke, hvad dit land kan gøre for dig, spørg hvad du kan gøre for dit land."

Ronald Reagan brød traditionen i 1981 ved at have sin præsidentindvielse ved den amerikanske Capitols vestfront, som kunne holde flere besøgende end den normalt anvendte østfront.

I dag fortsætter præsidentens indvielse traditionerne med tidligere indvielser. For at lære meget mere om præsidentens indvielseshistorie, besøg venligst indvielseswebstedet for Den Fælles Kongresskomité for Indvielsesceremonier.

Begivenhedsoplysninger, der præsenteres her, er uofficielle og kan til enhver tid ændres. Sørg for at kontakte eventarrangøren for officielle detaljer og ændringer af begivenheden.


Indvielsesdag trivia! Fra historiske først til bedrifter

Franklin D. Roosevelts anden indvielse i 1937 var den første, der fandt sted den 20. januar. Thomas D. McAvoy/The LIFE Picture Collection via Getty Images

Joe Biden er ved at blive svoret ind som USA's 46. præsident-mens Kamala Harris skriver historie som den første kvinde nogensinde, den første sortamerikaner og den første sydasiatiske amerikaner, der afgav eden som vicepræsident. Alt dette ved du. Men her er et par fakta om indvielsesdagen, som du måske ikke kender.

Indvielsesdagen blev tidligere afholdt den 4. marts. Den 20. ændring, certificeret i 1933 og almindeligt kendt som "Lame Duck Amendment", flyttede dagen til 20. januar (eller 21. januar, hvis den 20. falder på en søndag) - meget tættere på starten af ​​en ny kongres. Franklin D. Roosevelts anden indvielse i 1937 var den første, der fandt sted den 20. januar.

Et litografi skildrer William Henry Harrisons 's præsidentindvielse i 1841. Library of Congress/The Washington Post

En hatløs, frakkeløs, 68-årig William Henry Harrison blev svoret i en våd, kold 4. marts 1841 og holdt historiens længste indledende tale ... og døde en måned senere af lungebetændelse. I hvert fald ifølge hans læge, Thomas Miller. Harrison slog sikkert mange rekorder: længste adresse, kortest tjenende, først til at dø på kontoret-men dræbte hans indvielse ham? Det er omtvistet. En undersøgelse fra 2014 konkluderede, at den niende præsident faktisk døde af enterisk feber, "sandsynligvis en følge af de uhygiejniske forhold" i den amerikanske hovedstad i det meste af 1800 -tallet.

Indvielsen af ​​William H. Taft i 1909 var den mest snedækkede nogensinde. Keystone View Company/Library of Congress

Den koldeste januarindvielse nogensinde? Det går til Ronald Reagans anden indvielse. I 1985 dyppede kviksølvet ned til 7 grader, med eftermiddagens nedkølingstemperaturer i området 10- til 20-under. Den koldeste martsindvielse går til Ulysses S. Grants anden ed, i 1873. Morgenens lave temperatur på 4 grader forbliver D.C.s koldeste martsdag på rekord. Med rasende vind var vindkøletemperaturerne 15 til 30 under den eftermiddag. Den mest snevejr? I 1909 faldt nogle 9,8 tommer, da William H. Taft blev svoret på kontoret, alt ifølge National Weather Service.

Præsident Ronald Reagan og førstedame Nancy Reagan efter indvielsen i 1981. George Tames/New York Times

Den varmeste januarindvielse, der nogensinde er registreret, går igen til Reagan, der oplevede en lun 55-dages indvielsesdag i 1981. Officielt går den varmeste martsindvielse til Woodrow Wilson i 1913, der så 55 grader. Det anslås, at Jefferson også så 55 grader den 4. marts 1801, men officielle vejrrekorder begyndte først i 1871 ifølge NWS. Det anslås, at George Washington så 61 grader for sin anden indvielse i 1793 i Philadelphia. Teknisk set havde Gerald Ford den hotteste indvielse i ’74 med 89 grader - men det var august.

