Requiem for a National Tragedy

RUNNING HEAD: requiem 1
Requiem for a National Tragedy:
A Historiography of President James Garfield’s Assassination
James J. Ranew
HIS-603 Gilded Age & Progressive Era
March 29th, 2015

Requiem for a national tragedy 2
Introduction –
Paradigm shifts are the fundamental changes have defined a society solely or as mix of
underlying political, economic, and cultural assumptions, though often remembered in
detail in history some have fallen into obscurity among the general public and scholarly
historiographies. President Garfield’s assassination and the trail of his assassin, is one of
these historiographies, though its general narrative has very much remained absent of any
major revelations, there has been revisiting on various points mostly from the legal and
medical perspectives. These various perspectives are an important pieces of the
historiography, but is what it teaches about the condition of America at the time, and the
human condition overall. For this paper the historiography will be teaching us about the
frail mortality we all share, and the cost of personal hubris.
The aim of this paper is grounded in clearing obscurity that has fallen over a tragedy, and
paradigm shift of the American experience. To that aim the thesis of this paper will be
focused as follows: America has experienced four presidential assassinations. The second
assassination, of James A. Garfield, is the most obscure and behind this obscurity is a rich
historiography that presents itself telling us not just the story of a President and his
assassin, but of how antiquated ideas in medicine, the law, psychiatry, and administrative
appointment were in need of serious change. This paper will be concise to this thesis and
will largely focus on character of Garfield, the failure to save his life, and how the
potential of his lost presidency permanently changed U.S. governance. Of secondary, but
still central importance, is the story and trial of assassin, Charles Guiteau, a man who by
any measure could be considered mentally unstable, yet, like nearly all other Presidential
assassins, was truly a product of his time and its social conditions.

The Legacy of an Unlikely President –
It is the way he became wrapped in that “presidential fever”, he so wished to avoid, that
raises fascination about him, and given his humble origins, the possibilities of reforms to
the corruption that had overtaken Washington. This is the unchanging narrative on James
Garfield; he understood what crippling poverty really was, a self-made man who’d come
to power when the nation needed it most. The sources used for Garfield are mostly
recent, but cover its historiography so well, they do it just to be used as the main
comparison: there is Ackerman’s earlier work (2003) and Milliard recent work (2011),
there is also some archival use, works on his administration (DeSantis) and the recent
medical research (2006). Though historical works on Garfield can be sparse, there is
wealth archival information relating to the 1880 convention, his election, and
assassination, little of this is used directly here, as the works of Ackerman and Millard
make such wonderful use of it in their narratives. Ackerman and Millard will be
contrasted to create a consistent historiographical narrative for Garfield and his final
days, more than any other works, though other source will add to the richness of the
historiography.
The Republican Party had been divided into two warring factions the Stalwarts,
supporting establishment line of the patronage system and firmly supported Grant, and
the Half-Breeds, young ideologies supporting a meritocracy spilt between Blaine and
Sherman. The day after the convention’s end, June 9th, 1880, the New York Tribune ran
the headline: “Garfield for President; Arthur for Vice President”, Grant’s failure to
obtain nomination is heralded a “crushing defeat of the third-term idea in American
Politics”, Garfield also makes plain his wish to not be considered without his consent but

was ignored.1 It was the stunning last minuet shift in roll call votes that gave Garfield
reason to panic, he had been given some token support, but felt them just that and was
sure the nomination would fall to one of the three top contenders.2 Ackerman does us the
work of recording the actual numbers of the final ballots, on the 34th ballot Garfield’s
name doesn’t even appear but by the 35th he is not only on it but also a contender, and by
the 36th he is the nominee.3 The unwanted surprise was something Garfield tried to
remove himself from, but his dedication to decorum and public service would not allow
it. Before he took the podium to accept the nomination, still sitting among his Ohio
delegation, transfixed at the floor, head nearly in his hands as people congratulated him,
he turned to his Congressional colleague, William Frye, saying: “I am very sorry that this
has become necessary”.4
Though the nominating process that brought Garfield to the Presidency is relatively
minor in the larger picture of his assassination, it’s important to understand the character
of Garfield, and to better grasp the short historiography of his unlikely presidency. Given
the mental state of Guiteau we can wonder should Sherman, Blaine, or Grant have won
nomination and election, could Garfield’s fate have been there’s, perhaps even the
Democrat, Gen. Winfield Hancock, could have met with such a grizzly end had he won.5
The history and subsequent historiography is they didn’t win, Garfield did, and his entire
humble, industrious background that gave a fairly populous image, seem to strike the
1 “New York Tribune (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924 June 09, 1880, Image 1”, Library of Congress: Washington D.C.,
Accessed March 27th
, 2015, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1880-06-09/ed-1/seq-1/ocr/.
2 Candice Millard, Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine , and the Murder of a President, (New York:
Anchor Books, 2011), 47-50.
3 Kenneth D. Ackerman, Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield,
(Falls Church: Viral History Press, 2003), 99-103.
4 Candice Millard, Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine , and the Murder of a President, (New York:
Anchor Books, 2011), 52.
5 “TheElection of President James Garfield of Ohio”, United States House of Representatives, Accessed April11th
,
2015, http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-election-of-President-James-Garfield-of-Ohio/.

