Sparks Commentary: A review of PBS's “Murder of a President” (James A. Garfield)

“I conceived of the idea of removing the President four weeks ago. Not a soul knew of my purpose. I conceived the idea myself. I read the newspapers carefully, for and against the administration, and gradually, the conviction settled on me that the President's removal was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men who made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the Republic ... Ingratitude is the basest of crimes. That the President, under the manipulation of his Secretary of State, has been guilty of the basest ingratitude to the Stalwarts admits of no denial. ... In the President's madness he has wrecked the once grand old Republican party; and for this he dies.... I had no ill-will to the President. This is not murder. It is a political necessity. It will make my friend Arthur President, and save the Republic.”

– Charles Guiteau, in his letter to the American people, on 16 June 1881

On July 2nd, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau went to the Baltimore and Potomac Railway Station, and lay in wait for his intended murder victim. President James A. Garfield was scheduled to leave Washington D.C., and Guiteau wanted him dead before his train ever left the city. When President Garfield walked into the waiting room of the station, Charles Guiteau walked up behind him and pulled the trigger at point-blank range from behind. President Garfield cried out: “My God, what is that?”, flinging up his arms. Guiteau fired a second shot, and the president collapsed. One bullet grazed the president's shoulder, while the other struck him in the back. Guiteau put his pistol back into his pocket and turned to leave via a cab that he had waiting for him outside the station, but he collided with policeman Patrick Kearney, who was entering the station after hearing the gunfire. Kearney apprehended Guiteau, and asked him: “In God's name, what did you shoot the president for?” Guiteau did not respond. The crowd called for Guiteau to be lynched, but Kearney took Guiteau to the police station instead. (This paragraph borrows some exact wording from Wikipedia, which I should acknowledge here as a source.)

Contemporaneous depiction of Garfield assassination, with James G. Blaine at right

President Garfield with James G. Blaine in the railway station, shortly after the shooting

It was not an instant murder, since Garfield lived on for two months after the shooting …

Mr. Guiteau had undoubtedly committed a murder, but it was not an instant murder. The president was shot on July 2nd, 1881, but that was not the day he died. Rather, he lived on for another two months in critical condition, and did not die until September 19th. When James A. Garfield died, he had only been in office for six months, which is still the shortest time in office of any president – except for his predecessor of some four decades before, William Henry Harrison. Mr. Harrison had died of natural causes while in office, but Mr. Garfield's death was quite clearly a murder and an assassination. Regardless of how long it took him to die, he would probably have continued on otherwise. But the president may have owed his death to others besides the assassin himself.

President James A. Garfield, the murder victim

Accidental harm to Garfield from his incompetent doctor, while he was on his deathbed …

No one deliberately harmed the president besides Charles Guiteau. But there was accidental harm from one of his doctors at this time. The doctor may have hastened – or even caused – the president's death through his incompetent care during this period. Later on, there was a Congressional investigation into this alleged “malpractice,” because of rumors that this doctor had been complicit in the murder. The investigation determined that he had not deliberately harmed the president (which was correct), but that his treatment was grossly incompetent by the standards of the time (which was also correct, unfortunately). The primary doctor was grossly ignorant of the latest science, and thus ignored some crucial evidence about the real effects of his chosen methods. Unscientific medicine is a dangerous thing, but it was not the only error that Garfield's doctor had made. He had also refused the help of other doctors, which was a violation of the medical ethics of the time. His extensive experience with treating gunshot wounds during the Civil War did not help him here, and the only thing ensuring his retention as the head doctor was his longtime friendship with President Garfield himself. Garfield's family had tried to have the doctor removed, but their wishes were not honored, because the president had wanted to keep him on. When it became clear that Garfield was actually going to die, Garfield requested that he be taken by train to the Jersey Shore, so that he could die within sight of the sea. When his doctor refused to give permission for this, Garfield made clear that he was “not asking [the doctor's] permission.” Thus, he did indeed die within sight of the sea. This was the only time that the president would object to his friend's advice, during the period of time on his deathbed.

Changing Garfield's bedclothes

Doctors discuss Garfield's wounds

This documentary is also a biography of Garfield, which includes his history with the man who killed him

This documentary covers all of these things, which is what you would expect from something entitled “Murder of a President.” But it seems to be as much a biography as anything else, spending a fair amount of time on things not directly related to the murder. For example, they begin the film with a dramatic depiction of the actual shooting, but then backtrack to his birth in a log cabin. They cover his marriage, his war record, and his career in Congress. Afterwards, they cover his rise to the presidency, and his presidency itself – all of which are quite fascinating. But they also cover his unpleasant history with the man who would later kill him, which is directly related to the murder itself. Charles Guiteau had actually campaigned for Garfield in the presidential elections of 1880, and had considered himself more important in Garfield's election than he really was. Mr. Guiteau had believed that candidate Garfield was promising him a job, which was probably incorrect (and a misinterpretation). Mr. Guiteau wanted to be consul to France, but Garfield actually denied him this job once he became president. Thus, Guiteau vowed revenge against President Garfield, and wanted to kill him. Curiously, he said that “God told him to do it,” which has long been interpreted as evidence for Guiteau being insane. I recognize that insanity pleas can be faked, and consider the standards of evidence to be too low for this defense today. But the case for Guiteau's insanity is a sound one, and well-established by the supporting evidence - although he did not make an actual insanity plea at his trial. He had thought that he would be a “hero” with the people after shooting the president, as it turned out, and he happily gave interviews to reporters while he was in prison. He posed for newspaper photographs and described his bizarre motives in great detail, thinking that he would become a newspaper celebrity. He undoubtedly was, but not of the kind that he thought he would be. The public was indeed fascinated by his talking points, but did not sympathize with his arguments; and thus did not object when he was hanged nearly a year after the shooting on June 30th, 1882 (perhaps because he had never made an actual insanity plea).

Charles J. Guiteau, the man who shot Garfield

America was without a president during most of Garfield's deathbed period

When Guiteau was first apprehended, he said at the time that “Arthur is president now.” This, combined with a letter where he referred to “mak[ing his] friend Arthur president,” led to rumors that Vice President Chester A. Arthur had been somehow involved in the murder. At first, the public believed these rumors; but they changed their minds later when better evidence came along. The vice president had been cleared of all involvement in the murder (fortunately), but he was still an unpopular figure in American politics for other reasons. For example, he was then believed to be a puppet of Senator Roscoe Conkling; and up until that time, he really had been. But when Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as president, he decided to sever his ties to Senator Roscoe Conkling at this time. This probably ensured his defeat in the following presidential elections, destroying any chances that he might have had for a second term. For nearly two months, the current president had been lying on his deathbed, and the nation had been effectively without an “Acting President” during this time. Thus, although I think that Garfield was a good president, it was probably for the best that Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield when he did. This was long before the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, so there was no way for someone to take over as “Acting President” at this time – not even the vice president. Having this as an option would probably have been helpful at this time, but such options were not available in the nineteenth century. Thus, the laws went virtually unenforced until Chester A. Arthur took office. Although Garfield seems to have been a good president before his assassination, it's not easy to run a country from a deathbed, no matter how capable the person would normally be. This is probably why the people were okay with having a president again, even if they did not really like the particular man who was then taking office.

Chester A. Arthur, Garfield's vice president (who succeeded him as president upon Garfield's death)

Senator Roscoe Conkling

Conclusion: This is a worthy addition to the PBS “Presidents” series, which is quite fascinating

All of these things are covered in remarkable detail by this documentary, and they combine together to make this a fascinating film. This is a worthy addition to the PBS “Presidents” series, and spends its time on a little-known president that we don't often hear about.