Presidents of U.S.A

PRESIDENTS
OF THE UNITED STATES

AND THEIR VICE PRESIDENTS
Inauguration End of Home Home

# President: Vice President:
Date Presidency State State
1st Apr 30,1789 Mar 3,1797 George Washington VA John Adams MA
2nd Mar 4, 1797 Mar 3,1801 John Adams MA Thomas Jefferson VA
3rd Mar 4, 1801 Mar 3,1809 Thomas Jefferson VA Aaron Burr (1st Term) NJ
George Clinton (2nd Term) NY
4th Mar 4, 1809 Mar 3,1817 James Madison VA George Clinton* (1st Term) NY
Elbridge Gerry* (2nd Term) MA
5th Mar 4, 1817 Mar 3,1825 James Monroe VA Daniel D. Tompkins NY
6th Mar 4, 1825 Mar 3,1829 John Quincy Adams MA John C. Calhoun SC
7th Mar 4, 1829 Mar 3,1837 Andrew Jackson SC John C. Calhoun** (1st Term) SC
Martin Van Buren (2nd Term) NY
8th Mar 4, 1837 Mar 3,1841 Martin Van Buren NY Richard M. Johnson KY
9th Mar 4, 1841 Apr 4,1841 William H. Harrison* VA John Tyler VA
10th Apr 6, 1841 Mar 3,1845 John Tyler VA Vacant
11th Mar 4, 1845 Mar 3,1849 James Knox Polk NC George M. Dallas PA
12th Mar 4, 1849 Jul 9,1850 Zachary Taylor* VA Millard Fillmore NY
13th Jul 10, 1850 Mar 3,1853 Millard Fillmore NY Vacant
14th Mar 4, 1853 Mar 3,1857 Franklin Pierce NH William R. King* NC
15th Mar 4, 1857 Mar 3,1861 James Buchanan PA John C. Breckenridge KY
16th Mar 4, 1861 Apr 15,1865 Abraham Lincoln* KY Hannibal Hamlin ME
Andrew Johnson NC
17th Apr 15, 1865 Mar 3,1869 Andrew Johnson NC Vacant
18th Mar 4, 1869 Mar 3,1877 Ulysses S. Grant OH Schuyler Colfax (1st Term) NY
Henry Wilson* (2nd Term) NH
19th Mar 4, 1887 Mar 3,1881 Rutherford B. Hayes OH William A. Wheeler NY
20th Mar 4, 1881 Sep 18,1881 James A. Garfield* OH Chester A. Arthur VT
21st Sep 19, 1881 Mar 3,1886 Chester A. Arthur VT Vacant
22nd Mar 4, 1885 Mar 3,1889 Grover Cleveland NJ Thomas A. Hendricks* OH
23rd Mar 4, 1889 Mar 3,1893 Benjamin Harrison OH Levi P. Morton VT
“Home State” indicates their home state at the place of birth * Died while in office
** Resigned
Inauguration End of Home Home
# President: Vice President:
Date Presidency State State
24th Mar 4, 1893 Mar 3, 1897 Grover Cleveland NJ Adlai E. Stevenson KY
25th Mar 4, 1897 Sep 14,1901 William McKinley* OH Garret A. Hobart* (1st Term) NJ
Theodore Roosevelt (2nd) NY
26th Sep 14, 1901 Mar 3, 1909 Theodore Roosevelt NY Vacant (1st Term)
Charles Fairbanks (2nd) OH
27th Mar 4, 1909 Mar 3, 1913 William H. Taft OH James S. Sherman* NY
28th Mar 4, 1913 Mar 3, 1921 Woodrow Wilson VA Thomas R. Marshall IN
29th Mar 4, 1921 Aug 2, 1923 Warren G. Harding* OH Calvin Coolidge VT
30th Aug 3, 1923 Mar 3, 1929 Calvin Coolidge VT Vacant (1st Term)
Charles G. Dawes OH
31st Mar 4, 1929 Mar 3, 1933 Herbert C. Hoover IA Charles Curtis KS
32nd Mar 4, 1933 Apr 12, 1945 Franklin Roosevelt* NY John N. Garner (1st & 2d) TX
Henry A. Wallace (3rd Term) IA
Harry S Truman MO
33rd Apr 12, 1945 Jan 20, 1953 Harry S. Truman MO Vacant (1st Term)
Alben W. Barkley (2nd) KY
34th Jan 20, 1953 Jan 20, 1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower TX Richard M. Nixon CA
35th Jan 20, 1961 Nov 22, 1963 John F. Kennedy* MA Lyndon B. Johnson TX
36th Nov 22, 1963 Jan 20, 1969 Lyndon B. Johnson TX Hubert H. Humphrey SD
37th Jan 20, 1969 Aug 9, 1974 Richard M. Nixon** CA Spiro T. Agnew (1st-2nd)** MD
Gerald R. Ford (2nd Term) NE
38th Aug 9, 1974 Jan 20, 1977 Gerald R. Ford NE Nelson A. Rockefeller ME
39th Jan 20, 1977 Jan 20, 1981 James Earl Carter GA Walter F. Mondale MN
40th Jan 20, 1981 Jan 20, 1989 Ronald Reagan IL George H. W. Bush MA
41st Jan 20, 1989 Jan 20, 1993 George H. W. Bush MA Dan Quayle IN
42nd Jan 20, 1993 Jan 20, 2001 William J. Clinton AR Al Gore DC
43rd Jan 20, 2001 Jan 20, 2009 George W. Bush, Jr. CT Dick Cheney NE
44th Jan 20, 2009 Jan 20, 2017 Barack H. Obama HI Joseph R. Biden PA
45th Jan 20, 2017 Jan 20, 2021 Donald J. Trump NY Mike Pence IN
46th Jan 20, 2021 Present Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. PA Kamala Devi Harris CA
“Home State” indicates their home state at the place of birth * Died while in office
** Resigned
FIRST U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
John Adams
FIRST LADY
April 30, 1789 to March 3, 1797

Martha Custis Washington
BORN: February 22, 1732 at Pope's Creek, Virginia

FAMILY: Married Martha Dandridge Custis on January 6, 1759
No natural children (Adopted the children of Martha Custis)
Grandfather by marriage of Confederate General Robert E. Lee
RELIGION: Episcopalian
MILITARY SERVICE: Commanding General, Revolutionary War
PROFESSION: Surveyor / Planter
POLITICAL PARTY: Federalist
HOME STATE: Virginia
POLITICAL OFFICES: Chairman of Constitutional Convention
NICKNAME: "Father of our Country"
DIED: December 14, 1799 (Age - 67)
LAST WORDS: "I die hard, but I am not afraid to go. 'Tis well."
BURIED: Mount Vernon Estate, Mount Vernon, Virginia
"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried
before you give them your confidence."
"First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen."

General Henry Lee (father of Robert E. Lee) to both houses of Congress on December 26, 1799
Courtesy of www.homeofheroes.com 1
George Washington
George Washington (February 22, 1732– December 14, 1799) was an
American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father who
served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797.
Appointed by the Continental Congress as commander of
the Continental Army, Washington led the Patriot forces to victory in
the American Revolutionary War and served as the president of
the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which created the Constitution
of the United States and the American federal government.
Washington has been called the "Father of the Nation" for his
manifold leadership in the formative days of the country.
Washington's first public office was serving as the

official surveyor of Culpeper County, Virginia from 1749 to 1750.
Subsequently, he received his initial military training (as well as a
command with the Virginia Regiment) during the French and Indian
War. He was later elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and was
named a delegate to the Continental Congress where he was
appointed Commanding General of the Continental Army. With this
title, he commanded American forces (allied with France) in the defeat
and surrender of the British at the Siege of Yorktown during
the American Revolutionary War. He resigned his commission after
the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.
SECOND U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
Thomas Jefferson
FIRST LADY
March 4, 1797 to March 3, 1801 Abigail Adams
BORN: October 30, 1735 at Quincy, MA

FAMILY: Married Abigail Smith on October 25, 1764
3 Sons and 2 Daughters
*Son John Quincy Adams was our 6th President
RELIGION: Unitarian
PROFESSION: Attorney (He successfully defended British soldiers after Boston Massacre)
POLITICAL PARTY: Federalist
HOME STATE: Massachusetts
POLITICAL OFFICES: Delegate to Continental Congress, Signer of Declaration of Independence, Diplomat
to France and Holland, Vice President under George Washington
NICKNAME: "Upholder of the Constitution"
DIED: July 4, 1826 (Age - 90)
LAST WORDS: "Thomas Jefferson survives."
BURIED: First Unitarian Church, Quincy, Massachusetts
"Liberty…is an intellectual quality. Let the human mind loose."
"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it.
May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof." John Adams in a letter to Abigail on his
second night in the presidential home that became the White House.
John Adams
John Adams (October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) was an American
statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and Founding Father who
served as the second president of the United States from 1797 to
1801. Before his presidency, he was a leader of the American
Revolution that achieved independence from Great Britain and during
the war, served as a diplomat in Europe. He was twice elected vice
president, serving from 1789 to 1797 in a prestigious role with little
power. Adams was a dedicated diarist and regularly corresponded
with many important contemporaries, including his wife and
adviser Abigail Adams as well as his friend and rival Thomas
Jefferson.
A lawyer and political activist prior to the Revolution, Adams was
devoted to the right to counsel and presumption of innocence. He
defied anti-British sentiment and successfully defended British
soldiers against murder charges arising from the Boston Massacre.
Adams was a Massachusetts delegate to the Continental
Congress and became a leader of the revolution. He assisted
Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence in 1776. As a
diplomat in Europe, he helped negotiate a peace treaty with Great
Britain and secured vital governmental loans. Adams was the primary
author of the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780, which influenced
the United States constitution, as did his essay Thoughts on
Government.
Adams was elected to two terms as vice president under President
George Washington and was elected as the United States' second
president in 1796. He was the only president elected under the banner
of the Federalist Party. During his single term, Adams encountered
fierce criticism from the Jeffersonian Republicans and from some in
his own Federalist Party, led by his rival Alexander Hamilton. Adams
signed the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts and built up
the Army and Navy in the undeclared naval war (called the "Quasi-
War") with France. During his term, he became the first president to
reside in the executive mansion now known as the White House.
THIRD U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT (1st Term)
Aaron Burr
VICE PRESIDENT (2nd Term)
March 4, 1801 to March 3, 1809 George Clinton
BORN: April 13, 1743 at Shadwell, Virginia

FAMILY: Married Martha Wayles Skelton on January 1, 1772 Thomas Jefferson's wife Martha died
1 Son and 5 Daughters in 1782 and Jefferson never
remarried. There was no FIRST Lady
*His grandson was first child born in the White House during his presidency.
RELIGION: Deist
PROFESSION: Attorney, Plantation Owner
POLITICAL PARTY: Democratic-Republican
POLITICAL OFFICES: Delegate to Continental Congress, Governor (VA), Diplomat to France, Secretary of
State, Vice President
AUTHOR OF THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
NICKNAME: "Man of the People"
WHITE HOUSE PETS: Mockingbird, two live Bears in cages on White House Lawn
DIED: July 4, 1826 (Age - 83)
LAST WORDS: "Is it the Fourth?"
BURIED: Monticello, Charlottesville, Virginia
"Never did a prisoner, released from his chains, feel such relief as I shall on shaking off the shackles
of power. Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science."
Written March 2, 1809... the night before his successor was inaugurated.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) was an American

statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, and Founding
Father who served as the third president of the United States from
1801 to 1809. He was previously the second vice
president under John Adams and the first United States secretary of
state under George Washington. The principal author of
the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was a proponent of
democracy, republicanism, and individual rights, motivating American
colonists to break from the Kingdom of Great Britain and form a new
nation. He produced formative documents and decisions at state,
national, and international levels.
During the American Revolution, Jefferson represented Virginia in
the Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration of
Independence. As a Virginia legislator, he drafted a state law for
religious freedom. He served as the second Governor of Virginia from
1779 to 1781, during the Revolutionary War. In 1785, Jefferson was
appointed the United States Minister to France, and subsequently, the
nation's first secretary of state under President George
Washington from 1790 to 1793. Jefferson and James
Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party to oppose
the Federalist Party during the formation of the First Party System.
With Madison, he anonymously wrote the provocative Kentucky and
Virginia Resolutions in 1798 and 1799, which sought to
strengthen states' rights by nullifying the federal Alien and Sedition
Acts.
Jefferson and Federalist John Adams became friends as well as
political rivals, serving in the Continental Congress and drafting
the Declaration of Independence together. In the 1796 presidential
election between the two, Jefferson came in second, which according
to electoral procedure at the time, made him vice president to Adams.
Jefferson challenged Adams again in 1800 and won the presidency.
FOURTH U.S. PRESIDENT
George Clinton*
March 4, 1809 to March 3, 1817 Elbridge Gerry*