Four Massachusetts natives have taken the oath: Braintree’s John Adams in 1797 and his son, John Quincy Adams, in 1825 JFK in 1961, and Milton native George H. W. Bush in 1989. Vermont’s Chester A. Arthur took office in 1881 and Calvin Coolidge in 1923. New Hampshire’s Franklin Pierce was inaugurated in 1853 and Connecticut-born George W. Bush in 2001.

Joe Biden took the oath for the vice presidency in 2013. Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post

The tradition of swearing on a Bible dates back to George Washington. Biden will swear on his massive Biden family Bible, which dates to 1893. Biden has used the same 5-inch thick book for every swearing in since he first became a senator in 1973. “[E]very time I’ve been sworn in for anything, the date has been on that and it’s inscribed on the Bible,” Biden told Stephen Colbert last month. (Dr. Jill Biden will hold the Bible during the ceremony. “Have you been working out?” Colbert joked.) Harris, meanwhile, will be sworn in by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and take her oath on a Bible owned by Thurgood Marshall. Most presidents swear on the Bible — but not all. John Quincy Adams chose a law book containing the Constitution. He was also the first president to wear pants, rather than knee breeches, to his Inauguration.

THE FIRST INAUGURATION

A painting depicts George Washington's inauguration on April 30, 1789.

George Washington’s first inauguration was held not in March, but on April 30, 1789, and not in D.C., but Federal Hall in New York City — oh, and they forgot the Bible. The Inauguration Day parade happened to be marshaled by a man named Jacob Morton, a freemason who also served as master of nearby St. John’s Lodge. So Morton quickly ran to grab a Bible from the Masonic Lodge.

Biden, 78, will make history as the oldest person ever sworn in as president. The youngest? Teddy Roosevelt was just 42 when inaugurated in September 1901, taking over after the assassination of William McKinley. Brookline native John F. Kennedy was 43 on his Inauguration Day. Both Bill Clinton and Ulysses S. Grant were 46. Barack Obama was 47. Franklin Pierce was 48. The median age is 55 years and 3 months — the exact age of Lyndon B. Johnson when he was sworn in after JFK’s assassination.

Washington is the only elected president to be inaugurated in two different cities. However, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Johnson were each inaugurated in different cities after taking over due to a president’s death. For the record: the first Washington, D.C., inauguration was Thomas Jefferson’s in 1801.

INNOVATION INAUGURATIONS

Harry S. Truman's inaugural address was the first to be televised in 1949 BECKER/Associated Press

Speaking of Jefferson, his was the first inaugural speech to be reprinted in a newspaper, the National Intelligencer. The Ford Model T was introduced in 1908 — but it wasn’t until March 4, 1921, that President Warren G. Harding became the first president to ride to and from his inauguration in an automobile, according to the White House Historical Association. Meanwhile, the first inauguration that Americans could hear over the radio was Calvin Coolidge’s in 1925. The first one televised was President Harry Truman’s in 1949. And Clinton’s second inauguration in 1997 was the first to be livestreamed on a newfangled thing called the Internet.


Second Inaugural Address

WHEN four years ago we met to inaugurate a President, the Republic, single-minded in anxiety, stood in spirit here. We dedicated ourselves to the fulfillment of a vision - to speed the time when there would be for all the people that security and peace essential to the pursuit of happiness. We of the Republic pledged ourselves to drive from the temple of our ancient faith those who had profaned it to end by action, tireless and unafraid, the stagnation and despair of that day. We did those first things first.

Our covenant with ourselves did not stop there. Instinctively we recognized a deeper need - the need to find through government the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization. Repeated attempts at their solution without the aid of government had left us baffled and bewildered. For, without that aid, we had been unable to create those moral controls over the services of science which are necessary to make science a useful servant instead of a ruthless master of mankind. To do this we knew that we must find practical controls over blind economic forces and blindly selfish men.

We of the Republic sensed the truth that democratic government has innate capacity to protect its people against disasters once considered inevitable, to solve problems once considered unsolvable. We would not admit that we could not find a way to master economic epidemics just as, after centuries of fatalistic suffering, we had found a way to master epidemics of disease. We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster.

