Franklin D. Roosevelt
State of the Union Address
January 3, 1936
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and of the House of
We are about to enter upon another year of the responsibility which
the electorate of the United States has placed in our hands. Having come
so far, it is fitting that we should pause to survey the ground which we
have covered and the path which lies ahead.
On the fourth day of March, 1933, on the occasion of taking the oath
of office as President of the United States, I addressed the people of
our country. Need I recall either the scene or the national circumstances
attending the occasion? The crisis of that moment was almost exclusively
a national one. In recognition of that fact, so obvious to the millions
in the streets and in the homes of America, I devoted by far the greater
part of that address to what I called, and the Nation called, critical
days within our own borders.
You will remember that on that fourth of March, 1933, the world picture
was an image of substantial peace. International consultation and widespread
hope for the bettering of relations between the Nations gave to all of
us a reasonable expectation that the barriers to mutual confidence, to
increased trade, and to the peaceful settlement of disputes could be progressively
removed. In fact, my only reference to the field of world policy in that
address was in these words: "I would dedicate this Nation to the policy
of the good neighborthe neighbor who resolutely respects himself and,
because he does so, respects the rights of othersa neighbor who respects
his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with
a world of neighbors."
In the years that have followed, that sentiment has remained the dedication
of this Nation. Among the Nations of the great Western Hemisphere the policy
of the good neighbor has happily prevailed. At no time in the four and
a half centuries of modern civilization in the Americas has there existedin
any year, in any decade, in any generation in all that timea greater spirit
of mutual understanding, of common helpfulness, and of devotion to the
ideals of serf-government than exists today in the twenty-one American
Republics and their neighbor, the Dominion of Canada. This policy of the
good neighbor among the Americas is no longer a hope, no longer an objective
remaining to be accomplished. It is a fact, active, present, pertinent
and effective. In this achievement, every American Nation takes an understanding
part. There is neither war, nor rumor of war, nor desire for war. The inhabitants
of this vast area, two hundred and fifty million strong, spreading more
than eight thousand miles from the Arctic to the Antarctic, believe in,
and propose to follow, the policy of the good neighbor. They wish with
all their heart that the rest of the world might do likewise.
The rest of the worldAh! there is the rub.
Were I today to deliver an Inaugural Address to the people of the United
States, I could not limit my comments on world affairs to one paragraph.
With much regret I should be compelled to devote the greater part to world
affairs. Since the summer of that same year of 1933, the temper and the
purposes of the rulers of many of the great populations in Europe and in
Asia have not pointed the way either to peace or to good-will among men.
Not only have peace and good-will among men grown more remote in those
areas of the earth during this period, but a point has been reached where
the people of the Americas must take cognizance of growing ill-will, of
marked trends toward aggression, of increasing armaments, of shortening
tempersa situation which has in it many of the elements that lead to the
tragedy of general war.
On those other continents many Nations, principally the smaller peoples,
if left to themselves, would be content with their boundaries and willing
to solve within themselves and in cooperation with their neighbors their
individual problems, both economic and social. The rulers of those Nations,
deep in their hearts, follow these peaceful and reasonable aspirations
of their peoples. These rulers must remain ever vigilant against the possibility
today or tomorrow of invasion or attack by the rulers of other peoples
who fail to subscribe to the principles of bettering the human race by
Within those other Nationsthose which today must bear the primary,
definite responsibility for jeopardizing world peace -what hope lies? To
say the least, there are grounds for pessimism. It is idle for us or for
others to preach that the masses of the people who constitute those Nations
which are dominated by the twin spirits of autocracy and aggression, are
out of sympathy with their rulers, that they are allowed no opportunity
to express themselves, that they would change things if they could.
That, unfortunately, is not so clear. It might be true that the masses
of the people in those Nations would change the policies of their Governments
if they could be allowed full freedom and full access to the processes
of democratic government as we understand them. But they do not have that
access; lacking it they follow blindly and fervently the lead of those
who seek autocratic power.
Nations seeking expansion, seeking the rectification of injustices springing
from former wars, or seeking outlets for trade, for population or even
for their own peaceful contributions to the progress of civilization, fail
to demonstrate that patience necessary to attain reasonable and legitimate
objectives by peaceful negotiation or by an appeal to the finer instincts
of world justice.