*Died while in Office
BORN: March 16, 1751 at Port Conway, Virginia
FAMILY: Married Dorothea (Dolley) Payne Todd on Sept. 15, 1794 FIRST LADY
No Children
*Madison was a 2d cousin of future President Zachary Taylor
PROFESSION: Attorney
POLITICAL OFFICES: Delegate to Constitutional Convention, Congressman,
Secretary of State
NICKNAME: "Father of the Constitution"
DIED: June 28, 1836 (Age - 85)
BURIED: Montpelier Estate, Montpelier Station, Virginia
Dolley Madison
"In all cases where the majority are united by a common interest or passion,
the rights of the minority are in danger."
"The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be
cherished and perpetuated." James Madison in a note opened after his death.
James Madison
James Madison Jr. (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American
statesman, diplomat, and Founding Father who served as the
fourth president of the United States from 1809 to 1817. He is hailed
as the "Father of the Constitution" for his pivotal role in drafting and
promoting the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
Madison was born into a prominent planter family in Virginia. He

served as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and
the Continental Congress during and after the American
Revolutionary War. Disillusioned by the weak national government
established by the Articles of Confederation, he helped organize
the Constitutional Convention, which produced a new constitution.
Madison's Virginia Plan served as the basis for the Convention's
deliberations, and he was one of the most influential individuals at the
convention. He became one of the leaders in the movement to ratify
the Constitution, and joined Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in
writing The Federalist Papers, a series of pro-ratification essays
which was among the most influential works of political science in
American history.
Madison emerged as an important leader in the House of

Representatives and was a close adviser to President George
Washington. During the early 1790s, Madison opposed the economic
program and the accompanying centralization of power favored
by Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton and organized the Democratic–
Republican Party in opposition to Hamilton's Federalist Party. After
Jefferson was elected president, Madison served as his Secretary of
State from 1801 to 1809. In that position, he supervised the Louisiana
Purchase, which doubled the size of the United States.
FIFTH U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
Daniel D. Tompkins
FIRST LADY
March 4, 1817 to March 3, 1825 Elizabeth Monroe
BORN: April 28, 1758 at Westmoreland County, Virginia

FAMILY: Married Elizabeth Kotright on February 16, 1786
1 Son and 2 Daughters
MILITARY SERVICE: Captain, Continental Army, American Revolutionary War*
POLITICAL OFFICES: Minister to France, Governor of Virginia, Senator, Secretary of State
NICKNAME: "The Last Cocked Hat"
DIED: July 4, 1831 (Age - 73)
BURIED: Hollywood Cemetery, Richmond, Virginia
"In this great nation there is but one order, that of the people."
"Monroe was so honest that if you turned his soul inside out there would not be a spot on it."
Thomas Jefferson
*In Emanuel Leutze's famous painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware River during the American
Revolution, the young soldier holding the flag behind General Washington is Captain James Monroe.
James Monroe
James Monroe (/mənˈroʊ/ mən-ROH; April 28, 1758 – July 4, 1831) was
an American statesman, lawyer, diplomat and Founding Father who
served as the fifth president of the United States from 1817 to 1825. A
member of the Democratic-Republican Party, Monroe was the last
president of the Virginia dynasty and the Republican Generation; his
presidency coincided with the Era of Good Feelings, concluding
the First Party System era of American politics. He is perhaps best
known for issuing the Monroe Doctrine, a policy of opposing
European colonialism in the Americas while effectively asserting U.S.
dominance, empire, and hegemony in the hemisphere. He also served
as governor of Virginia, a member of the United States Senate, U.S.
ambassador to France and Britain, the seventh Secretary of State, and
the eighth Secretary of War.
Born into a slave-owning planter family in Westmoreland
County, Virginia, Monroe served in the Continental Army during
the American Revolutionary War. After studying law under Thomas
Jefferson from 1780 to 1783, he served as a delegate in
the Continental Congress. As a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying
Convention, Monroe opposed the ratification of the United States
Constitution. In 1790, he won election to the Senate, where he became
a leader of the Democratic-Republican Party. He left the Senate in
1794 to serve as President George Washington's ambassador to
France but was recalled by Washington in 1796. Monroe won the
election as Governor of Virginia in 1799 and strongly supported
Jefferson's candidacy in the 1800 presidential election.
As President Jefferson's special envoy, Monroe helped negotiate
the Louisiana Purchase, through which the United States nearly
doubled in size. Monroe fell out with his longtime friend James
Madison after Madison rejected the Monroe–Pinkney Treaty that
Monroe negotiated with Britain.
SIXTH U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
John C. Calhoun
FIRST LADY
March 4, 1825 to March 3, 1829 Louisa Adams
BORN: July 11, 1767 at Braintree, Massachusetts

FAMILY: Married Louisa Catherine Johnson on July 26, 1797
1 Daughter and 3 Sons including a son named George Washington Adams
John Quincy Adams was the first son of an American President to also be elected President
RELIGION: Unitarian
HOME STATE: Massachusetts
POLITICAL OFFICES: Foreign Diplomat, U. S. Senator, Secretary of State
He was subsequently elected to the U.S. House of Representatives AFTER his Presidency.
NICKNAME: "Old Man Eloquent"
DIED: February 23, 1848 (Age - 80) - Two days after collapsing on the floor of the House of Representatives
where he was serving as a Congressman from Massachusetts.
LAST WORDS: "Thank the officers of the House (of Representatives). This is the last of earth. I am content."
BURIED: First Unitarian Church, Quincy, Massachusetts
"Individual liberty is individual power."
"I am a man of reserved, cold, and forbidding manners." John Quincy Adams describing himself.
John Quincy Adams
John Quincy Adams (/ˈkwɪnzi/ , July 11, 1767 – February 23, 1848) was
an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, and diarist who served as
the sixth president of the United States, from 1825 to 1829. He
previously served as the eighth United States Secretary of State from
1817 to 1825. During his long diplomatic and political career, Adams
also served as an ambassador, and as a member of the United States
Congress representing Massachusetts in both chambers. He was the
eldest son of John Adams, who served as the second president of the
United States from 1797 to 1801, and First Lady Abigail Adams.
Initially a Federalist like his father, he won election to the presidency
as a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, and in the mid-
1830s became affiliated with the Whig Party.
Born in Braintree, Massachusetts, Adams spent much of his youth in
Europe, where his father served as a diplomat. After returning to the
United States, Adams established a successful legal practice
in Boston. In 1794, President George Washington appointed Adams
as the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, and Adams would serve
in high-ranking diplomatic posts until 1801, when Thomas
Jefferson took office as president. Federalist leaders in
Massachusetts arranged for Adams's election to the United States
Senate in 1802, but Adams broke with the Federalist Party over
foreign policy and was denied re-election. In 1809, President James
Madison, a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, appointed
Adams as the U.S. ambassador to Russia. Adams held diplomatic
posts for the duration of Madison's presidency, and he served as part
of the American delegation that negotiated an end to the War of 1812.
In 1817, President James Monroe selected Adams as his Secretary of
State. In that role, Adams negotiated the Adams–Onís Treaty, which
provided for the American acquisition of Florida. He also helped
formulate the Monroe Doctrine, which became a key tenet of U.S.
foreign policy. In 1818, Adams was elected a member of the American
Philosophical Society in Philadelphia.
SEVENTH U.S. PRESIDENT
John C. Calhoun*
March 4, 1829 to March 3, 1837 Martin Van Buren

*Resigned in 1832 (First VP to resign the Office.)
Andrew Jackson's wife Rachel
BORN: March 15, 1767 at New Lancaster County, South Carolina* died after the election but before
FAMILY: Married Rachel Donelson Robards in August 1791 the Inauguration. Jackson never
(The two had a second wedding ceremony January 17, 1794.) remarried and there was no First
RELIGION: Presbyterian Lady during his presidency.
PROFESSION: Attorney/Professional Soldier
MILITARY SERVICE: General, U.S. Army (Also served as 13 year-old member of the Continental Army
during the American Revolution.)
POLITICAL PARTY: Democratic
HOME STATE: Tennessee
POLITICAL OFFICES: U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator, Tennessee Supreme Court Judge, Governor of
Florida Territory.
NICKNAME: "Old Hickory"
DIED: June 8, 1845 (Age - 78)
BURIED: The Hermitage, Nashville, Tennessee
"Brought up under the tyranny of Britain -- altho young (I) embarked in the struggle for our liberties, in
which I lost everything that was dear to me...for which I have been amply repaid by living under the mild
administration of a republican government. To maintain this, and the independent rights of our nation is
a duty I have ever owed to my country, to myself, and to posterity. And, when I do all that I can to it
support, I have only done my duty." Jan. 4, 1813 referring to the loss of his
entire family and his own service during the American Revolutionary War.
*Andrew Jackson was actually born on a ship en route to America, the only President not born on American soil.
Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American

lawyer, planter, general, and statesman who served as the
seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before
being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in
the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S.
Congress. Although often praised as an advocate for ordinary
Americans and for his work in preserving the union of states, Jackson
has also been criticized for his racial policies, particularly his role in
the forced removal of tens of thousands of Native Americans from
their ancestral homelands.
Born in the colonial Carolinas in the decade before the American

Revolutionary War, Jackson became a frontier lawyer and
married Rachel Donelson Robards. He served briefly in the United
States House of Representatives and the United States Senate,
representing Tennessee. After resigning, he served as a justice on
the Tennessee Supreme Court from 1798 until 1804. Jackson
purchased a property later known as The Hermitage, and became a
wealthy planter, owning hundreds of African American slaves. In
1801, he was appointed colonel of the Tennessee militia and was
elected its commander the following year. He led troops during
the Creek War of 1813–1814, winning the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.
The subsequent Treaty of Fort Jackson required the Creek surrender
of vast lands in present-day Alabama and Georgia. In the
concurrent war against the British, Jackson's victory in 1815 at
the Battle of New Orleans made him a national hero. Jackson then led
U.S. forces in the First Seminole War, which led to
the annexation of Florida from Spain. Jackson briefly served as
Florida's first territorial governor before returning to the Senate. He
ran for president in 1824, winning a plurality of the popular and
electoral vote.
EIGHTH U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
Richard M. Johnson
HOSTESS (DAUGHTER-IN-LAW)
March 4, 1837 to March 3, 1841 Angelica Van Buren
BORN: December 5, 1782 in Kinderhook, New York*

FAMILY: Married Hannah Hoes on February 21, 1807 Dolley Madison Introduced Madison's son
Four Sons Abraham to her second cousin Angelica
Hannah Van Buren died in 1819 and Martin Van Buren Singleton who, when they had married,
never remarried, entering the White House a bachelor. became the White House hostess under
RELIGION: Dutch Reformed Martin Van Buren's presidency.
POLITICAL PARTY: Democratic
HOME STATE: New York
POLITICAL OFFICES: NY Attorney General, Senator, & Governor, Secretary of State, Vice President
NICKNAME: "The Little Magician"
DIED: July 24, 1862 (Age - 79)
BURIED: Kinderhook Cemetery, Kinderhook, New York
"There is a power in public opinion which will not tolerate an incompetent or unworthy man to hold in
his weak or wicked hands the lives and fortunes of his fellow citizens."
"One of the gentlest and most amiable men I have ever met." Washington Irving
"A true man with no guile." President Andrew Jackson
*Van Buren was the first President born in the United States; all prior Presidents had been born in the Colonies.
Martin Van Buren
Martin Van Buren (/væn ˈbjʊərən/ van BYURE-ən; Dutch: Maarten van
Buren; (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈmaːrtə(ɱ) vɑm ˈbyːrə(n ); December 5,
1782 – July 24, 1862) was an American lawyer and statesman who
served as the eighth president of the United States from 1837 to 1841.
A founder of the Democratic Party, he had previously served as the
ninth governor of New York, the tenth United States secretary of state,
and the eighth vice president of the United States. Later in his life,
Van Buren emerged as an elder statesman and an important anti-
slavery leader who led the Free Soil Party ticket in the 1848
presidential election.
Van Buren was born in Kinderhook, New York, where most residents
were of Dutch descent and spoke Dutch as their primary language. He
was the first president to have been born after the American
Revolution — in which his father served as a patriot — and is the only
president to have spoken English as a second language. Trained as a
lawyer, he entered politics as a member of the Democratic-Republican
Party, won a seat in the New York State Senate, and was elected to
the United States Senate in 1821. As the leader of
the Bucktails faction, Van Buren emerged as the most influential
politician from New York in the 1820s and established a political
machine known as the Albany Regency.
Following the 1824 presidential election, Van Buren sought to re-
establish a two-party system with partisan differences based on
ideology rather than personalities or sectional differences; he
supported Andrew Jackson's candidacy in the 1828 presidential
election with this goal in mind.
NINTH U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
John Tyler
FIRST LADY
March 4, 1841 to April 4, 1841* Anna Harrison
BORN: February 9, 1773 in Berkeley, Virginia