In this we Americans were discovering no wholly new truth we were writing a new chapter in our book of self-government.

This year marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Constitutional Convention which made us a nation. At that Convention our forefathers found the way out of the chaos which followed the Revolutionary War they created a strong government with powers of united action sufficient then and now to solve problems utterly beyond individual or local solution. A century and a half ago they established the Federal Government in order to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to the American people.

Today we invoke those same powers of government to achieve the same objectives.

Four years of new experience have not belied our historic instinct. They hold out the clear hope that government within communities, government within the separate States, and government of the United States can do the things the times require, without yielding its democracy. Our tasks in the last four years did not force democracy to take a holiday.

Nearly all of us recognize that as intricacies of human relationships increase, so power to govern them also must increase - power to stop evil power to do good. The essential democracy of our Nation and the safety of our people depend not upon the absence of power, but upon lodging it with those whom the people can change or continue at stated intervals through an honest and free system of elections. The Constitution of 1787 did not make our democracy impotent.

In fact, in these last four years, we have made the exercise of all power more democratic for we have begun to bring private autocratic powers into their proper subordination to the public's government. The legend that they were invincible - above and beyond the processes of a democracy - has been shattered. They have been challenged and beaten.

Our progress out of the depression is obvious. But that is not all that you and I mean by the new order of things. Our pledge was not merely to do a patchwork job with secondhand materials. By using the new materials of social justice we have undertaken to erect on the old foundations a more enduring structure for the better use of future generations.

In that purpose we have been helped by achievements of mind and spirit. Old truths have been relearned untruths have been unlearned. We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays. We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.

This new understanding undermines the old admiration of worldly success as such. We are beginning to abandon our tolerance of the abuse of power by those who betray for profit the elementary decencies of life.

In this process evil things formerly accepted will not be so easily condoned. Hard-headedness will not so easily excuse hardheartedness. We are moving toward an era of good feeling. But we realize that there can be no era of good feeling save among men of good will.

For these reasons I am justified in believing that the greatest change we have witnessed has been the change in the moral climate of America.

Among men of good will, science and democracy together offer an ever-richer life and ever-larger satisfaction to the individual. With this change in our moral climate and our rediscovered ability to improve our economic order, we have set our feet upon the road of enduring progress.

Shall we pause now and turn our back upon the road that lies ahead? Shall we call this the promised land? Or, shall we continue on our way? For "each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth."

Many voices are heard as we face a great decision. Comfort says, "Tarry a while." Opportunism says, "This is a good spot." Timidity asks, "How difficult is the road ahead?"

True, we have come far from the days of stagnation and despair. Vitality has been preserved. Courage and confidence have been restored. Mental and moral horizons have been extended.

But our present gains were won under the pressure of more than ordinary circumstances. Advance became imperative under the goad of fear and suffering. The times were on the side of progress.

To hold to progress today, however, is more difficult. Dulled conscience, irresponsibility, and ruthless self-interest already reappear. Such symptoms of prosperity may become portents of disaster! Prosperity already tests the persistence of our progressive purpose.

Let us ask again: Have we reached the goal of our vision of that fourth day of March 1933? Have we found our happy valley?

I see a great nation, upon a great continent, blessed with a great wealth of natural resources. Its hundred and thirty million people are at peace among themselves they are making their country a good neighbor among the nations. I see a United States which can demonstrate that, under democratic methods of government, national wealth can be translated into a spreading volume of human comforts hitherto unknown, and the lowest standard of living can be raised far above the level of mere subsistence.

But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens - a substantial part of its whole population - who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.

I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.

I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.

I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.

I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

It is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hope - because the Nation, seeing and understanding the injustice in it, proposes to paint it out. We are determined to make every American citizen the subject of his country's interest and concern and we will never regard any faithful law-abiding group within our borders as superfluous. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

If I know aught of the spirit and purpose of our Nation, we will not listen to Comfort, Opportunism, and Timidity. We will carry on.