They have therefore impatiently reverted to the old belief in the law
of the sword, or to the fantastic conception that they, and they alone,
are chosen to fulfill a mission and that all the others among the billion
and a half of human beings in the world must and shall learn from and be
subject to them.
I recognize and you will recognize that these words which I have chosen
with deliberation will not prove popular in any Nation that chooses to
fit this shoe to its foot. Such sentiments, however, will find sympathy
and understanding in those Nations where the people themselves are honestly
desirous of peace but must constantly align themselves on one side or the
other in the kaleidoscopic jockeying for position which is characteristic
of European and Asiatic relations today. For the peace-loving Nations,
and there are many of them, find that their very identity depends on their
moving and moving again on the chess board of international politics.
I suggested in the spring of 1933 that 85 or 90 percent of all the people
in the world were content with the territorial limits of their respective
Nations and were willing further to reduce their armed forces if every
other Nation in the world would agree to do likewise.
That is equally true today, and it is even more true today that world
peace and world good-will are blocked by only 10 or 15 percent of the world's
population. That is why efforts to reduce armies have thus far not only
failed, but have been met by vastly increased armaments on land and in
the air. That is why even efforts to continue the existing limits on naval
armaments into the years to come show such little current success.
But the policy of the United States has been clear and consistent. We
have sought with earnestness in every possible way to limit world armaments
and to attain the peaceful solution of disputes among all Nations.
We have sought by every legitimate means to exert our moral influence
against repression, against intolerance, against autocracy and in favor
of freedom of expression, equality before the law, religious tolerance
and popular rule.
In the field of commerce we have undertaken to encourage a more reasonable
interchange of the world's goods. In the field of international finance
we have, so far as we are concerned, put an end to dollar diplomacy, to
money grabbing, to speculation for the benefit of the powerful and the
rich, at the expense of the small and the poor.
As a consistent part of a clear policy, the United States is following
a twofold neutrality toward any and all Nations which engage in wars that
are not of immediate concern to the Americas. First, we decline to encourage
the prosecution of war by permitting belligerents to obtain arms, ammunition
or implements of war from the United States. Second, we seek to discourage
the use by belligerent Nations of any and all American products calculated
to facilitate the prosecution of a war in quantities over and above our
normal exports of them in time of peace.
I trust that these objectives thus clearly and unequivocally stated
will be carried forward by cooperation between this Congress and the President.
I realize that I have emphasized to you the gravity of the situation
which confronts the people of the world. This emphasis is justified because
of its importance to civilization and therefore to the United States. Peace
is jeopardized by the few and not by the many. Peace is threatened by those
who seek selfish power. The world has witnessed similar eras as in the
days when petty kings and feudal barons were changing the map of Europe
every fortnight, or when great emperors and great kings were engaged in
a mad scramble for colonial empire. We hope that we are not again at the
threshold of such an era. But if face it we must, then the United States
and the rest of the Americas can play but one role: through a well-ordered
neutrality to do naught to encourage the contest, through adequate
defense to save ourselves from embroilment and attack, and through example
and all legitimate encouragement and assistance to persuade other Nations
to return to the ways of peace and good-will.
The evidence before us clearly proves that autocracy in world affairs
endangers peace and that such threats do not spring from those Nations
devoted to the democratic ideal. If this be true in world affairs, it should
have the greatest weight in the determination of domestic policies.
Within democratic Nations the chief concern of the people is to prevent
the continuance or the rise of autocratic institutions that beget slavery
at home and aggression abroad. Within our borders, as in the world at large,
popular opinion is at war with a power-seeking minority.
That is no new thing. It was fought out in the Constitutional Convention
of 1787. From time to time since then, the battle has been continued, under
Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
In these latter years we have witnessed the domination of government
by financial and industrial groups, numerically small but politically dominant
in the twelve years that succeeded the World War. The present group of
which I speak is indeed numerically small and, while it exercises a large
influence and has much to say in the world of business, it does not, I
am confident, speak the true sentiments of the less articulate but more
important elements that constitute real American business.