FAMILY: Married Anna Tuthill Symmes on November 25, 1795
6 Sons and 4 Daughters
John Scott Harrison (President Harrison's son) was an unsuccessful candidate for President.
John's son (President Harrison's grandson) BENJAMIN HARRISON became our 23rd President.
MILITARY SERVICE: Indian Fighter, Brigadier General, U.S. Army
PROFESSION: Medical Student, Soldier, Statesman
POLITICAL PARTY: Whig
POLITICAL OFFICES: Governor of Indiana Territory, U.S. Representative and Senator (Ohio)
NICKNAME: "Old Tippecanoe"
DIED: April 4, 1841 (Age - 67)
*First American President to Die While in Office
LAST WORDS: "I cannot bear this. Don't trouble me."
BURIED: W.M. Harrison Memorial, North Bend, Ohio
"The only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed."
"The strongest of all governments is that which is most free."
William Henry Harrison
William Henry Harrison (February 9, 1773 – April 4, 1841) was an

American military officer and politician who served as the
ninth president of the United States. Harrison died just 31 days after
his inauguration in 1841, and had the shortest presidency in United
States history. He was also the first United States president to die in
office, and a brief constitutional crisis resulted as presidential
succession was not then fully defined in the United States
Constitution. Harrison was the last president born as a British subject
in the Thirteen Colonies and was the paternal grandfather of Benjamin
Harrison, the 23rd president of the United States.
Harrison was born in Charles City County, Virginia, a son of Benjamin

Harrison V, who was a Founding Father of the United States. During
his early military career, Harrison participated in the 1794 Battle of
Fallen Timbers, an American military victory that ended the Northwest
Indian War. Later, he led a military force against Tecumseh's
confederacy at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811, where he earned the
nickname "Old Tippecanoe". He was promoted to major general in the
Army during the War of 1812, and led American infantry and cavalry
to victory at the Battle of the Thames in Upper Canada.
TENTH U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
No Vice President
FIRST LADY
April 6, 1841 – March 3, 1845* Julia Tyler
BORN: March 29, 1790 at Greenway, Virginia

FAMILY: Married Letitia Christian on March 29, 1813 Tyler's first wife Letitia died the year after
Married Julia Gardner on June 26, 1844 her husband became president (the 1st
First Lady to die in the White House.)
Fifteen Children: With Letitia – 5 Daughters & 3 Sons Two years later Tyler married Julia
With Julia – 5 Sons & 2 Daughters Gardiner, at age 24, thirty years younger
RELIGION: Episcopalian than himself.
MILITARY SERVICE: Captain, Volunteer Army, War of 1812
POLITICAL OFFICES: U.S. Congressman, Governor (VA), Vice President
NICKNAME: "His Accidency", "Accidental President", "The President without a Party"
DIED: January 18, 1862 (Age - 71)
BURIED: Hollywood Cemetery, Richmond, Virginia
"If the tide of defamation and abuse shall turn... future Vice Presidents who may succeed to the
Presidency may feel some slight encouragement to pursue an independent course." Former President
Tyler to his son regarding criticisms of his activities, primarily in the annexation of Texas.
*First Vice President to assume office by succession and first President to lose his wife in the White House.
John Tyler
John Tyler (March 29, 1790 – January 18, 1862) was the
tenth president of the United States, serving from 1841 to 1845, after
briefly holding office as the tenth vice president in 1841. He was
elected vice president on the 1840 Whig ticket with President William
Henry Harrison, succeeding to the presidency after Harrison's death
31 days after assuming office. Tyler was a stalwart supporter and
advocate of states' rights, including regarding slavery, and he
adopted nationalistic policies as president only when they did not
infringe on the powers of the states. His unexpected rise to the
presidency posed a threat to the presidential ambitions of Henry
Clay and other Whig politicians, and left Tyler estranged from both of
the nation's major political parties at the time.
Tyler was born into a prominent slaveholding Virginia family. He

became a national figure at a time of political upheaval. In the 1820s,
the nation's only political party was the Democratic-Republican Party,
and it split into factions. Tyler was initially a Democrat, but he
opposed President Andrew Jackson during the Nullification Crisis as
he saw Jackson's actions as infringing on states' rights and criticized
Jackson's expansion of executive power during the Bank War. This
led Tyler to ally with the Whig Party. He served as a Virginia state
legislator and governor, U.S. representative, and U.S. senator. He was
one of two regional Whig vice-presidential nominees in the 1836
presidential election and the sole nominee on the 1840 Whig
presidential ticket as William Henry Harrison's running mate. Under
the campaign slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too", the Harrison-Tyler
ticket defeated incumbent president Martin Van Buren.
ELEVENTH U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
George M. Dallas
FIRST LADY
March 4, 1845 to March 3, 1849 Sarah Polk
BORN: November 2, 1795 at Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

FAMILY: Married Sarah Childress on January 1, 1824
No Children
RELIGION: Presbyterian
POLITICAL PARTY: Democrat
HOME STATE: Tennessee
POLITICAL OFFICES: U. S. Congressman, Speaker of the House, Governor of Tennessee
NICKNAME: "Young Hickory"
DIED: June 15, 1849 (Age - 53) – Three months after leaving the White House
BURIED: State Capitol Grounds, Nashville, Tennessee
"Public opinion: May it always perform one of its appropriate offices, by teaching the public
functionaries of the State and of the Federal Government, that neither shall assume the exercise of
powers entrusted by the Constitution to the other."
"(He) thinks well of himself; often asks advice, and does just as he pleases; is one of the firmest of
men; slow in committing himself, but once committed, does all in his power to carry through his
measures." O. S. Fowler, a phrenologist consulted by Polk in 1838
James Knox Polk
James Knox Polk (November 2, 1795 – June 15, 1849) was the
11th president of the United States, serving from 1845 to 1849. He
previously was the 13th speaker of the House of
Representatives (1835–1839) and ninth governor of Tennessee (1839–
1841). A protégé of Andrew Jackson, he was a member of
the Democratic Party and an advocate of Jacksonian democracy. Polk
is chiefly known for extending the territory of the United States
through the Mexican–American War; during his presidency, the
United States expanded significantly with the annexation of
the Republic of Texas, the Oregon Territory, and the Mexican
Cession following American victory in the Mexican–American War.
After building a successful law practice in Tennessee, Polk was

elected to its state legislature in 1823 and then to the United States
House of Representatives in 1825, becoming a strong supporter of
Andrew Jackson. After serving as chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, he became Speaker of the House in 1835, the only person
to have served both as Speaker and U.S. president. Polk left Congress
to run for governor of Tennessee, winning in 1839 but losing in 1841
and 1843. He was a dark horse candidate in the 1844 presidential
election as the Democratic Party nominee; he entered his party's
convention as a potential nominee for vice president but emerged as
a compromise to head the ticket when no presidential candidate could
secure the necessary two-thirds majority. In the general election, Polk
defeated Henry Clay of the rival Whig Party.
TWELFTH U.S. PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
Millard Fillmore
FIRST LADY
March 4, 1849 to July 9, 1850* Margaret Taylor
BORN: November 24, 1784 at Montebello, Virginia

FAMILY: Married Margaret Mackall Smith on June 21, 1810
5 Daughters, 1 Son (Only 4 survived infancy)
One of his daughters married Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy
MILITARY SERVICE: Major General, U. S. Army (Combat Veteran War of 1812 & Indian Wars)
PROFESSION: Professional Soldier
HOME STATE: Louisiana
POLITICAL OFFICES: None Zachary Taylor came to the White House with extensive leadership
experience, but no political experience
NICKNAME: "Old Rough and Ready"
DIED: July 9, 1850 (Age - 65)
*Died in office 5 days after dedicating the Washington Monument.
BURIED: Zachary Taylor National Cemetery, Louisville, Kentucky
"He has fallen...at a moment when some of us were looking to him to render services to the country,
which we thought no other man could perform. He has died too soon for everybody but himself."
Representative Robert Winthrop on the floor of the house after Taylor's death.
Zachary Taylor
Zachary Taylor (November 24, 1784 – July 9, 1850) was an American

military leader who served as the 12th president of the United
States from 1849 until his death in 1850. Taylor previously was a
career officer in the United States Army, rising to the rank of major
general and becoming a national hero as a result of his victories in
the Mexican–American War. As a result, he won election to the White
House despite his vague political beliefs. His top priority as president
was preserving the Union. He died sixteen months into his term,
having made no progress on the most divisive issue in
Congress, slavery.
Taylor was born into a prominent family of plantation owners who

moved westward from Virginia to Louisville, Kentucky, in his youth;
he was the last president born before the adoption of the
Constitution. He was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army in
1808 and made a name for himself as a captain in the War of 1812. He
climbed the ranks of the military, establishing military forts along
the Mississippi River and entering the Black Hawk War as a colonel in
1832. His success in the Second Seminole War attracted national
attention and earned him the nickname "Old Rough and Ready".
In 1845, during the annexation of Texas, President James K.

Polk dispatched Taylor to the Rio Grande in anticipation of a battle
with Mexico over the disputed Texas–Mexico border. The Mexican–
American War broke out in April 1846, and Taylor defeated Mexican
troops commanded by General Mariano Arista at the battles of Palo
Alto and Resaca de la Palma, driving Arista's troops out of Texas
AmericanRhetoric.com
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
The Four Freedoms
delivered 6 January, 1941
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio]
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, members of the 77th Congress:
I address you, the members of this new Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history
of the union. I use the word “unprecedented” because at no previous time has American
security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.
Since the permanent formation of our government under the Constitution in 1789, most of the
periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And, fortunately, only one
of these -- the four-year war between the States -- ever threatened our national unity.
Today, thank God, 130,000,000 Americans in 48 States have forgotten points of the compass
in our national unity.
Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 1

It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often has been disturbed by events in other
continents. We have even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of
undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific, for the
maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case
had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence.
What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times
maintained opposition -- clear, definite opposition -- to any attempt to lock us in behind an
ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our
children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part
of the Americas.
That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, in the
early days during the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution. While the
Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United States because of the French
foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to
vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great
Britain nor any other nation was aiming at domination of the whole world.
And in like fashion, from 1815 to 1914 -- ninety-nine years -- no single war in Europe or in
Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American
nation.
Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this
hemisphere. And the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly strength; it
is still a friendly strength.
Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only small threat of danger
to our own American future. But as time went on, as we remember, the American people
began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own
democracy.

We need not overemphasize imperfections in the peace of Versailles. We need not harp on
failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should remember
that the peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of pacification which began even
before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks to
spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set their faces
against that tyranny.
I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being
directly assailed in every part of the world -- assailed either by arms or by secret spreading of
poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that
are still at peace. During 16 long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of
democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the
assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.
Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress

information of the state of the union," I find it unhappily necessary to report that the future
and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far
beyond our borders.
Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If
that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe and Asia, and Africa and
Austral-Asia will be dominated by conquerors. And let us remember that the total of those
populations in those four continents, the total of those populations and their resources greatly
exceed the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western
Hemisphere -- yes, many times over.
In times like these it is immature -- and, incidentally, untrue -- for anybody to brag that an
unprepared America, single-handed and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the
whole world.
No realistic American can expect from a dictator’s peace international generosity, or return of
true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion --
or even good business. Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.