Overwhelmingly, we of the Republic are men and women of good will men and women who have more than warm hearts of dedication men and women who have cool heads and willing hands of practical purpose as well. They will insist that every agency of popular government use effective instruments to carry out their will.

Government is competent when all who compose it work as trustees for the whole people. It can make constant progress when it keeps abreast of all the facts. It can obtain justified support and legitimate criticism when the people receive true information of all that government does.

If I know aught of the will of our people, they will demand that these conditions of effective government shall be created and maintained. They will demand a nation uncorrupted by cancers of injustice and, therefore, strong among the nations in its example of the will to peace.

Today we reconsecrate our country to long-cherished ideals in a suddenly changed civilization. In every land there are always at work forces that drive men apart and forces that draw men together. In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people.

To maintain a democracy of effort requires a vast amount of patience in dealing with differing methods, a vast amount of humility. But out of the confusion of many voices rises an understanding of dominant public need. Then political leadership can voice common ideals, and aid in their realization.

In taking again the oath of office as President of the United States, I assume the solemn obligation of leading the American people forward along the road over which they have chosen to advance.

While this duty rests upon me I shall do my utmost to speak their purpose and to do their will, seeking Divine guidance to help us each and every one to give light to them that sit in darkness and to guide our feet into the way of peace.


Grieving: November 27, 1963

The peaceful transition of power by presidential election is often greeted with joy, but perhaps no national crisis is as sorrowful as when death ends a presidential term to begin another. Such was the case when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedy’s vice president, was sworn in the same day aboard Air Force One and became the 36th president of the United States. His ceremony was brief, conducted in a few minutes before the plane took off for Washington, D.C. Later that evening, he delivered a short statement:

This is a sad time for all people. We have suffered a loss that cannot be weighed. For me, it is a deep personal tragedy. I know that the world shares the sorrow that Mrs. Kennedy and her family bear. I will do my best. That is all I can do. I ask for your help—and God's.

Johnson later recalled that he knew he “could not let the tide of grief overwhelm me … the nation was in a state of shock and grief. The times cried out for leadership.” To begin the recovery, Johnson turned to former president Dwight D. Eisenhower for advice. The two men had worked together often when Eisenhower was in office and Johnson was serving in the Senate. Johnson valued the former president’s insight and agreed with his advice that addressing the nation would be necessary.

On November 27, 1963, five days after Kennedy’s death and two days after the funeral, Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress that was broadcast on television to the American people. The speech wasted no time in acknowledging the nation’s grief:

All I have I would have given gladly not to be standing here today.

The greatest leader of our time has been struck down by the foulest deed of our time … No words are sad enough to express our sense of loss. No words are strong enough to express our determination to continue the forward thrust of America that he began.

In the face of this loss, Johnson, like presidents before him, highlighted the importance of unity in finding a way forward through shared sorrow:

These are the United States: A united people with a united purpose. Our American unity does not depend upon unanimity. We have differences but now, as in the past, we can derive from those differences strength … Both as a people and a government, we can unite … I am here today to say I need your help. I cannot bear this burden alone. I need the help of all Americans, and all America … I profoundly hope that the tragedy and the torment of these terrible days will bind us together in new fellowship, making us one people in our hour of sorrow.

And Johnson closed the speech with a callback to Kennedy’s inauguration address to assure the American people that his work would not cease:

On the 20th day of January, in 19 and 61, John F. Kennedy told his countrymen that our national work would not be finished “in the first thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But,” he said, “let us begin.” Today in this moment of new resolve, I would say to all my fellow Americans, let us continue.

Johnson did continue, and in July 1964 signed into law the Civil Rights Act, first proposed by Kennedy in June 1963. Johnson would continue on and be elected president in his own right in November 1964.


Why Does Inauguration Day Fall on January 20?

In many countries a newly elected leader takes power within a couple weeks or𠅊s in the case of Great Britain𠅎ven the day following an election. In the United States, though, more than 11 weeks can pass between Election and Inauguration Days in order to give an incoming president time to choose a cabinet and plan for a new administration. The result is a lengthy lame-duck period, but it used to be even longer.