In March, 1933, I appealed to the Congress of the United States and
to the people of the United States in a new effort to restore power to
those to whom it rightfully belonged. The response to that appeal resulted
in the writing of a new chapter in the history of popular government. You,
the members of the Legislative branch, and I, the Executive, contended
for and established a new relationship between Government and people.
What were the terms of that new relationship? They were an appeal from
the clamor of many private and selfish interests, yes, an appeal from the
clamor of partisan interest, to the ideal of the public interest. Government
became the representative and the trustee of the public interest. Our aim
was to build upon essentially democratic institutions, seeking all the
while the adjustment of burdens, the help of the needy, the protection
of the weak, the liberation of the exploited and the genuine protection
of the people's property.
It goes without saying that to create such an economic constitutional
order, more than a single legislative enactment was called for. We, you
in the Congress and I as the Executive, had to build upon a broad base.
Now, after thirty-four months of work, we contemplate a fairly rounded
whole. We have returned the control of the Federal Government to the City
To be sure, in so doing, we have invited battle. We have earned the
hatred of entrenched greed. The very nature of the problem that we faced
made it necessary to drive some people from power and strictly to regulate
others. I made that plain when I took the oath of office in March, 1933.
I spoke of the practices of the unscrupulous money-changers who stood indicted
in the court of public opinion. I spoke of the rulers of the exchanges
of mankind's goods, who failed through their own stubbornness and their
own incompetence. I said that they had admitted their failure and had abdicated.
Abdicated? Yes, in 1933, but now with the passing of danger they forget
their damaging admissions and withdraw their abdication.
They seek the restoration of their selfish power. They offer to lead
us back round the same old corner into the same old dreary street.
Yes, there are still determined groups that are intent upon that very
thing. Rigorously held up to popular examination, their true character
presents itself. They steal the livery of great national constitutional
ideals to serve discredited special interests. As guardians and trustees
for great groups of individual stockholders they wrongfully seek to carry
the property and the interests entrusted to them into the arena of partisan
politics. They seek-this minority in business and industryto control and
often do control and use for their own purposes legitimate and highly honored
business associations; they engage in vast propaganda to spread fear and
discord among the peoplethey would "gang up" against the people's liberties.
The principle that they would instill into government if they succeed
in seizing power is well shown by the principles which many of them have
instilled into their own affairs: autocracy toward labor, toward stockholders,
toward consumers, toward public sentiment. Autocrats in smaller things,
they seek autocracy in bigger things. "By their fruits ye shall know them."
If these gentlemen believe, as they say they believe, that the measures
adopted by this Congress and its predecessor, and carried out by this Administration,
have hindered rather than promoted recovery, let them be consistent. Let
them propose to this Congress the complete repeal of these measures. The
way is open to such a proposal.
Let action be positive and not negative. The way is open in the Congress
of the United States for an expression of opinion by yeas and nays. Shall
we say that values are restored and that the Congress will, therefore,
repeal the laws under which we have been bringing them back? Shall we say
that because national income has grown with rising prosperity, we shall
repeal existing taxes and thereby put off the day of approaching a balanced
budget and of starting to reduce the national debt? Shall we abandon the
reasonable support and regulation of banking? Shall we restore the dollar
to its former gold content?
Shall we say to the farmer, "The prices for your products are in part
restored. Now go and hoe your own row?"
Shall we say to the home owners, "We have reduced your rates of interest.
We have no further concern with how you keep your home or what you pay
for your money. That is your affair?"
Shall we say to the several millions of unemployed citizens who face
the very problem of existence, of getting enough to eat, "We will withdraw
from giving you work. We will turn you back to the charity of your communities
and those men of selfish power who tell you that perhaps they will employ
you if the Government leaves them strictly alone?"
Shall we say to the needy unemployed, "Your problem is a local one except
that perhaps the Federal Government, as an act of mere generosity, will
be willing to pay to your city or to your county a few grudging dollars
to help maintain your soup kitchens?"
Shall we say to the children who have worked all day in the factories,
"Child labor is a local issue and so are your starvation wages; something
to be solved or left unsolved by the jurisdiction of forty-eight States?"
Shall we say to the laborer, "Your right to organize, your relations
with your employer have nothing to do with the public interest; if your
employer will not even meet with you to discuss your problems and his,
that is none of our affair?"