As a nation we may take pride in the fact that we are soft-hearted; but we cannot afford to be
soft-headed. We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling
cymbal preach the "ism" of appeasement. We must especially beware of that small group of
selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own
nests.
I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our
very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this
war.
There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across the
seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if
there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to
attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until
it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate.
But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe -- particularly the lesson of
Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a
series of years. The first phase of the invasion of this hemisphere would not be the landing of
regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and by
their dupes -- and great numbers of them are already here and in Latin America. As long as
the aggressor nations maintain the offensive they, not we, will choose the time and the place
and the method of their attack.
And that is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger. That is
why this annual message to the Congress is unique in our history. That is why every member
of the executive branch of the government and every member of the Congress face great
responsibility, great accountability. The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy
should be devoted primarily -- almost exclusively -- to meeting this foreign peril. For all our
domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.
Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the
rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign
affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large
and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:
First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship,
we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.
Secondly, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to

partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere
who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our
hemisphere. By this support we express our determination that the democratic cause
shall prevail, and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.
Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to

partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and
considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace
dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace
cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.
In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great
parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the
American electorate. And today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere
are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger.
Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production.
Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been
set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time. In some cases we are on
schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays. And in some cases -- and, I
am sorry to say, very important cases -- we are all concerned by the slowness of the
accomplishment of our plans.
The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual
experience is improving and speeding up our methods of production with every passing
day. And today's best is not good enough for tomorrow.

I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program
represent the best in training, in ability, and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the
progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.
No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, our objective is quicker and
better results.
To give you two illustrations:
We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes. We are working day and night to
solve the innumerable problems and to catch up.
We are ahead of schedule in building warships, but we are working to get even further ahead
of that schedule.
To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a

basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task. And the greatest difficulty
comes at the beginning of the program, when new tools, new plant facilities, new assembly
lines, new shipways must first be constructed before the actual material begins to flow
steadily and speedily from them.
The Congress of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the
program. However, there is certain information, as the Congress itself will readily recognize,
which, in the interests of our own security and those of the nations that we are supporting,
must of needs be kept in confidence.
New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. I shall ask this
Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we
have begun.
I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional
munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now
in actual war with aggressor nations. Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an
arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need manpower, but they do need
billions of dollars’ worth of the weapons of defense.

The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in ready cash. We cannot, and
we will not, tell them that they must surrender merely because of present inability to pay for
the weapons which we know they must have.
I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to pay for these weapons
-- a loan to be repaid in dollars. I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to
continue to obtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into our own
program. And nearly all of their material would, if the time ever came, be useful in our own
defense.
Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering what is best for our own
security, we are free to decide how much should be kept here and how much should be sent
abroad to our friends who, by their determined and heroic resistance, are giving us time in
which to make ready our own defense.
For what we send abroad we shall be repaid, repaid within a reasonable time following the
close of hostilities, repaid in similar materials, or at our option in other goods of many kinds
which they can produce and which we need.
Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of
freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give
you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing
numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."
In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they
will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies
which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid -- Such aid is not an act of war, even if a
dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be.
And when the dictators -- if the dictators -- are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait
for an act of war on our part.

They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an act of war. Their
only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its observance
and therefore becomes an instrument of oppression. The happiness of future generations of
Americans may well depend on how effective and how immediate we can make our aid
felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called
upon to meet. The nation's hands must not be tied when the nation's life is in danger.
Yes, and we must prepare, all of us prepare, to make the sacrifices that the emergency --
almost as serious as war itself -- demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and
efficiency in defense, in defense preparations of any kind, must give way to the national need.
A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. A free nation has the
right to look to the leaders of business, of labor, and of agriculture to take the lead in
stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their own group.
The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble-makers in our midst is, first, to
shame them by patriotic example, and if that fails, to use the sovereignty of government to
save government.
As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our
defenses and those behind them who build our defenses must have the stamina and the
courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are
defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all the
things worth fighting for.
The nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done
to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in
America. Those things have toughened the fiber of our people, have renewed their faith and
strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.
Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems
which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the
world. For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong
democracy.

The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are
simple. They are:
- Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
- Jobs for those who can work.
- Security for those who need it.
- The ending of special privilege for the few.
- The preservation of civil liberties for all.
- The enjoyment -- The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and
constantly rising standard of living.
These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and
unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic
and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.
Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement. As
examples:
We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment
insurance.
We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.
We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment
may obtain it.
I have called for personal sacrifice, and I am assured of the willingness of almost all
Americans to respond to that call. A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money
in taxes. In my budget message I will recommend that a greater portion of this great defense
program be paid for from taxation than we are paying for today.

No person should try, or be allowed to get rich out of the program, and the principle of tax
payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our
legislation.
If the Congress maintains these principles the voters, putting patriotism ahead pocketbooks,
will give you their applause.
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon
four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere
in the world.
The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic
understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its
inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-
wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no
nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any
neighbor -- anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in
our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called “new
order” of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
To that new order we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society is able
to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
Since the beginning of our American history we have been engaged in change, in a perpetual,
peaceful revolution, a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing
conditions without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which
we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men
and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the
supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those
rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.
To that high concept there can be no end save victory.

John F. Kennedy
Presidential Inaugural Address
delivered 20 January 1961, Washington, D.C.
AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President
Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens:
We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end,
as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you
and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-
quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all
forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs
for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of
man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.
Transcription by Michael E. Eidenmuller. Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Updated 1/4/22 Page 1

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been
passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined
by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit
the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and
to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any
burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the
success of liberty.
This much we pledge -- and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of
faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided
there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split
asunder.
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one
form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron
tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always
hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the
past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of
mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is
required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes,
but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the
few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge: to convert our good
words into good deeds, in a new alliance for progress, to assist free men and free
governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot
become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to
oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know
that this hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age
where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our
pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen
its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but
a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of
destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt
can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present
course -- both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by
the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror
that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and
sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to
negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which
divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection
and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute
control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us
explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and
encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed, in all corners of the earth, the command of Isaiah -- to "undo the
heavy burdens, and [to] let the oppressed go free."¹
And, if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join
in creating a new endeavor -- not a new balance of power, but a new world of law -- where
the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one
thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this
planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our
course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to
give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call
to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not
as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight
struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation,"² a struggle against
the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and
West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of
defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I
welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or
any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will
light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do
for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we
can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same
high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only
sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love,
asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our
own.
¹ Isaiah 58:6 (King James Version of the Holy Bible)
² Romans 12:12 (King James Version of the Holy Bible)

Newton Minow
Television and the Public Interest
delivered 9 May 1961, National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC
Governor Collins, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. Governor Collins you're much
too kind, as all of you have been to me the last few days. It's been a great pleasure and an
honor for me to meet so many of you. And I want to thank you for this opportunity to meet
with you today.
As you know, this is my first public address since I took over my new job. When the New
Frontiersmen rode into town, I locked myself in my office to do my homework and get my feet
wet. But apparently I haven't managed yet to stay out of hot water. I seem to have detected
a very nervous apprehension about what I might say or do when I emerged from that locked
office for this, my maiden station break.
So first let me begin by dispelling a rumor. I was not picked for this job because I regard
myself as the fastest draw on the New Frontier. Second, let me start a rumor. Like you, I have
carefully read President Kennedy's messages about the regulatory agencies, conflict of
interest, and the dangers of ex parte contacts. And, of course, we at the Federal
Communications Commission will do our part. Indeed, I may even suggest that we change the
name of the FCC to The Seven Untouchables.
Transcription by Michael E. Eidenmuller. AmericanRhetoric.com Updated 12/16/21 Page 1

It may also come as a surprise to some of you, but I want you to know that you have my
admiration and my respect. Yours is a most honorable profession. Anyone who is in the
broadcasting business has a tough row to hoe. You earn your bread by using public property.
When you work in broadcasting you volunteer for public service, public pressure, and public
regulation. You must compete with other attractions and other investments, and the only way
you can do it is to prove to us every three years that you should have been in business in the
first place.
I can think of easier ways to make a living.
But I cannot think of more satisfying ways.
I admire your courage -- but that doesn't mean that I would make life any easier for you.
Your license lets you use the public's airwaves as trustees for 180 million Americans. The
public is your beneficiary. If you want to stay on as trustees, you must deliver a decent return
to the public -- not only to your stockholders. So, as a representative of the public, your
health and your product are among my chief concerns.
Now as to your health, let's talk only of television today. 1960 gross broadcast revenues of
the television industry were over 1,268,000,000 dollars. Profit before taxes was 243,900,000
dollars, an average return on revenue of 19.2 per cent. Compare these with 1959, when gross
broadcast revenues were 1,163,900,000 dollars, and profit before taxes was 222,300,000, an
average return on revenue of 19.1 per cent. So the percentage increase of total revenues
from '59 to '60 was 9 per cent, and the percentage increase of profit was 9.7 per cent. This,
despite a recession throughout the country. For your investors, the price has indeed been
right.
So I have confidence in your health, but not in your product. It is with this and much more in
mind that I come before you today.
One editorialist in the trade press wrote that "the FCC of the New Frontier is going to be one
of the toughest FCC's in the history of broadcast regulation." If he meant that we intend to
enforce the law in the public interest, let me make it perfectly clear that he is right: We do. If
he meant that we intend to muzzle or censor broadcasting, he is dead wrong. It wouldn't
surprise me if some of you had expected me to come here today and say to you in effect,
"Clean up your own house or the government will do it for you." Well, in a limited sense, you
would be right because I've just said it.

But I want to say to you as earnestly as I can that it is not in that spirit that I come before
you today, nor is it in that spirit that I intend to serve the FCC. I am in Washington to help
broadcasting, not to harm it; to strengthen it, not weaken it; to reward it, not to punish it; to
encourage it, not threaten it; and to stimulate it, not censor it. Above all, I am here to uphold
and protect the public interest.
Now what do we mean by "the public interest?" Some say the public interest is merely what
interests the public. I disagree. And so does your distinguished president, Governor Collins. In
a recent speech -- and of course as I also told you yesterday -- In a recent speech he said,
Broadcasting to serve the public interest, must have a soul and a conscience, a burning
desire to excel, as well as to sell; the urge to build the character, citizenship, and
intellectual stature of people, as well as to expand the gross national product. ...By no
means do I imply that broadcasters disregard the public interest. ...But a much better
job can be done, and should be done.
I could not agree more with Governor Collins. And I would add that in today's world, with
chaos in Laos and the Congo aflame, with Communist tyranny on our Caribbean doorstep,
relentless pressures on our Atlantic alliance, with social and economic problems at home of
the gravest nature, yes, and with the technological knowledge that makes it possible, as our
President has said, not only to destroy our world but to destroy poverty around the world -- in
a time of peril and opportunity, the old complacent, unbalanced fare of action-adventure and
situation comedies is simply not good enough.
Your industry possesses the most powerful voice in America. It has an inescapable duty to
make that voice ring with intelligence and with leadership. In a few years, this exciting
industry has grown from a novelty to an instrument of overwhelming impact on the American
people. It should be making ready for the kind of leadership that newspapers and magazines
assumed years ago, to make our people aware of their world.
Ours has been called the jet age, the atomic age, the space age. It is also, I submit, the
television age. And just as history will decide whether the leaders of today's world employed
the atom to destroy the world or rebuild it for mankind's benefit, so will history decide
whether today's broadcasters employed their powerful voice to enrich the people or to debase
them.

If I seem today to address myself chiefly to the problems of television, I don't want any of you
radio broadcasters to think that we've gone to sleep at your switch. We haven't. We still
listen. But in recent years most of the controversies and cross-currents in broadcast
programming have swirled around television. And so my subject today is the television
industry and the public interest.
Like everybody, I wear more than one hat. I am the chairman of the FCC. But I am also a
television viewer and the husband and father of other television viewers. I have seen a great
many television programs that seemed to me eminently worthwhile and I am not talking
about the much bemoaned good old days of "Playhouse 90" and "Studio One."
I'm talking about this past season. Some were wonderfully entertaining, such as "The
Fabulous Fifties," "The Fred Astaire Show," and "The Bing Crosby Special"; some were
dramatic and moving, such as Conrad's "Victory" and "Twilight Zone"; some were marvelously
informative, such as "The Nation's Future," "CBS Reports," "The Valiant Years." I could list
many more -- programs that I am sure everyone here felt enriched his own life and that of his
family. When television is good, nothing -- not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers
-- nothing is better.
But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your
television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book,
without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to
distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that
what you will observe is a vast wasteland.
You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable
families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western
good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly, commercials
-- many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you'll see a few
things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask
you to try it.
Is there one person in this room who claims that broadcasting can't do better? Well a glance
at next season's proposed programming can give us little heart. Of 73 and 1/2 hours of prime
evening time, the networks have tentatively scheduled 59 hours of categories of action-
adventure, situation comedy, variety, quiz, and movies.