most polarized opposite against the erratic, violent demeanor of Guiteau. To that end his
near improbable nomination and election, make for a Greek tragedy in American history,
which without, would leave this historiography grossly lacking.
The issue of the ‘Solid South’ is important to Garfield’s presidency, as it has much to tell
us of what his continued presidency would have looked like; DeSantis writes the
amazing, seminal work on this important policy shift.6 Garfield would abandon the
practice of conciliating Southern Whites under Hayes, but neither would he allow
Stalwarts to dictate policy to him and demand a return to the ‘Radical Republican’
policies of Reconstruction.7 Garfield would pursue a policy focused on the education of
White, Southern youth and developing the region economically.8 The South would only
come out of its long post-war slump when new generations laid down the prejudices of
their fathers, embracing Republicanism, and allowed the values of free markets to
reenergize their faltering, war torn agrarian economy.9
On the day he was shot, July 2nd, 1881, President Garfield was in a place of political
triumph, having put the ambitions of Conkling aside for the time, he prepared with two of
his sons, Harry and Jim, to travel North to New England for the Summer, he was
accompanied by Secretary of State James G. Blaine through the carriage ride, and the
walk to his train.10 The final interactions of the President were well documented,
although both were very brief and one was a stunned remark to his assassin. While still
waiting in his carriage with Blaine, he asked Metropolitan Police officer Patrick Kearney,
6 Vincent P. DeSantis, “President Garfield and the Solid South”, North Carolina Historical Review 36, No. 4 (1959),
442-443.
7 Ibid., 448-449.
8 Ibid., 448-449.
9 Ibid., 449-451.
10 Candice Millard, Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine , and the Murder of a President, (New
York: Anchor Books, 2011), 141; 150-152.

“How much time have we, Officer”, to which Kearny walked up to the President’s
window and flashed he watch, saying: “About ten minuets, Sir”.1112 His other words were
after Guiteau’s first shot struck his right arm, turning to look his assassin in the eyes
Garfield exclaims: “My God! What is this”, but might have only gotten a cursory glance,
as Guiteau quickly struck again, this time shooting him in the back and fearfully running
for his own life amid a torrent of horrified screams and calls to ‘catch him’.1314
As the President lay on the lobby floor of the Baltimore-Potomac Station, a pool of blood
forming underneath him, the record again is clear as to what happened in the moments in
which it’s thought he might soon die. His son Harry fought of a swarming crowd,
begging them to give his father room, as his younger brother Jim, kneeling at his father’s
side, implored the same through his sobs.1516 Standing near the President’s grieving
children was another cabinet member, Robert Todd Lincoln, who himself could not help
but reflect on the devastation he felt sixteen years earlier when his own Presidential father
was slain.17 The presence of Garfield’s teenage sons makes the national tragedy of his
assassination a deeply personal one, but Robert Lincoln’s presence adds the cruelest of
historical ironies, for the nation still healing from wounds of 1865 and Reconstruction. In
the coming weeks the tragedy that appeared to have been averted, as Garfield began to
mend, would be made real by the hubris of his physicians. The nation, however, found
11 Ibid., 151-152.
(Falls Church: Viral History Press, 2003), 333.
13 Ibid., 334-335.
York: Anchor Books, 2011), 153.
15 Ibid., 160.
17 Ibid., 335-336.