Shall we say to the unemployed and the aged, "Social security lies not
within the province of the Federal Government; you must seek relief elsewhere?"
Shall we say to the men and women who live in conditions of squalor
in country and in city, "The health and the happiness of you and your children
are no concern of ours?"
Shall we expose our population once more by the repeal of laws which
protect them against the loss of their honest investments and against the
manipulations of dishonest speculators? Shall we abandon the splendid efforts
of the Federal Government to raise the health standards of the Nation and
to give youth a decent opportunity through such means as the Civilian Conservation
Members of the Congress, let these challenges be met. If this is what
these gentlemen want, let them say so to the Congress of the United States.
Let them no longer hide their dissent in a cowardly cloak of generality.
Let them define the issue. We have been specific in our affirmative action.
Let them be specific in their negative attack.
But the challenge faced by this Congress is more menacing than merely
a return to the pastbad as that would be. Our resplendent economic autocracy
does not want to return to that individualism of which they prate, even
though the advantages under that system went to the ruthless and the strong.
They realize that in thirty-four months we have built up new instruments
of public power. In the hands of a people's Government this power is wholesome
and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy
such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people. Give
them their way and they will take the course of every autocracy of the
past power for themselves, enslavement for the public.
Their weapon is the weapon of fear. I have said, "The only thing we
have to fear is fear itself." That is as true today as it was in 1933.
But such fear as they instill today is not a natural fear, a normal fear;
it is a synthetic, manufactured, poisonous fear that is being spread subtly,
expensively and cleverly by the same people who cried in those other days,
"Save us, save us, lest we perish."
I am confident that the Congress of the United States well understands
the facts and is ready to wage unceasing warfare against those who seek
a continuation of that spirit of fear. The carrying out of the laws of
the land as enacted by the Congress requires protection until final adjudication
by the highest tribunal of the land. The Congress has the right and can
find the means to protect its own prerogatives.
We are justified in our present confidence. Restoration of national
income, which shows continuing gains for the third successive year, supports
the normal and logical policies under which agriculture and industry are
returning to full activity. Under these policies we approach a balance
of the national budget. National income increases; tax receipts, based
on that income, increase without the levying of new taxes. That is why
I am able to say to this, the Second Session of the 74th Congress, that
it is my belief based on existing laws that no new taxes, over and above
the present taxes, are either advisable or necessary.
National income increases; employment increases. Therefore, we can look
forward to a reduction in the number of those citizens who are in need.
Therefore, also, we can anticipate a reduction in our appropriations for
In the light of our substantial material progress, in the light of the
increasing effectiveness of the restoration of popular rule, I recommend
to the Congress that we advance; that we do not retreat. I have confidence
that you will not fail the people of the Nation whose mandate you have
already so faithfully fulfilled.
I repeat, with the same faith and the same determination, my words of
March 4, 1933: "We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm
courage of national unity; with a clear consciousness of seeking old and
precious moral values; with a clean satisfaction that comes from the stern
performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of
a rounded and permanent national life. We do not distrust the future of
I cannot better end this message on the state of the Union than by repeating
the words of a wise philosopher at whose feet I sat many, many years ago.
"What great crises teach all men whom the example and counsel of the
brave inspire is the lesson: Fear not, view all the tasks of life as sacred,
have faith in the triumph of the ideal, give daily all that you have to
give, be loyal and rejoice whenever you find yourselves part of a great
ideal enterprise. You, at this moment, have the honor to belong to a generation
whose lips are touched by fire. You live in a land that now enjoys the
blessings of peace. But let nothing human be wholly alien to you.
The human race now passes through one of its great crises. New ideas, new
issuesa new call for men to carry on the work of righteousness, of charity,
of courage, of patience, and of loyalty. . . . However memory bring back
this moment to your minds, let it be able to say to you: That was a great
moment. It was the beginning of a new era. . . . This world in its crisis
called for volunteers, for men of faith in life, of patience in service,
of charity and of in- sight. I responded to the call however I could. I
volunteered to give myself to my Masterthe cause of humane and brave living.
I studied, I loved, I labored, unsparingly and hopefully, to be worthy
of my generation."