Is there one network president in this room who claims he can't do better? Well, is there at
least one network president who believes that the other networks can do better? Gentlemen,
your trust accounting with your beneficiaries is long overdue. Never have so few owed so
much to so many.
Why is so much of television so bad? I've heard many answers: demands of your advertisers;
competition for ever higher ratings; the need always to attract a mass audience; the high cost
of television programs; the insatiable appetite for programming material. These are some of
the reasons. Unquestionably, these are tough problems not susceptible to easy answers. But I
am not convinced that you have tried hard enough to solve them.
I do not accept the idea that the present over-all programming is aimed accurately at the
public taste. The ratings tell us only that some people have their television sets turned on and
of that number, so many are tuned to one channel and so many to another. They don't tell us
what the public might watch if they were offered half-a-dozen additional choices. A rating, at
best, is an indication of how many people saw what you gave them. Unfortunately, it does not
reveal the depth of the penetration, or the intensity of reaction, and it never reveals what the
acceptance would have been if what you gave them had been better -- if all the forces of art
and creativity and daring and imagination had been unleashed. I believe in the people's good
sense and good taste, and I am not convinced that the people's taste is as low as some of you
assume.
My concern with the rating services is not with their accuracy. Perhaps they are accurate. I
really don't know. What, then, is wrong with the ratings? It's not been their accuracy -- it's
been their use.
Certainly, I hope you will agree that ratings should have little influence where children are
concerned. The best estimates indicate that during the hours of 5 to 6 P.M. sixty per cent of
your audience is composed of children under twelve. And most young children today, believe
it or not, spend as much time watching television as they do in the schoolroom. I repeat -- let
that sink in, ladies and gentlemen -- most young children today spend as much time watching
television as they do in the schoolroom. It used to be said that there were three great
influences on a child: home, school, and church. Today, there is a fourth great influence, and
you ladies and gentlemen in this room control it.

If parents, teachers, and ministers conducted their responsibilities by following the ratings,
children would have a steady diet of ice cream, school holidays, and no Sunday school. What
about your responsibilities? Is there no room on television to teach, to inform, to uplift, to
stretch, to enlarge the capacities of our children? Is there no room for programs deepening
their understanding of children in other lands? Is there no room for a children's news show
explaining something to them about the world at their level of understanding? Is there no
room for reading the great literature of the past, for teaching them the great traditions of
freedom? There are some fine children's shows, but they are drowned out in the massive
doses of cartoons, violence, and more violence. Must these be your trademarks? Search your
consciences and see if you cannot offer more to your young beneficiaries whose future you
guide so many hours each and every day.
Now what about adult programming and ratings? You know, newspaper publishers take
popularity ratings too. And the answers are pretty clear: It is almost always the comics,
followed by advice to the lovelorn columns. But, ladies and gentlemen, the news is still on the
front page of all newspapers; the editorials are not replaced by more comics; and the
newspapers have not become one long collection of advice to the lovelorn. Yet newspapers do
not even need a license from the government to be in business; they do not use public
property. But in television, where your responsibilities as public trustees are so plain, the
moment that the ratings indicate that westerns are popular there are new imitations of
westerns on the air faster than the old coaxial cable could take us from Hollywood to New
York. Broadcasting cannot continue to live by the numbers. Ratings ought to be the slave of
the broadcaster, not his master. And you and I both know -- You and I both know that the
rating services themselves would agree.
Let me make clear that what I am talking about is balance. I believe that the public interest is
made up of many interests. There are many people in this great country and you must serve
all of us. You will get no argument from me if you say that, given a choice between a western
and a symphony, more people will watch the western. I like westerns too, but a steady diet
for the whole country is obviously not in the public interest. We all know that people would
more often prefer to be entertained than stimulated or informed. But your obligations are not
satisfied if you look only to popularity as a test of what to broadcast. You are not only in show
business; you are free to communicate ideas as well as relaxation.
And as Governor Collins said to you yesterday when he encouraged you to editorialize -- as
you know the FCC has now encouraged editorializing for years. We want you to do this; we
want you to editorialize, take positions.

We only ask that you do it in a fair and a responsible manner. Those stations that have
editorialized have demonstrated to you that the FCC will always encourage a fair and
responsible clash of opinion.
You must provide a wider range of choices, more diversity, more alternatives. It is not enough
to cater to the nation's whims; you must also serve the nation's needs. And I would add this:
that if some of you persist in a relentless search for the highest rating and the lowest common
denominator, you may very well lose your audience. Because, to paraphrase a great American
who was recently my law partner, the people are wise, wiser than some of the broadcasters --
and politicians -- think.
As you may have gathered, I would like to see television improved. But how is this to be
brought about? By voluntary action by the broadcasters themselves? By direct government
intervention? Or how?
Let me address myself now to my role not as a viewer but as chairman of the FCC. I could not
if I would, chart for you this afternoon in detail all of the actions I contemplate. Instead, I
want to make clear some of the fundamental principles which guide me.
First: the people own the air. And they own it as much in prime evening time as they do at six
o'clock Sunday morning. For every hour that the people give you -- you owe them something.
And I intend to see that your debt is paid with service.
Second: I think it would be foolish and wasteful for us to continue any worn-out wrangle over
the problems of payola, rigged quiz shows, and other mistakes of the past. There are laws on
the books which we will enforce. But there is no chip on my shoulder. We live together in
perilous, uncertain times; we face together staggering problems; and we must not waste
much time now by rehashing the clichés of past controversy. To quarrel over the past is to
lose the future.
Third: I believe in the free enterprise system. I want to -- I want to see broadcasting
improved, and I want you to do the job. I am proud to champion your cause. It is not rare for
American businessmen to serve a public trust. Yours is a special trust because it is imposed by
law.

Fourth: I will do all I can to help educational television. There are still not enough educational
stations, and major centers of the country still lack usable educational channels. If there were
a limited number of printing presses in this country, you may be sure that a fair proportion of
them would be put to educational use. Educational television has an enormous contribution to
make to the future, and I intend to give it a hand along the way. If there is not a nation-wide
educational television system in this country, it will not be the fault of the FCC.
Fifth: I am unalterably opposed to governmental censorship. There will be no suppression of

programming which does not meet with bureaucratic tastes. Censorship strikes at the tap root
of our free society.
Sixth: I did not come to Washington to idly observe the squandering of the public's airwaves.
The squandering of our airwaves is no less important than the lavish waste of any precious
natural resource. I intend to take the job of chairman of the FCC very seriously. I happen to
believe in the gravity of my own particular sector of the New Frontier. There will be times
perhaps when you will consider that I take myself or my job too seriously. Frankly, I don't
care if you do. For I am convinced that either one takes this job seriously -- or one can be
seriously taken.
Now how will these principles be applied? Clearly at the heart of the FCC's authority lies its
power to license, to renew or fail to renew, or to revoke a license. As you know, when your
license comes up for renewal, your performance is compared with your promises. I
understand that many people feel that in the past licenses were often renewed pro forma. I
say to you now: renewal will not be pro forma in the future. There is nothing permanent or
sacred about a broadcast license.
But simply matching promises and performance is not enough. I intend to do more. I intend to
find out whether the people care. I intend to find out whether the community which each
broadcaster serves believes he has been serving the public interest. When a renewal is set
down for a hearing, I intend, whenever possible, to hold a well-advertised public hearing, right
in the community you have promised to serve. I want the people who own the air and the
homes that television enters to tell you and the FCC what's been going on. I want the people -
- if they're truly interested in the service you give them -- to make notes, document cases,
tell us the facts. And for those few of you who really believe that the public interest is merely
what interests the public, I hope that these hearings will arouse no little interest.

The FCC has a fine reserve of monitors -- almost 180 million Americans gathered around 56
million sets. If you want those monitors to be your friends at court, it's up to you.
Now some of you may say, "Yes, but I still do not know where the line is between a grant of a
renewal and the hearing you just spoke of." My answer is: Why should you want to know how
close you can come to the edge of the cliff? What the Commission asks of you is to make a
conscientious, good-faith effort to serve the public interest. Everyone of you serves a
community in which the people would benefit by educational, and religious, instructive and
other public service programming. Every one of you serves an area which has local needs --
as to local elections, controversial issues, local news, local talent. Make a serious, genuine
effort to put on that programming. And when you do, you will not be playing brinkmanship
with the public interest.
Now what I've been saying applies to the broadcast stations. Now a station break for the
networks -- and will last even longer than 40 seconds: You networks know your importance in
this great industry. Today, more than one half of all hours of television station programming
comes from the networks; in prime time, this rises to more than three fourths of the available
hours.
You know that the FCC has been studying network operations for some time. I intend to press
this to a speedy conclusion with useful results. I can tell you right now, however, that I am
deeply concerned with concentration of power in the hands of the networks. As a result, too
many local stations have foregone any efforts at local programming, with little use of live
talent and local service. Too many local stations operate with one hand on the network switch
and the other on a projector loaded with old movies. We want the individual stations to be
free to meet their legal responsibilities to serve their communities.
I join Governor Collins in his views so well expressed to the advertisers who use the public air.
And I urge the networks to join him and undertake a very special mission on behalf of this
industry. You can tell your advertisers, "This is the high quality we are going to serve -- take
it or other people will. If you think you can find a better place to move automobiles,
cigarettes, and soap, then go ahead and try." Tell your sponsors to be less concerned with
costs per thousand and more concerned with understanding per millions. And remind your
stockholders that an investment in broadcasting is buying a share in public responsibility. The
networks can start this industry on the road to freedom from the dictatorship of numbers.

But there is more to the problem than network influences on stations or advertiser influences
on networks. I know the problems networks face in trying to clear some of their best
programs -- the informational programs that exemplify public service. They are your finest
hours, whether sustaining or commercial, whether regularly scheduled or special. These are
the signs that broadcasting knows the way to leadership. They make the public's trust in you
a wise choice.
They should be seen. As you know, we are readying for use new forms by which broadcast
stations will report their programming to the Commission. You probably also know that special
attention will be paid in these forms to reports of public service programming. I believe that
stations taking network service should also be required to report the extent of the local
clearance of network public service programs, and when they fail to clear them, they should
explain why. If it is to put on some outstanding local program, this is one reason. But if it is
simply to run an old movie, that's an entirely different matter. And the Commission should
consider such clearance reports carefully when making up its mind about the licensee's over-
all programming.
We intend to move -- and as you know, and as I want to say publicly, the FCC was rapidly
moving in other new areas before the new Administration arrived in Washington. And I want
to pay my public respects to my very able predecessor, Fred Ford, and to my colleagues on
the Commission, each of whom has welcomed me to the FCC with warmth and cooperation.
We have approved an experiment with pay TV, and in New York we are testing the potential of
UHF broadcasting. Either or both of these may revolutionize television. Only a foolish prophet
would venture to guess the direction they will take, and their effect. But we intend that they
shall be explored fully, for they are part of broadcasting's New Frontier. The questions
surrounding pay TV are largely economic. The questions surrounding UHF are largely
technological. We are going to give the infant -- the infant pay TV a chance to prove whether
it can offer a useful service; we are going to protect it from those who would strangle it in its
crib.
As for UHF, I'm sure you know about our test in the canyons of New York City. We will take
every possible positive step to break through the allocations barrier into UHF. We will put this
sleeping giant to use and in the years ahead we may have twice as many channels operating
in cities where now there are only two or three. We may have a half dozen networks instead
of three.

