Inaugural Addresses of the Past

They’re almost here: the Obama inauguration and his inaugural speech. In an interesting piece in The New Yorker (January 12, 2009), Jill Lepore critiques inaugural addresses of the past. Noting the emptiness of the longest speeches, Lapore writes that “it usually takes a while to say so prodigiously little.”

We’re at a disadvantage in considering most inaugural addresses because we can’t hear the speaker. Though we’re told that Lincoln’s voice wasn’t a good one, his two inaugural addresses are given high marks since they are eloquently brief and profound. Of the ones we’ve been able to hear, most Americans would probably pay tribute to FDR and Kennedy — and perhaps Reagan.

Lepore focuses, somewhat surprisingly, on the speech given by Garfield. She’s intrigued by his insistence on reading every predecessor’s speech (no small task in 1881 when no one edition of all the previous speeches remained in print), his serious consideration of giving no speech at all, and his intense struggle, despite all the time he devoted to the effort, to write his inaugural address.

Lepore also deals with Garfield’s speech because it’s almost the perfect harbinger for what we will witness tomorrow. It makes one wonder whether Garfield, had his presidency not been cut so short, might be regarded today as one of our best presidents.

“My countrymen, we do not now differ in our judgment concerning the controversies of past generations, and fifty years hence our children will not be divided in their opinions concerning our controversies. They will surely bless their fathers and their fathers’ God that the Union was preserved, that slavery was overthrown, and that both races were made equal before the law. We may hasten or we may retard, but we can not prevent, the final reconciliation.”

(For Garfield’s entire address, click here.)