itself bonded in a way many had not known in their lifetime; even the oldest of
international tensions would be healed by a President’s death.
The President was laid on a dirty mattress, on the second floor and inspected by D.C.
health officer Dr. Smith Townsend, an hour after his arrival the President asked to be
taken to the White House; Townsend would be the first of nine doctors to inspected the
Presidential wounds.1819 Upon arrival at the White House, General William Sherman,
Commander of the Army, formed a garrison around the mansion, an entire wing of the
White House was made into a miniature hospital, and he was taken to a bedroom on this
wing.2021 The President would be isolated to the bed he was laid on, behind a sheet that
was strung up for privacy, for the next eighty days, during this time multiple doctors
inspected the wound in his back, searching for the bullet and not finding it.22 What would
follow is something that historians and physicians for decades after would be perplexed
by, that doctors could have well saved the Presidents life, but went on to use antiquated
practices, refusing modern sterilizing methods, and ultimately committing an act of gross
negligence that killed James Garfield.
It was precisely the method of examining the wound that caused an infection to set in and
kill the President, often doctors used nothing more than their bare, unsanitized hands to
probe at it, tools were not routinely cleaned or even sanitized before use either.2324 The
18 Ibid., 160.
20 Ibid., 171-173.

layman might assume that such practices as sterilizing or the scientific understanding of
germs (germ theory) was not available in 1881, but they very much were. In 1865 British
physician Joseph Lister had demonstrated the process of antisepsis, preventing infection
by destroying germs, and in 1876 he demonstrated this process to group of the most
renown physicians in America, they were, for the most part, not impressed.25 The chief
physician, Dr. D. Willard Bliss, who was at the bedside of Abraham Lincoln, held a
certain amount of sway and despised Lister’s theories, the results of autopsy and the long
lens of history reveal he was largely misdiagnosing Garfield’s injury.2627 Believing the
bullet to be in the pelvis, doctors made incisions designed to help remove the bullet, but
created an infection that started to pus over by mid August, the bullet had lodged in the
lower abdomen and if left alone, soft tissue would have formed around it and Garfield
healed; issues of accidental starvation through over and at times unnecessary medication,
help to assure the President’s death. 28
On September 5th, 1881 Garfield was exhausted and ready to let go, Bliss attempted to
assure him a recovery was near, but Garfield interjected saying “No, no… I don’t want
any more delay”; the President, barley alive, was carried from his bed, to a carriage,
taken to the train station, and bound for a home in New Jersey.2930 On the evening of
September 19th, the First Lady and his longtime friend Gen. Swain by his side, Garfield’s
25 Ibid., 15-16.
26 Ibid., 163-166.
28George Paulson, “Death of a President and His Assassin-Errors in their Diagnosis and Autopsies”, Journal of the
History of Neurosciences 15, No.2 (2006), 82.
29. Kenneth D. Ackerman, Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield,
York: Anchor Books, 2011), 259-260.

fever overtook him, he began wheezing uncontrollably, then went silent; President
Garfield had slipped into unconsciousness.31 Bliss rushed into the room, doing everything
he could to wake the President, but to no avail, at 10:35 P.M. Bliss simply exclaimed, “It
is over”.3233 All through the early morning hours newsboys filled the streets of American
cities with cries of ‘Extra, President Garfield Dead’, with that pronouncement the nation
would begin a healing it had been denied since Appomattox and seek a vengeance on the
man who took their President.34
The historical phenomenon that occurred in the wake of Garfield’s death is one of those
shifts in the accepted historical narrative that changes the course of nations, and at times
the world.35 This spirit of good will translated to the oldest of America’s international
tensions, that with England. The growing ties of technology made the Atlantic world one
of friendlier relations, the sympathy brought by the English diplomats and population was
received with similar sympathies by their American counterparts, it was the beginning of
a thaw in diplomatic relations that would become the most important of allegiances in the
20th century.36 A profound change in American governance came from this out pouring of
grief; the work of Garfield and the Half-Breeds to institute a system of merit in choosing
civil officers would prove fruitful when Congress passed the Pendleton Act in 1883.37
31 Ibid., 260.
32 Ibid., 264-265.
35 Ibid., 288.
36 MikeSewell, “’Allthe English Speaking Race is Mourning’: TheAssassination of President Garfield and Anglo-
American Relations”, The Historical Journal 34, No. 3 (1991), 668-670.
37 “Pendleton Act (1883)”, OurDocuments.gov, Accessed March 28th
, 2015,
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=&doc=48&title=Pendleton+Act+%281883%29.