I have told you that I believe in the free enterprise system. I believe that most of television's
problems stem from lack of competition. This is the importance of UHF to me: with more
channels on the air, we will be able to provide every community with enough stations to offer
service to all parts of the public. Programs with a mass market appeal required by mass
product advertisers certainly will still be available. But other stations will recognize the need to
appeal to more limited markets and to special tastes. In this way, we can all have a much
wider range of programs. Television should thrive on this competition, and the country should
benefit from alternative sources of service to the public. And, Governor Collins, I hope the
NAB will benefit from many new members.
Another and perhaps the most important frontier: Television will rapidly join the parade into
space. International television will be with us soon. No one knows how long it will be until a
broadcast from a studio in New York will be viewed in India as well as in Indiana, will be seen
in the Congo as it is seen in Chicago. But as surely as we are meeting here today, that day
will come; and once again our world will shrink.
What will the people of other countries think of us when they see our western bad men and
good men punching each other in the jaw in between the shooting? What will the Latin
American or African child learn of America from this great communications industry? We
cannot permit television in its present form to be our voice overseas.
There is your challenge to leadership. You must reexamine some fundamentals of your
industry. You must open your minds and open your hearts to the limitless horizons of
tomorrow. I can suggest some words that should serve to guide you:
Television and all who participate in it are jointly accountable to the American public for
respect for the special needs of children, for community responsibility, for the
advancement of education and culture, for the acceptability of the program materials
chosen, for decency and decorum in production, and for propriety in advertising. This
responsibility cannot be discharged by any given group of programs, but can be
discharged only through the highest standards of respect for the American home,
applied to every moment of every program presented by television.
Program materials should enlarge the horizons of the viewer, provide him with wholesome
entertainment, afford helpful stimulation, and remind him of the responsibilities which the
citizen has towards his society.

Now those are not my words. They are yours. They are taken literally, verbatim, from your
own Television Code. They reflect the leadership and aspirations of your own great industry. I
urge you to respect them as I do. And I urge you to respect the intelligent and farsighted
leadership of Governor LeRoy Collins, and to make this meeting a creative act. I urge you at
this meeting and, after you leave, back home, at your stations and your networks, to strive
ceaselessly to improve your product and to better serve your viewers, the American people.
I hope that we at the FCC will not allow ourselves to become so bogged down in the mountain
of papers, hearings, memoranda, orders, and the daily routine that we close our eyes to this
wider view of the public interest. And I hope that you broadcasters will not permit yourselves
to become so absorbed in the daily chase for ratings, sales, and profits that you lose this
wider view. Now more than ever before in broadcasting's history the times demand the best of
all of us.
We need imagination in programming, not sterility; creativity, not imitation; experimentation,

not conformity; excellence, not mediocrity. Television is filled with creative, imaginative
people. You must strive to set them free.
Television in its young life has had many hours of greatness -- its "Victory at Sea," its Army-
McCarthy hearings, its "Peter Pan," its "Kraft Theaters," its "See It Now," its "Project 20," the
World Series, its political conventions and campaigns, and the Great Debates. And it's had its
endless hours of mediocrity and its moments of public disgrace. There are estimates today
that the average viewer spends about 200 minutes daily with television, while the average
reader spends 38 minutes with magazines, 40 minutes with newspapers. Television has grown
faster than a teenager, and now it is time to grow up.
What you gentlemen broadcast through the people's air affects the people's taste, their
knowledge, their opinions, their understanding of themselves and of their world -- and their
future.
Just think for a moment of the impact of broadcasting in the past few days. Yesterday was
one of the great days of my life. Last week the President asked me to ride over with him when
he came to speak here at the NAB. And when I went to the White House he said, "Do you
think it would be a good idea to take Commander Shepard?" And, of course, I said it would be
magnificent. And I was privileged to ride here yesterday in a car with the President and the
Vice President, Commander and Mrs. Shepard. This was an unexpected, unscheduled stop.

And Commander Shepard said to me, "Where are we going?" "What is this group?" And I said,
"This is the National Association of Broadcasters at its annual convention."
This is the group, this is the industry that made it possible for millions of Americans to share
with you that great moment in history; that his gallant flight was witnessed by millions of
anxious Americans who saw in it an intimacy which they could achieve through no other
medium, in no other way. It was one of your finest hours. The depth of broadcasting's
contribution to public understanding of that event cannot be measured. And it thrilled me --
as a representative of the government that deals with this industry -- to say to Commander
Shepard the group that he was about to see.
I say to you ladies and gentlemen -- I remind you what the President said in his stirring
inaugural. He said: Ask not what America can do for you; ask what you can do for America.¹ I
say to you ladies and gentlemen: Ask not what broadcasting can do for you; ask what you can
do for broadcasting. And ask what broadcasting can do for America.
I urge you, I urge you to put the people's airwaves to the service of the people and the cause
of freedom. You must help prepare a generation for great decisions. You must help a great
nation fulfill its future.
Do this! I pledge you our help.
Thank you.
¹More precisely, Kennedy stated: "...ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Stokely Carmichael
Black Power
delivered 29 October 1966, Berkeley, CA
Thank you very much. It’s a privilege and an honor to be in the white intellectual ghetto of the
West. We wanted to do a couple of things before we started. The first is that, based on the
fact that SNCC, through the articulation of its program by its chairman, has been able to win
elections in Georgia, Alabama, Maryland, and by our appearance here will win an election in
California, in 1968 I'm going to run for President of the United States. I just can't make it,
'cause I wasn't born in the United States. That's the only thing holding me back.
We wanted to say that this is a student conference, as it should be, held on a campus, and
that we're not ever to be caught up in the intellectual masturbation of the question of Black
Power. That’s a function of people who are advertisers that call themselves reporters. Oh, for
my members and friends of the press, my self-appointed white critics, I was reading Mr.
Bernard Shaw two days ago, and I came across a very important quote which I think is most
apropos for you. He says, "All criticism is a[n] autobiography." Dig yourself. Okay.
AmericanRhetoric.com Updated 12/7/2021 Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission. Page 1

The philosophers Camus and Sartre raise the question whether or not a man can condemn
himself. The black existentialist philosopher who is pragmatic, Frantz Fanon, answered the
question. He said that man could not. Camus and Sartre was not. We in SNCC tend to agree
with Camus and Sartre, that a man cannot condemn himself.¹ Were he to condemn himself,
he would then have to inflict punishment upon himself. An example would be the Nazis. Any
prisoner who -- any of the Nazi prisoners who admitted, after he was caught and incarcerated,
that he committed crimes, that he killed all the many people that he killed, he committed
suicide. The only ones who were able to stay alive were the ones who never admitted that
they committed a crimes [sic] against people -- that is, the ones who rationalized that Jews
were not human beings and deserved to be killed, or that they were only following orders.
On a more immediate scene, the officials and the population -- the white population -- in
Neshoba County, Mississippi -- that’s where Philadelphia is -- could not -- could not condemn
[Sheriff] Rainey, his deputies, and the other fourteen men that killed three human beings.
They could not because they elected Mr. Rainey to do precisely what he did; and that for them
to condemn him will be for them to condemn themselves.
In a much larger view, SNCC says that white America cannot condemn herself. And since we
are liberal, we have done it: You stand condemned. Now, a number of things that arises from
that answer of how do you condemn yourselves. Seems to me that the institutions that
function in this country are clearly racist, and that they're built upon racism. And the question,
then, is how can black people inside of this country move? And then how can white people
who say they’re not a part of those institutions begin to move? And how then do we begin to
clear away the obstacles that we have in this society, that make us live like human beings?
How can we begin to build institutions that will allow people to relate with each other as
human beings? This country has never done that, especially around the country of white or
black.
Now, several people have been upset because we’ve said that integration was irrelevant when
initiated by blacks, and that in fact it was a subterfuge, an insidious subterfuge, for the
maintenance of white supremacy. Now we maintain that in the past six years or so, this
country has been feeding us a "thalidomide drug of integration," and that some negroes have
been walking down a dream street talking about sitting next to white people; and that that
does not begin to solve the problem; that when we went to Mississippi we did not go to sit
next to Ross Barnett²; we did not go to sit next to Jim Clark³; we went to get them out of our
way; and that people ought to understand that; that we were never fighting for the right to
integrate, we were fighting against white supremacy.

Now, then, in order to understand white supremacy we must dismiss the fallacious notion that
white people can give anybody their freedom. No man can give anybody his freedom. A man
is born free. You may enslave a man after he is born free, and that is in fact what this country
does. It enslaves black people after they’re born, so that the only acts that white people can
do is to stop denying black people their freedom; that is, they must stop denying freedom.
They never give it to anyone.
Now we want to take that to its logical extension, so that we could understand, then, what its
relevancy would be in terms of new civil rights bills. I maintain that every civil rights bill in
this country was passed for white people, not for black people. For example, I am black. I
know that. I also know that while I am black I am a human being, and therefore I have the
right to go into any public place. White people didn't know that. Every time I tried to go into a
place they stopped me. So some boys had to write a bill to tell that white man, "He’s a human
being; don’t stop him." That bill was for that white man, not for me. I knew it all the time. I
knew it all the time.
I knew that I could vote and that that wasn’t a privilege; it was my right. Every time I tried I
was shot, killed or jailed, beaten or economically deprived. So somebody had to write a bill for
white people to tell them, "When a black man comes to vote, don’t bother him." That bill,
again, was for white people, not for black people; so that when you talk about open
occupancy, I know I can live anyplace I want to live. It is white people across this country who
are incapable of allowing me to live where I want to live. You need a civil rights bill, not me. I
know I can live where I want to live.
So that the failures to pass a civil rights bill isn’t because of Black Power, isn't because of the
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; it's not because of the rebellions that are
occurring in the major cities. It is incapability of whites to deal with their own problems inside
their own communities. That is the problem of the failure of the civil rights bill.
And so in a larger sense we must then ask, How is it that black people move? And what do we
do? But the question in a greater sense is, How can white people who are the majority -- and
who are responsible for making democracy work -- make it work? They have miserably failed
to this point. They have never made democracy work, be it inside the United States, Vietnam,
South Africa, Philippines, South America, Puerto Rico. Wherever American has been, she has
not been able to make democracy work; so that in a larger sense, we not only condemn the
country for what it's done internally, but we must condemn it for what it does externally. We
see this country trying to rule the world, and someone must stand up and start articulating
that this country is not God, and cannot rule the world.

Now, then, before we move on we ought to develop the white supremacy attitudes that were
either conscious or subconscious thought and how they run rampant through the society
today. For example, the missionaries were sent to Africa. They went with the attitude that
blacks were automatically inferior. As a matter of fact, the first act the missionaries did, you
know, when they got to Africa was to make us cover up our bodies, because they said it got
them excited. We couldn’t go bare-breasted any more because they got excited.
Now when the missionaries came to civilize us because we were uncivilized, educate us
because we were uneducated, and give us some -- some literate studies because we were
illiterate, they charged a price. The missionaries came with the Bible, and we had the land.
When they left, they had the land, and we still have the Bible. And that has been the
rationalization for Western civilization as it moves across the world and stealing and
plundering and raping everybody in its path. Their one rationalization is that the rest of the
world is uncivilized and they are in fact civilized. And they are un-civil-ized.
And that runs on today, you see, because what we have today is we have what we call
"modern-day Peace Corps missionaries," and they come into our ghettos and they Head Start,
Upward Lift, Bootstrap, and Upward Bound us into white society, 'cause they don’t want to
face the real problem which is a man is poor for one reason and one reason only: 'cause he
does not have money -- period. If you want to get rid of poverty, you give people money --
period.
And you ought not to tell me about people who don’t work, and you can’t give people money
without working, 'cause if that were true, you’d have to start stopping Rockefeller, Bobby
Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Lady Bird Johnson, the whole of Standard Oil, the Gulf
Corp, all of them, including probably a large number of the Board of Trustees of this
university. So the question, then, clearly, is not whether or not one can work; it’s Who has
power? Who has power to make his or her acts legitimate? That is all. And that this country,
that power is invested in the hands of white people, and they make their acts legitimate. It is
now, therefore, for black people to make our acts legitimate.
Now we are now engaged in a psychological struggle in this country, and that is whether or
not black people will have the right to use the words they want to use without white people
giving their sanction to it; and that we maintain, whether they like it or not, we gonna use the
word "Black Power" -- and let them address themselves to that; but that we are not going to
wait for white people to sanction Black Power. We’re tired waiting; every time black people
move in this country, they’re forced to defend their position before they move. It’s time that

the people who are supposed to be defending their position do that. That's white people. They
ought to start defending themselves as to why they have oppressed and exploited us.
Now it is clear that when this country started to move in terms of slavery, the reason for a
man being picked as a slave was one reason -- because of the color of his skin. If one was
black one was automatically inferior, inhuman, and therefore fit for slavery; so that the
question of whether or not we are individually suppressed is nonsensical, and it’s a downright
lie. We are oppressed as a group because we are black, not because we are lazy, not because
we're apathetic, not because we’re stupid, not because we smell, not because we eat
watermelon and have good rhythm. We are oppressed because we are black.
And in order to get out of that oppression one must wield the group power that one has, not
the individual power which this country then sets the criteria under which a man may come
into it. That is what is called in this country as integration: "You do what I tell you to do and
then we’ll let you sit at the table with us." And that we are saying that we have to be opposed
to that. We must now set up criteria and that if there's going to be any integration, it's going
to be a two-way thing. If you believe in integration, you can come live in Watts. You can send
your children to the ghetto schools. Let’s talk about that. If you believe in integration, then
we’re going to start adopting us some white people to live in our neighborhood.
So it is clear that the question is not one of integration or segregation. Integration is a man's
ability to want to move in there by himself. If someone wants to live in a white neighborhood
and he is black, that is his choice. It should be his rights. It is not because white people will
not allow him. So vice versa: If a black man wants to live in the slums, that should be his
right. Black people will let him. That is the difference. And it's a difference on which this
country makes a number of logical mistakes when they begin to try to criticize the program
articulated by SNCC.
Now we maintain that we cannot be afford to be concerned about 6 percent of the children in
this country, black children, who you allow to come into white schools. We have 94 percent
who still live in shacks. We are going to be concerned about those 94 percent. You ought to be
concerned about them too. The question is, Are we willing to be concerned about those 94
percent? Are we willing to be concerned about the black people who will never get to
Berkeley, who will never get to Harvard, and cannot get an education, so you’ll never get a
chance to rub shoulders with them and say, "Well, he’s almost as good as we are; he’s not
like the others"? The question is, How can white society begin to move to see black people as
human beings?