The Congress of the Confederation set March 4, 1789, as the date 𠇏or commencing proceedings” of the new government established by the U.S. Constitution. While a particularly bad winter delayed the inauguration of George Washington by eight weeks, subsequent incoming presidents and vice presidents took their oaths of office on March 4. 

Admission Card to the Inauguration of President Cleveland, March 4, 1893.

Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG/Getty Images

The four-month gap was needed in part because of the time it took to count and report votes and to travel to the nation’s capital. However, the lengthy lame-duck period caused problems such as in the aftermath of the 1860 election when seven states left the Union during the long “Secession Winter.” President-elect Abraham Lincoln had no power to act, and outgoing President James Buchanan took no action, leaving the issue for his successor.

As technological advances greatly reduced the times to tabulate votes, report the results and travel, such a long lame-duck period was no longer logistically necessary. As a result, the 20th Amendment, which was ratified on January 23, 1933, moved up Inauguration Day to January 20 and the first meeting of the new Congress to January 3. 


Franklin Roosevelt's Third Inaugural Address

On each national day of inauguration since 1789, the people have renewed their sense of dedication to the United States.

In Washington's day the task of the people was to create and weld together a nation.

In Lincoln's day the task of the people was to preserve that Nation from disruption from within.

In this day the task of the people is to save that Nation and its institutions from disruption from without.

To us there has come a time, in the midst of swift happenings, to pause for a moment and take stock—to recall what our place in history has been, and to rediscover what we are and what we may be. If we do not, we risk the real peril of inaction.

Lives of nations are determined not by the count of years, but by the lifetime of the human spirit. The life of a man is three-score years and ten: a little more, a little less. The life of a nation is the fullness of the measure of its will to live.

There are men who doubt this. There are men who believe that democracy, as a form of Government and a frame of life, is limited or measured by a kind of mystical and artificial fate that, for some unexplained reason, tyranny and slavery have become the surging wave of the future—and that freedom is an ebbing tide.

But we Americans know that this is not true.

Eight years ago, when the life of this Republic seemed frozen by a fatalistic terror, we proved that this is not true. We were in the midst of shock—but we acted. We acted quickly, boldly, decisively.

These later years have been living years—fruitful years for the people of this democracy. For they have brought to us greater security and, I hope, a better understanding that life's ideals are to be measured in other than material things.

Most vital to our present and our future is this experience of a democracy which successfully survived crisis at home put away many evil things built new structures on enduring lines and, through it all, maintained the fact of its democracy.

For action has been taken within the three-way framework of the Constitution of the United States. The coordinate branches of the Government continue freely to function. The Bill of Rights remains inviolate. The freedom of elections is wholly maintained. Prophets of the downfall of American democracy have seen their dire predictions come to naught.

We know it because we have seen it revive—and grow.

We know it cannot die—because it is built on the unhampered initiative of individual men and women joined together in a common enterprise—an enterprise undertaken and carried through by the free expression of a free majority.

We know it because democracy alone, of all forms of government, enlists the full force of men's enlightened will.

We know it because democracy alone has constructed an unlimited civilization capable of infinite progress in the improvement of human life.

We know it because, if we look below the surface, we sense it still spreading on every continent—for it is the most humane, the most advanced, and in the end the most unconquerable of all forms of human society.

A nation, like a person, has a body—a body that must be fed and clothed and housed, invigorated and rested, in a manner that measures up to the objectives of our time.

A nation, like a person, has a mind—a mind that must be kept informed and alert, that must know itself, that understands the hopes and the needs of its neighbors—all the other nations that live within the narrowing circle of the world.

And a nation, like a person, has something deeper, something more permanent, something larger than the sum of all its parts. It is that something which matters most to its future—which calls forth the most sacred guarding of its present.

It is a thing for which we find it difficult—even impossible—to hit upon a single, simple word.

And yet we all understand what it is—the spirit—the faith of America. It is the product of centuries. It was born in the multitudes of those who came from many lands—some of high degree, but mostly plain people, who sought here, early and late, to find freedom more freely.