The Madness & Trial of Charles Guiteau –
On the morning of July 2nd, 1881 Charles Guiteau woke early in his hotel room at Riggs
House, historians agree that he had been in a restless state for days planning the
assassination he would call “a political necessity”.38 In these dawning hours Guiteau set
down an infamous letter he would hand to Metropolitan Police officers upon his arrest, he
introduces himself as a “lawyer, theologian, and politician”, the letter is addressed to
General Sherman, instructing him to surround the jail and have his men set him free. 3940
The detached notion that General Sherman would come to his aid after attempting to
murder the President, has always been certifiable proof of Guiteau’s mental illness. It is
his illness that struck controversy and fears he might get away with murder in his time,
and strikes historical, legal, and psychiatric interest as to what his trial tells us about that
progress in understanding and treating mental illness.
The early sources come from as far back as the early 20th century (Jackson), with other
sources coming from near mid-century (Mitchell), the most famous current work written
in 1969 (Rosenberg), with another overview of his trial coming in ’77 (Peskin); the work
of Milliard will be of importance as well. It is remarkable and a little grotesque that
Guiteau insanity and his trial have drawn almost a steadier stream of historical writings,
then Garfield’s Presidency and eighty days of suffering. Guiteau’s trial began on
November 17th, 1881, some two months removed from Garfield’s death, it would be a
fairly brief proceeding lasting less than four months, concluding on February 4th, 1882.41
39 Ibid., 148-149.
41 E. Hilton Jackson, “TheTrial of Guiteau”, The Virginia Law Register 9, No. 12 (1904), 1025.

What took place was not so much an exercise in administrating justice, as it was a formal
proceeding to assure vengeance for a grieving nation. Historians and legal scholars tend
to be an agreement that no one at the time was interested in understanding any true
motive Guiteau might have had, or how mental illness played a large role in Guiteau’s
delusions.4243 Rather at the time and for over half century after, he was “a disappointed
office seeker”, who sought petty revenge on the President for refusal to give him
recommendation to be appointed Consul of Paris.44 His ambition to this diplomatic
position was but the latest in long history of grandiose delusions, during the election of
1880 he had written a speech which he firmly believed won Garfield the White
House.4546
Prior to his political aspirations, Guiteau believed himself a great preacher and
theologian, to the point that in 1860 he joined a separatist group called ‘The Community’
that preached Christ had returned in 70 AD and passed judgment on the Jews, and now
only the Gentiles who followed Christ would inherit his kingdom at the end of the
world.4748 He would even take up the occupation of being a traveling preacher; mostly
regurgitating the theology he had learned in his religious commune.49 Of all Guiteau’s
delusions, his claim to be a lawyer was the one based in a minutia of reality, as he was
42Stewart Mitchell, “TheMan Who Murdered Garfield”, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 67,
(1941-1944), 452.
43 Charles Rosenberg, introduction to The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press:1968),
xiii-xv.
44 Stewart Mitchell, “TheMan Who Murdered Garfield”, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 67,
(1941-1944), 466.
45 Ibid., 465-466.
47 Ibid., 56-58.
48 Stewart Mitchell, “TheMan Who Murdered Garfield”, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 67,
(1941-1944), 459-462.
49 Ibid., 461-463.

indeed a barred attorney in his home state of Illinois.50 Yet his appointment to the Illinois
Bar has always been under some suspicion and curiosity, a general historical consensus
that Christopher Reed, who gave Guiteau his exam, was “a good hearted fellow” though
not all that discerning, allowed Guiteau a lawyers license from a mix a pity and good
intentions. The pity given to Guiteau would be for naught as much with his on again-off
again failure’s as a preacher, until his excommunication for adultery, he open a series of
failed law practices, where by the 1880 election he was wondering vagrant, who still
believed himself a destined for greatness and national acclaim.51
There was a wish to at least appear that Guiteau was given a fair trial, but his random,
psychotic outbursts and the allowance of the jury to have opinionated knowledge on his
guilt or innocence, just not fixed opinions, would make this difficult.52 Three defenses
would be presented, the first of malpractices by the doctors killing Garfield was abandon
when the lead prosecutor left the case, the second that D.C. lacked jurisdiction as
Garfield died in New Jersey, but was roundly rejected, finally a defense of insanity was
settled on.53 A coincidence in the months before Garfield’s assassination, a Charles J.
Guiteau, meeting the same description of being a ‘theologian’ and so forth, was deemed
to be ‘insane’ by a medical board.54 Though jurors understood Guiteau’s insanity, to an
extent, Glided Age America didn’t really grasp what it meant to be mentally ill. For these
reasons, among others, Guiteau was sentenced to death, and hung on June 30th, 1882.55
51 Ibid., 58-61.
52 Charles Rosenberg, The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press:1968), 113-130.
53 E. Hilton Jackson, “TheTrial of Guiteau”, The Virginia Law Register 9, No. 12 (1904), 1027.
54 Ibid., 1028.
55 Charles Rosenberg, The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press:1968), 235-237.