I am black, therefore I am; not that I am black and I must go to college to prove myself. I am
black, therefore I am. And don’t deprive me of anything and say to me that you must go to
college before you gain access to X, Y, and Z. It is only a rationalization for one's oppression.
The -- The political parties in this country do not meet the needs of people on a day-to-day
basis. The question is, How can we build new political institutions that will become the political
expressions of people on a day-to-day basis? The question is, How can you build political
institutions that will begin to meet the needs of Oakland, California? And the needs of
Oakland, California, is not 1,000 policemen with submachine guns. They don't need that. They
need that least of all. The question is, How can we build institutions where those people can
begin to function on a day-to-day basis, where they can get decent jobs, where they can get
decent houses, and where they can begin to participate in the policy and major decisions that
affect their lives? That’s what they need, not Gestapo troops, because this is not 1942, and if
you play like Nazis, we playing back with you this time around. Get hip to that.
The question then is, How can white people move to start making the major institutions that
they have in this country function the way it is supposed to function? That is the real question.
And can white people move inside their own community and start tearing down racism where
in fact it does exist? Where it exists. It is you who live in Cicero and stop us from living there.
It is white people who stop us from moving into Grenada. It is white people who make sure
that we live in the ghettos of this country. it is white institutions that do that. They must
change. In order -- In order for America to really live on a basic principle of human
relationships, a new society must be born. Racism must die, and the economic exploitation of
this country of non-white peoples around the world must also die -- must also die.
Now there are several programs that we have in the South, most in poor white communities.
We're trying to organize poor whites on a base where they can begin to move around the
question of economic exploitation and political disfranchisement. We know -- we've heard the
theory several times -- but few people are willing to go into there. The question is, Can the
white activist not try to be a Pepsi generation who comes alive in the black community, but
can he be a man who’s willing to move into the white community and start organizing where
the organization is needed? Can he do that? The question is, Can the white society or the
white activist disassociate himself with two clowns who waste time parrying with each other
rather than talking about the problems that are facing people in this state? Can you dissociate
yourself with those clowns and start to build new institutions that will eliminate all idiots like
them.

And the question is, If we are going to do that when and where do we start, and how do we
start? We maintain that we must start doing that inside the white community. Our own
personal position politically is that we don't think the Democratic Party represents the needs
of black people. We know it don't. And that if, in fact, white people really believe that, the
question is, if they’re going to move inside that structure, how are they going to organize
around a concept of whiteness based on true brotherhood and based on stopping exploitation,
economic exploitation, so that there will be a coalition base for black people to hook up with?
You cannot form a coalition based on national sentiment. That is not a coalition. If you need a
coalition to redress itself to real changes in this country, white people must start building
those institutions inside the white community. And that is the real question, I think, facing the
white activists today. Can they, in fact, begin to move into and tear down the institutions
which have put us all in a trick bag that we’ve been into for the last hundred years?
I don't think that we should follow what many people say that we should fight to be leaders of
tomorrow. Frederick Douglass said that the youth should fight to be leaders today. And God
knows we need to be leaders today, 'cause the men who run this country are sick, are sick. So
that can we on a larger sense begin now, today, to start building those institutions and to
fight to articulate our position, to fight to be able to control our universities -- We need to be
able to do that -- and to fight to control the basic institutions which perpetuate racism by
destroying them and building new ones? That’s the real question that face us today, and it is a
dilemma because most of us do not know how to work, and that the excuse that most white
activists find is to run into the black community.
Now we maintain that we cannot have white people working in the black community, and we
mean it on a psychological ground. The fact is that all black people often question whether or
not they are equal to whites, because every time they start to do something, white people are
around showing them how to do it. If we are going to eliminate that for the generation that
comes after us, then black people must be seen in positions of power, doing and articulating
for themselves, for themselves.
That is not to say that one is a reverse racist; it is to say that one is moving in a healthy
ground; it is to say what the philosopher Sartre says: One is becoming an "antiracist racist."
And this country can’t understand that. Maybe it's because it's all caught up in racism. But I
think what you have in SNCC is an anti-racist racism. We are against racists. Now if
everybody who is white see themself [sic] as a racist and then see us against him, they're
speaking from their own guilt position, not ours, not ours.

Now then, the question is, How can we move to begin to change what's going on in this
country. I maintain, as we have in SNCC, that the war in Vietnam is an illegal and immoral
war. And the question is, What can we do to stop that war? What can we do to stop the
people who, in the name of our country, are killing babies, women, and children? What can we
do to stop that? And I maintain that we do not have the power in our hands to change that
institution, to begin to recreate it, so that they learn to leave the Vietnamese people alone,
and that the only power we have is the power to say, "Hell no!" to the draft.
We have to say -- We have to say to ourselves that there is a higher law than the law of a
racist named McNamara. There is a higher law than the law of a fool named Rusk. And there's
a higher law than the law of a buffoon named Johnson. It’s the law of each of us. It's the law
of each of us. It is the law of each of us saying that we will not allow them to make us hired
killers. We will stand pat. We will not kill anybody that they say kill. And if we decide to kill,
we're going to decide who we going to kill. And this country will only be able to stop the war
in Vietnam when the young men who are made to fight it begin to say, "Hell, no, we ain’t
going."
Now then, there's a failure because the Peace Movement has been unable to get off the
college campuses where everybody has a 2S and not going to get drafted anyway. And the
question is, How can you move out of that into the white ghettos of this country and begin to
articulate a position for those white students who do not want to go. We cannot do that. It is
something -- sometimes ironic that many of the peace groups have beginning to call us
violent and say they can no longer support us, and we are in fact the most militant
organization [for] peace or civil rights or human rights against the war in Vietnam in this
country today. There isn’t one organization that has begun to meet our stance on the war in
Vietnam, 'cause we not only say we are against the war in Vietnam; we are against the draft.
We are against the draft. No man has the right to take a man for two years and train him to
be a killer. A man should decide what he wants to do with his life.
So the question then is it becomes crystal clear for black people because we can easily say
that anyone fighting in the war in Vietnam is nothing but a black mercenary, and that's all he
is. Any time a black man leaves the country where he can’t vote to supposedly deliver the
vote for somebody else, he’s a black mercenary. Any time a -- Any time a black man leaves
this country, gets shot in Vietnam on foreign ground, and returns home and you won’t give
him a burial in his own homeland, he’s a black mercenary, a black mercenary.

And that even if I were to believe the lies of Johnson, if I were to believe his lies that we're
fighting to give democracy to the people in Vietnam, as a black man living in this country I
wouldn’t fight to give this to anybody. I wouldn't give it to anybody. So that we have to use
our bodies and our minds in the only way that we see fit. We must begin like the philosopher
Camus to come alive by saying "No!" That is the only act in which we begin to come alive, and
we have to say "No!" to many, many things in this country.
This country is a nation of thieves. It has stole everything it has, beginning with black people,
beginning with black people. And that the question is, How can we move to start changing this
country from what it is -- a nation of thieves. This country cannot justify any longer its
existence. We have become the policeman of the world. The marines are at our disposal to
always bring democracy, and if the Vietnamese don’t want democracy, well dammit, "We’ll
just wipe them the hell out, 'cause they don’t deserve to live if they won’t have our way of
life."
There is then in a larger sense, What do you do on your university campus? Do you raise
questions about the hundred black students who were kicked off campus a couple of weeks
ago? Eight hundred? Eight hundred? And how does that question begin to move? Do you begin
to relate to people outside of the ivory tower and university wall? Do you think you’re capable
of building those human relationships, as the country now stands? You're fooling yourself. It is
impossible for white and black people to talk about building a relationship based on humanity
when the country is the way it is, when the institutions are clearly against us.
We have taken all the myths of this country and we've found them to be nothing but
downright lies. This country told us that if we worked hard we would succeed, and if that were
true we would own this country lock, stock, and barrel -- lock, stock, and barrel -- lock, stock,
and barrel. It is we who have picked the cotton for nothing. It is we who are the maids in the
kitchens of liberal white people. It is we who are the janitors, the porters, the elevator men;
we who sweep up your college floors. Yes, it is we who are the hardest workers and the lowest
paid, and the lowest paid.
And that it is nonsensical for people to start talking about human relationships until they're
willing to build new institutions. Black people are economically insecure. White liberals are
economically secure. Can you begin to build an economic coalition? Are the liberals willing to
share their salaries with the economically insecure black people they so much love? Then if
you’re not, are you willing to start building new institutions that will provide economic security
for black people? That’s the question we want to deal with. That's the question we want to
deal with.

We have to seriously examine the histories that we have been told. But we have something
more to do than that. American students are perhaps the most politically unsophisticated
students in the world, in the world, in the world. Across every country in this world, while we
were growing up, students were leading the major revolutions of their countries. We have not
been able to do that. They have been politically aware of their existence. In South America
our neighbors down below the border have one every 24 hours just to remind us that they're
politically aware.
And we have been unable to grasp it because we’ve always moved in the field of morality and
love while people have been politically jiving with our lives. And the question is, How do we
now move politically and stop trying to move morally? You can't move morally against a man
like Brown and Reagan. You've got to move politically to put them out of business. You've got
to move politically.
You can’t move morally against Lyndon Baines Johnson because he is an immoral man. He
doesn’t know what it’s all about. So you’ve got to move politically. You've got to move
politically. And that we have to begin to develop a political sophistication -- which is not to be
a parrot: "The two-party system is the best party in the world." There is a difference between
being a parrot and being politically sophisticated.
We have to raise questions about whether or not we do need new types of political institutions
in this country, and we in SNCC maintain that we need them now. We need new political
institutions in this country. Any time -- Any time Lyndon Baines Johnson can head a Party
which has in it Bobby Kennedy, Wayne Morse, Eastland, Wallace, and all those other
supposed-to-be-liberal cats, there’s something wrong with that Party. They’re moving
politically, not morally. And that if that party refuses to seat black people from Mississippi and
goes ahead and seats racists like Eastland and his clique, it is clear to me that they’re moving
politically, and that one cannot begin to talk morality to people like that.
We must begin to think politically and see if we can have the power to impose and keep the
moral values that we hold high. We must question the values of this society, and I maintain
that black people are the best people to do that because we have been excluded from that
society. And the question is, we ought to think whether or not we want to become a part of
that society. That's what we want to do.
And that that is precisely what it seems to me that the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee is doing. We are raising questions about this country. I do not want to be a part of
the American pie. The American pie means raping South Africa, beating Vietnam, beating

South America, raping the Philippines, raping every country you’ve been in. I don’t want any
of your blood money. I don’t want it -- don't want to be part of that system. And the question
is, How do we raise those questions? How do we ....How do we begin to raise them?
We have grown up and we are the generation that has found this country to be a world power,
that has found this country to be the wealthiest country in the world. We must question how
she got her wealth? That's what we're questioning, and whether or not we want this country
to continue being the wealthiest country in the world at the price of raping every -- everybody
else across the world. That's what we must begin to question. And that because black people
are saying we do not now want to become a part of you, we are called reverse racists. Ain’t
that a gas?
Now, then, we want to touch on nonviolence because we see that again as the failure of white
society to make nonviolence work. I was always surprised at Quakers who came to Alabama
and counseled me to be nonviolent, but didn’t have the guts to start talking to James Clark to
be nonviolent. That is where nonviolence needs to be preached -- to Jim Clark, not to black
people. They have already been nonviolent too many years. The question is, Can white people
conduct their nonviolent schools in Cicero where they belong to be conducted, not among
black people in Mississippi. Can they conduct it among the white people in Grenada?
Six-foot-two men who kick little black children -- can you conduct nonviolent schools there?
That is the question that we must raise, not that you conduct nonviolence among black
people. Can you name me one black man today who's killed anybody white and is still alive?
Even after rebellion, when some black brothers throw some bricks and bottles, ten thousand
of them has to pay the crime, 'cause when the white policeman comes in, anybody who’s
black is arrested, "'cause we all look alike."
So that we have to raise those questions. We, the youth of this country, must begin to raise
those questions. And we must begin to move to build new institutions that's going to speak to
the needs of people who need it. We are going to have to speak to change the foreign policy
of this country. One of the problems with the peace movement is that it's just too caught up
in Vietnam, and that if we pulled out the troops from Vietnam this week, next week you’d
have to get another peace movement for Santo Domingo. And the question is, How do you
begin to articulate the need to change the foreign policy of this country -- a policy that is
decided upon race, a policy on which decisions are made upon getting economic wealth at any
price, at any price.