The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history. It is human history. It permeated the ancient life of early peoples. It blazed anew in the middle ages. It was written in Magna Charta.

In the Americas its impact has been irresistible. America has been the New World in all tongues, to all peoples, not because this continent was a new-found land, but because all those who came here believed they could create upon this continent a new life—a life that should be new in freedom.

Its vitality was written into our own Mayflower Compact, into the Declaration of Independence, into the Constitution of the United States, into the Gettysburg Address.

Those who first came here to carry out the longings of their spirit, and the millions who followed, and the stock that sprang from them—all have moved forward constantly and consistently toward an ideal which in itself has gained stature and clarity with each generation.

The hopes of the Republic cannot forever tolerate either undeserved poverty or self-serving wealth.

We know that we still have far to go that we must more greatly build the security and the opportunity and the knowledge of every citizen, in the measure justified by the resources and the capacity of the land.

But it is not enough to achieve these purposes alone. It is not enough to clothe and feed the body of this Nation, and instruct and inform its mind. For there is also the spirit. And of the three, the greatest is the spirit.

Without the body and the mind, as all men know, the Nation could not live.

But if the spirit of America were killed, even though the Nation's body and mind, constricted in an alien world, lived on, the America we know would have perished.

That spirit—that faith—speaks to us in our daily lives in ways often unnoticed, because they seem so obvious. It speaks to us here in the Capital of the Nation. It speaks to us through the processes of governing in the sovereignties of 48 States. It speaks to us in our counties, in our cities, in our towns, and in our villages. It speaks to us from the other nations of the hemisphere, and from those across the seas—the enslaved, as well as the free. Sometimes we fail to hear or heed these voices of freedom because to us the privilege of our freedom is such an old, old story.

The destiny of America was proclaimed in words of prophecy spoken by our first President in his first inaugural in 1789—words almost directed, it would seem, to this year of 1941: "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered . deeply, . finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people."

If we lose that sacred fire—if we let it be smothered with doubt and fear—then we shall reject the destiny which Washington strove so valiantly and so triumphantly to establish. The preservation of the spirit and faith of the Nation does, and will, furnish the highest justification for every sacrifice that we may make in the cause of national defense.

In the face of great perils never before encountered, our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy.

For this we muster the spirit of America, and the faith of America.

We do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God.


A History of Presidential Inaugurations

Every four years on January 20th, the United States holds a ceremony for the inauguration of the President of the United States. There are traditions for the inauguration, some of which have been passed down since the very first.

Why do we use January 20th as the date, and how did many of these traditions get started?

Learn more about the history and traditions of the Presidential Inauguration on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily.

This episode is sponsored by CuriosityStream.

If you are a student of American history or presidential history, you’ll find plenty to watch on CuriosityStream. They have shows on the War of 1812, the Cold War, the Great Depression, the Civil War, and many of the cultural transformations in American Society.

CuriosityStream is currently running a special where you can get a full year for 40% off, or only $11.99. That’s only $1 a month for some of the best educational programs.

If you love to learn then start your subscription by visiting Everything-Everywhere.com/CuriosityStream or click on the link in the show notes.

Inauguration Day is the day the president of the United States takes the oath of office and begins a new presidential term.

Because it is so short, I’ll read the oath of office here:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Inauguration Day wasn’t always on January 20th. In fact, for most of American history, the day fell on March 4th.

When the constitution was first written, one of the issues which had to be dealt with was the time it took to get information and people from the various states to Washington.

Everything was done by horseback and as the nation grew westward, the length of time it took to get to Washington increased. California was admitted to the Union in 1850, 12 years before the transcontinental railroad was completed.

Likewise, the nation didn’t always vote on the same date. For the first presidential elections, there was no popular vote. State legislatures selected electors, and they often voted as early as September.

So the March 4th date was to give ample time between the electoral college voting, and for the incoming president to assemble a cabinet and get everyone to Washington.

The first presidential inauguration didn’t actually take place on March 4. Due to a bad winter, Washington’s first inauguration took place on April 30, 1789, in New York City. It was held on the balcony of Federal Hall on Wall Street. You can visit Federal Hall National Monument today, however, it isn’t the same building, and there is no balcony.