Future Research–
The key interests in Garfield’s assassination and Guiteau’s subsequent trial, have come
from the medical and legal communities. It is because of Garfield’s place as the second
President to suffer assassination, and that it came during such turbulent period of political
and socio-economic readjustment for America, that his place in history has been rather
firm, even though it was so brief. The brevity of his administration, added to the general
obscurity the surrounds the Glided Age Presidents, explains the lack of consistent, major
historical research into the larger event of his assassination and the small picture of what
a four year Garfield administration would look like. In recent years, probably due to an
over saturation of historiography on giants like: Lincoln, Grant, and Roosevelt, there is a
growing interest the Presidents who have so long been ignored. Garfield, with his humble
beginnings and genuine love of public service, has become a bellwether among research
of these forgotten Presidents.
Milliard’s “Destiny of the Republic” and Ackerman’s “Dark Horse” are among the
newest research into the life of Garfield, his assassin Guiteau, and the saga they were at
the center of. They both back use of the vast archival sources and bring new relevance to
older research. Recent medical research finds itself revaluating the ultimate cause of
Garfield’s death, The American Journal of Surgery published just such an article in 2013:
“Did James A. Garfield die of cholecystitis? Revisiting the autopsy of the 20th president
of the United States”.56 This resurgence, while not to the level of other issues of the
Gilded Age, has a promising future, and on that offers the chance to challenge current
historical norms.
56 Joharifard, Shahrzad & Pappas, TheodoreN. “Did James A. Garfield Die of Cholecystitis?Revisiting the Autopsy
of the 20th President of theUnited States”. American Journal of Surgery 206, No.4 (2013).

Bibliography
Ackerman, Kenneth D. Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of
President James A. Garfield, (Falls Church: Viral History Press, 2003).
Vincent P. DeSantis, “President Garfield and the Solid South”, North Carolina Historical
Review 36, No. 4 (1959).
Jackson, E. Hilton. “The Trial of Guiteau”, The Virginia Law Register 9, No. 12 (1904).
Joharifard, Shahrzad & Pappas, Theodore N. “Did James A. Garfield Die of
Cholecystitis? Revisiting the Autopsy of the 20th President of the United States”.
American Journal of Surgery 206, No.4 (2013).
Millard, Candice. Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine, and the Murder
of a President, (New York: Anchor Books, 2011).
Mitchell, Stewart. “The Man Who Murdered Garfield”, Proceedings of the
Massachusetts Historical Society 67, (1941-1944).
New York Tribune (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924 June 09, 1880, Image 1”, Library of
Congress: Washington D.C., Accessed March 27th, 2015,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1880-06-09/ed-1/seq-1/ocr/.
Paulson, George. “Death of a President and His Assassin-Errors in their Diagnosis and
Autopsies”, Journal of the History of Neurosciences 15, No.2 (2006).
“Pendleton Act (1883)”, OurDocuments.gov, Accessed March 28th, 2015,
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=&doc=48&tit
le=Pendleton+Act+%281883%29.
Rosenberg, Charles. The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau, (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press: 1968).

“The Election of President James Garfield of Ohio”, United States House of
Representatives, Accessed April 11th, 2015, http://history.house.gov/Historical-
Highlights/1851-1900/The-election-of-President-James-Garfield-of-Ohio/.
Sewell, Mike. “’All the English Speaking Race is Mourning’: The Assassination of
President Garfield and Anglo-American Relations”, The Historical Journal 34,
No. 3 (1991).

Requiem for a National Tragedy

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (16)

Semelhante a Requiem for a National Tragedy

Semelhante a Requiem for a National Tragedy (7)

Requiem for a National Tragedy