Now we articulate that we therefore have to hook up with black people around the world; and
that that hookup is not only psychological, but becomes very real. If South America today
were to rebel, and black people were to shoot the hell out of all the white people there -- as
they should, as they should -- then Standard Oil would crumble tomorrow. If South Africa
were to go today, Chase Manhattan Bank would crumble tomorrow. If Zimbabwe, which is
called Rhodesia by white people, were to go tomorrow, General Electric would cave in on the
East Coast. The question is, How do we stop those institutions that are so willing to fight
against "Communist aggression" but closes their eyes to racist oppression? That is the
question that you raise. Can this country do that?
Now, many people talk about pulling out of Vietnam. What will happen? If we pull out of
Vietnam, there will be one less aggressor in there -- we won't be there, we won't be there.
And so the question is, How do we articulate those positions? And we cannot begin to
articulate them from the same assumptions that the people in the country speak, 'cause they
speak from different assumptions than I assume what the youth in this country are talking
about.
That we're not talking about a policy or aid or sending Peace Corps people in to teach people
how to read and write and build houses while we steal their raw materials from them. Is that
what we're talking about? 'Cause that’s all we do. What underdeveloped countries needs --
information on how to become industrialized, so they can keep their raw materials where they
have it, produce them and sell it to this country for the price it’s supposed to pay; not that we
produce it and sell it back to them for a profit and keep sending our modern day missionaries
in, calling them the sons of Kennedy. And that if the youth are going to participate in that
program, how do you raise those questions where you begin to control that Peace Corps
program? How do you begin to raise them?
How do we raise the questions of poverty? The assumptions of this country is that if someone
is poor, they are poor because of their own individual blight, or they weren’t born on the right
side of town; they had too many children; they went in the army too early; or their father was
a drunk, or they didn’t care about school, or they made a mistake. That’s a lot of nonsense.
Poverty is well calculated in this country. It is well calculated, and the reason why the poverty
program won’t work is because the calculators of poverty are administering it. That's why it
won't work.

So how can we, as the youth in the country, move to start tearing those things down? We
must move into the white community. We are in the black community. We have developed a
movement in the black community. The challenge is that the white activist has failed
miserably to develop the movement inside of his community. And the question is, Can we find
white people who are going to have the courage to go into white communities and start
organizing them? Can we find them? Are they here and are they willing to do that? Those are
the questions that we must raise for the white activist.
And we're never going to get caught up in questions about power. This country knows what
power is. It knows it very well. And it knows what Black Power is 'cause it deprived black
people of it for 400 years. So it knows what Black Power is. That the question of, Why do
black people -- Why do white people in this country associate Black Power with violence? And
the question is because of their own inability to deal with "blackness." If we had said "Negro
power" nobody would get scared. Everybody would support it. Or if we said power for colored
people, everybody’d be for that, but it is the word "black" -- it is the word "black" that bothers
people in this country, and that’s their problem, not mine -- they're problem, they're problem.
Now there's one modern day lie that we want to attack and then move on very quickly and
that is the lie that says anything all black is bad. Now, you’re all a college university crowd.
You’ve taken your basic logic course. You know about a major premise and minor premise. So
people have been telling me anything all black is bad. Let’s make that our major premise.
Major premise: Anything all black is bad.
Minor premise or particular premise: I am all black.
Therefore...
I’m never going to be put in that trick bag; I am all black and I’m all good, dig it. Anything all
black is not necessarily bad. Anything all black is only bad when you use force to keep whites
out. Now that’s what white people have done in this country, and they’re projecting their
same fears and guilt on us, and we won’t have it, we won't have it. Let them handle their own
fears and their own guilt. Let them find their own psychologists. We refuse to be the therapy
for white society any longer. We have gone mad trying to do it. We have gone stark raving
mad trying to do it.

I look at Dr. King on television every single day, and I say to myself: "Now there is a man
who’s desperately needed in this country. There is a man full of love. There is a man full of
mercy. There is a man full of compassion." But every time I see Lyndon on television, I said,
"Martin, baby, you got a long way to go."
So that the question stands as to what we are willing to do, how we are willing to say "No" to
withdraw from that system and begin within our community to start to function and to build
new institutions that will speak to our needs. In Lowndes County, we developed something
called the Lowndes County Freedom Organization. It is a political party. The Alabama law says
that if you have a Party you must have an emblem. We chose for the emblem a black panther,
a beautiful black animal which symbolizes the strength and dignity of black people, an animal
that never strikes back until he's back so far into the wall, he's got nothing to do but spring
out. Yeah. And when he springs he does not stop.
Now there is a Party in Alabama called the Alabama Democratic Party. It is all white. It has as
its emblem a white rooster and the words "white supremacy" for the write. Now the
gentlemen of the Press, because they're advertisers, and because most of them are white,
and because they're produced by that white institution, never called the Lowndes County
Freedom Organization by its name, but rather they call it the Black Panther Party. Our
question is, Why don't they call the Alabama Democratic Party the "White Cock Party"? (It's
fair to us.....) It is clear to me that that just points out America's problem with sex and color,
not our problem, not our problem. And it is now white America that is going to deal with those
problems of sex and color.
If we were to be real and to be honest, we would have to admit -- we would have to admit
that most people in this country see things black and white. We have to do that. All of us do.
We live in a country that’s geared that way. White people would have to admit that they are
afraid to go into a black ghetto at night. They are afraid. That's a fact. They're afraid because
they’d be "beat up," "lynched," "looted," "cut up," etcetera, etcetera. It happens to black
people inside the ghetto every day, incidentally, and white people are afraid of that. So you
get a man to do it for you -- a policeman. And now you figure his mentality, when he's afraid
of black people. The first time a black man jumps, that white man going to shoot him. He's
going to shoot him. So police brutality is going to exist on that level because of the
incapability of that white man to see black people come together and to live in the conditions.
This country is too hypocritical and that we cannot adjust ourselves to its hypocrisy.

The only time I hear people talk about nonviolence is when black people move to defend
themselves against white people. Black people cut themselves every night in the ghetto --
Don't anybody talk about nonviolence. Lyndon Baines Johnson is busy bombing the hell of out
Vietnam -- Don't nobody talk about nonviolence. White people beat up black people every day
-- Don't nobody talk about nonviolence. But as soon as black people start to move, the double
standard comes into being.
You can’t defend yourself. That's what you're saying, 'cause you show me a man who -- who
would advocate aggressive violence that would be able to live in this country. Show him to
me. The double standards again come into itself. Isn’t it ludicrous and hypocritical for the
political chameleon who calls himself a Vice President in this country to -- to stand up before
this country and say, "Looting never got anybody anywhere"? Isn't it hypocritical for Lyndon
to talk about looting, that you can’t accomplish anything by looting and you must accomplish
it by the legal ways? What does he know about legality? Ask Ho Chi Minh, he'll tell you.
So that in conclusion we want to say that number one, it is clear to me that we have to wage
a psychological battle on the right for black people to define their own terms, define
themselves as they see fit, and organize themselves as they see it. Now the question is, How
is the white community going to begin to allow for that organizing, because once they start to
do that, they will also allow for the organizing that they want to do inside their community. It
doesn’t make a difference, 'cause we’re going to organize our way anyway. We're going to do
it. The question is, How are we going to facilitate those matters, whether it’s going to be done
with a thousand policemen with submachine guns, or whether or not it’s going to be done in a
context where it is allowed to be done by white people warding off those policemen. That is
the question.
And the question is, How are white people who call themselves activists ready to start move
into the white communities on two counts: on building new political institutions to destroy the
old ones that we have? And to move around the concept of white youth refusing to go into the
army? So that we can start, then, to build a new world. It is ironic to talk about civilization in
this country. This country is uncivilized. It needs to be civilized. It needs to be civilized.
And that we must begin to raise those questions of civilization: What it is? And who do it? And
so we must urge you to fight now to be the leaders of today, not tomorrow. We've got to be
the leaders of today. This country -- This country is a nation of thieves. It stands on the brink
of becoming a nation of murderers. We must stop it. We must stop it. We must stop it. We
must stop it.

And then, therefore, in a larger sense there's the question of black people. We are on the
move for our liberation. We have been tired of trying to prove things to white people. We are
tired of trying to explain to white people that we’re not going to hurt them. We are concerned
with getting the things we want, the things that we have to have to be able to function. The
question is, Can white people allow for that in this country? The question is, Will white people
overcome their racism and allow for that to happen in this country? If that does not happen,
brothers and sisters, we have no choice but to say very clearly, "Move over, or we’re going to
move on over you."
Thank you.

Presidents of U.S.A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presidents of U.S.A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRESIDENTS

OF THE UNITED STATES

Inauguration End of Home Home

April 30, 1789 to March 3, 1797

BORN: February 22, 1732 at Pope's Creek, Virginia

"First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen."

Washington's first public office was serving as the

March 4, 1797 to March 3, 1801 Abigail Adams

BORN: October 30, 1735 at Quincy, MA

"Liberty…is an intellectual quality. Let the human mind loose."

March 4, 1801 to March 3, 1809 George Clinton

BORN: April 13, 1743 at Shadwell, Virginia

Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) was an American

March 4, 1809 to March 3, 1817 Elbridge Gerry*

Madison was born into a prominent planter family in Virginia. He

Madison emerged as an important leader in the House of

March 4, 1817 to March 3, 1825 Elizabeth Monroe

BORN: April 28, 1758 at Westmoreland County, Virginia

March 4, 1825 to March 3, 1829 Louisa Adams

BORN: July 11, 1767 at Braintree, Massachusetts

"Individual liberty is individual power."

March 4, 1829 to March 3, 1837 Martin Van Buren

Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American

Born in the colonial Carolinas in the decade before the American

March 4, 1837 to March 3, 1841 Angelica Van Buren

BORN: December 5, 1782 in Kinderhook, New York*

March 4, 1841 to April 4, 1841* Anna Harrison

BORN: February 9, 1773 in Berkeley, Virginia

William Henry Harrison (February 9, 1773 – April 4, 1841) was an

Harrison was born in Charles City County, Virginia, a son of Benjamin

April 6, 1841 – March 3, 1845* Julia Tyler

BORN: March 29, 1790 at Greenway, Virginia

Tyler was born into a prominent slaveholding Virginia family. He

March 4, 1845 to March 3, 1849 Sarah Polk

BORN: November 2, 1795 at Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

After building a successful law practice in Tennessee, Polk was

March 4, 1849 to July 9, 1850* Margaret Taylor

BORN: November 24, 1784 at Montebello, Virginia

Zachary Taylor (November 24, 1784 – July 9, 1850) was an American

Taylor was born into a prominent family of plantation owners who

In 1845, during the annexation of Texas, President James K.

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio]

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, members of the 77th Congress:

Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 1

Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 2

Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress

Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 3

Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 4

Secondly, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to

Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 5

To give you two illustrations:

To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a

Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 6

Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 7

Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 8

- Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

- Jobs for those who can work.

- Security for those who need it.

- The ending of special privilege for the few.

- The preservation of civil liberties for all.

We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.

Property of AmericanRhetoric.com Page 9