October 15, 1973
On the evening of October 15, 1973, former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew addressed the American people in a nationally televised speech, five days after his resignation brought an abrupt end to one of the most controversial political careers in modern American history. Agnew, who had served as Richard Nixon’s vice president since January 1969, used the occasion not simply to say farewell, but to defend his reputation, challenge the conduct of the investigation that had forced him from office, and offer his own explanation of the events that had brought him down.
His address came at an extraordinary moment for the country. The Watergate scandal was threatening the Nixon presidency, the administration was facing mounting questions about its integrity, and the Middle East was engulfed in war following the Egyptian-Syrian attack on Israel earlier that month. Against this unsettled background, Agnew sought to portray his departure as a painful personal sacrifice made in the interests of national stability.
Agnew opened by acknowledging the honor of having been elected vice president twice, in 1968 and 1972. He insisted that he did not want his final appearance to become an exercise in bitterness, but argued that the circumstances surrounding his resignation had been widely misunderstood. He directed particular criticism toward the news media, accusing newspapers and broadcasters of publishing leaks from the grand jury investigation and presenting allegations as established facts before they had been tested in court.
The former vice president maintained that the accusations against him rested heavily on testimony from individuals who had themselves admitted criminal wrongdoing and had received immunity or other concessions in exchange for their cooperation. He argued that the public had been denied a fair assessment of the evidence and that the press had contributed to a premature judgment of his guilt.
Yet the legal circumstances of his departure could not be dismissed so easily. On October 10, Agnew had pleaded nolo contendere, or no contest, to a federal charge of income tax evasion relating to 1967, when he was governor of Maryland. The plea resulted in a $10,000 fine and three years’ probation. Although he acknowledged that the plea carried the legal consequences of a guilty plea in that proceeding, he insisted it did not constitute an admission to the separate allegations of bribery, extortion, and conspiracy.
Agnew explained that he had initially intended to fight the accusations, but eventually concluded that remaining in office while pursuing a lengthy legal battle would damage the country. The vice presidency, he observed, was not an ordinary political position. Its occupant had to be prepared to assume the presidency at a moment’s notice. With his reputation under sustained attack, he argued, the nation could not afford an extended period of uncertainty over the fitness of its second-highest constitutional officer.
It was a central theme of the address: Agnew wanted his resignation understood as an act of public responsibility rather than an acknowledgment of the broader allegations against him.
He also attempted to explain the political practices underlying the accusations. Campaign financing, he noted, placed public officials under considerable pressure to raise money, while contractors seeking government business had powerful incentives to contribute to political campaigns. He conceded that campaign fundraising and the awarding of public contracts could become entangled in ethically questionable ways, even as he rejected the prosecution’s portrayal of himself as the architect of a criminal enterprise.
His defense rested partly on an appeal to the realities of political life. Agnew argued that experienced participants in state and local politics understood how contractors, campaign contributors, and elected officials interacted. He also challenged the credibility of witnesses who, he maintained, had reasons to implicate him in order to secure favorable treatment for themselves.
From there, Agnew turned toward the future. He endorsed President Nixon’s selection of Gerald R. Ford, then House Republican leader, to succeed him as vice president. Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Ford’s nomination required confirmation by both houses of Congress, establishing an important constitutional precedent. Agnew urged Americans to support the process and allow the government to function without further disruption.
He also proposed reforms that, in his view, might emerge from the crisis. These included public financing of political campaigns, tighter controls over the awarding of government contracts, and safeguards against prejudicial leaks from criminal investigations. He called for greater scrutiny of the use of immunity agreements, arguing that prosecutors should not be permitted to secure testimony through arrangements that could encourage false accusations.
The irony was difficult to overlook: Agnew, a politician whose departure had followed a corruption investigation, was now urging the country to improve its political and judicial safeguards.
In his closing remarks, he praised Nixon’s leadership, expressed regret for the disruption caused by the controversy, and declared his confidence in the resilience of American democracy. Drawing upon the words attributed to James Garfield following Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, Agnew reminded listeners that the government endured even amid national tragedy. He concluded with a declaration of faith in the Constitution, the American people, and the country’s future.
The public reaction was divided, although the circumstances left Agnew with little opportunity to control the larger narrative. His supporters could interpret the address as a final act of defiance by a politician who believed he had been subjected to a prejudicial investigation and trial by publicity. His criticism of leaked information and the use of cooperating witnesses raised questions that extended beyond his individual case. The speech also appealed to those who believed the political establishment and the press were too quick to condemn public figures.
For his critics, however, the address amounted to an elaborate exercise in self-justification. Agnew’s repeated denials did not erase the fact that he had accepted a legal disposition involving federal tax evasion and had resigned rather than remain in office while contesting the allegations. His effort to distinguish the tax charge from the broader accusations could not entirely overcome the damaging circumstances of his departure.
Contemporary television coverage reflected the gravity of the moment, with the major networks carrying the address and providing immediate analysis. The speech was therefore not merely a private farewell broadcast to a sympathetic audience; it was a public defense delivered before a country already questioning the conduct of its highest officials.
In retrospect, Agnew’s October 15 address stands as a revealing document of the political crisis of 1973. It illustrates the tension between the presumption of innocence, the responsibilities of public office, and the damage that allegations of corruption can inflict on democratic institutions. Agnew wanted Americans to remember him as a public servant driven from office by circumstances he considered unjust. The larger historical record, however, would remember his resignation as part of a year in which confidence in the nation’s political leadership suffered extraordinary damage.
His farewell ended with an expression of faith that the government would endure. Within ten months, Richard Nixon himself would resign the presidency, and Gerald Ford—the man Agnew had endorsed as his successor—would become president of the United States.
Here is the complete address, as it was broadcast by CBS Radio on October 15, 1973.
Subscribe to Past Daily and become part of History:
Become a Patron!