There are several traditions that started with George Washington.

First, was putting his hand on a bible when taking the oath of office. The bible which was used was taken from the St. John’s Lodge No. 1 of the Ancient York Masons.

The bible was randomly opened to Genesis 47, which says, “Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea and he shall be for a haven of ships, and his border shall be unto Zidon”. The passage was totally random and had absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

The same Washington Bible has been used in the inaugurations of several other presidents: Warren Harding, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush.

There is no requirement about the use of a bible. It is just tradition. Some presidents haven’t used a bible at all. John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce put their hands on a book of law. Theodore Roosevelt, having taken the oath after the death of William McKinley, didn’t put his hand on anything. Lyndon Johnson put his hand on a Catholic missal, because they couldn’t find a bible on Air Force One, and didn’t want to waste time looking for one.

Franklin Pierce was also the only president to use the words “affirm” rather than “swear” in the presidential oath.

Washington also ad-libbed the phrase “…so help me God” and the end of the Oath, and then kissed the bible, both of which have been done by subsequent presidents.

There have been several cases of presidents flubbing the oath. In 1909 William Howard Taft repeated the oath incorrectly as given by the Chief Justice.

In 1929, Taft, this time acting as Chief Justice, did the same thing to Herbert Hoover, when he said “preserve, maintain, and defend the Constitution”, instead of “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution”. Hoover did not retake the oath.

Eisenhower inserted the word “the” in front of “President”, and Lyndon Johson was prompted to say “presidency” by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Chief Justice John Roberts moved the word “faithfully”, and President Obama, after pausing, followed his lead. He retook the oath again the next day just to be safe.

Washington also gave the first inaugural address. He didn’t give it to the public which had gathered for the inauguration, however. Rather, he went inside and gave it to Congress.

His second inaugural address was the shortest in history at only 135 words. This time he took the oath in Philadelphia.

The longest inaugural address in history was given by William Henry Harrison, who gave a marathon 1-hour 45-minute speech which was 8,445 words long. To put that in perspective, the scripts I create for this podcast are usually between 1,000 to 2,500 words long.

No president who ascendent to the office at the death of a predecessor had given an inaugural address, but they all have addressed congress soon after.

John Adams became the first president to have the oath administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This too is not required by law, and technically anyone can administer the oath of office.

There have been several oaths that have been administered since then by someone other than the Chief Justice. Usually, upon the death of a president, they try to get anyone who is a judge. In the case of Calvin Coolidge, when Warren Harding died, the oath was administered by his father who was a notary public.

The change in the inauguration date occurred with the 20th amendment, which was known as the lame-duck amendment. Prior to this, both the congress and the president were inaugurated on the same date, March 4th.

The first president to be inaugurated on January 20th was Franklin Roosevelt during his second inauguration in 1937. Needless to say, inaugurations suddenly got a lot colder.

The warmest January 20th inauguration was Ronald Reagan’s first inauguration when the temperature was 55F or 13 Celcius. The coldest inauguration was Reagan’s second when temperatures were 7 degrees Fahrenheit or -14 Celcius.

There have been other traditions that have started in the 20th century. In 1921 Warren Harding traveled to the capitol in an automobile.

The first televised inauguration was Harry Truman in 1949.

Since 1953 Congress has hosted a luncheon for the incoming president.

In 1965, Lady Bird Johnson held the bible, becoming the first First Lady to have an active role in the inauguration.

An interfaith prayer service was started in 1985.

One tradition which never got off the ground was adopted by Andrew Jackson. He invited the public to the White House and over 20,000 people showed up. There were so many people, Jackson had to flee the White House through a window.

To date, there have been 59 presidential inaugurations over a period of 232 years.

Every inauguration is different, but they all share common traditions that have tied them together throughout American history.

Alt overalt er også en podcast!


Se videoen: Volby 2017: Nejlepší momenty Poslední Superdebata ČT (November 2021).