April 29, 2009
Hello again,
Welcome to my final installment of my “Blast to the Past,” blog. I just want to take this time and thank all of my loyal readers, it has been incredible relaying to you all of the events that I have witnessed over the past few months in the 1880s. I know I’ll be leaving this time soon and returning home, and in order to prepare for my arrival, I want to share with you the crucial and lasting aspects of the assassination of President Garfield. But first, I’m sure you are all asking yourselves this question: why should be care? Why would you care about an event that happened over a hundred and twenty years ago? There are many different reasons that one should care, but three standout from the rest: Garfield was the President when he was killed; the succession issue that was raging back then is still being debated about to this day; the civil service requirements and differences that Garfield wanted to implement; and the sterile practices that we witness and experience today were brought to America because of Garfield’s “death at the hands of his doctors,” that I told you about in my previous blog.
First and foremost, the reason why people during my time should care about the assassination is because he was the President of the United States at the time. A president has only died in office eight times; it happened three times before Garfield’s assassination and four times since. Its impact alone should be felt, as the consequences of such an event leaves the country in turmoil and makes one wonder what could have been. After all, Garfield was for the advancement of race relations, and with him in office for a longer period of time, perhaps Plessy v. Ferguson would not have happened as it did and the country would not have been divided and segregated for half of a century as a result. This is all speculative, of course, as one cannot be sure what would have actually happened, but Garfield’s death should be felt in the present world either way.
Another impact that the assassination had was on the issue about succession of the President. Questions were being raised about when exactly a president is deemed unable to execute his power. Those questions are still present in today’s society, and many movies or other pop culture forms have touched upon this, such as the movie “Air Force One,” which shows the President being unable to perform due to being held hostage and having a compromised opinion. In 1886, five years after Garfield’s death, an act was passed that made cabinet members in line for succession instead of congressional leaders if something were to be happen to the president. When the current succession line was passed in 1947, it added the congressional leaders back into the order behind the Vice President, which basically amalgamated the original succession order with the one created by the 1886 act. Generally, the problem of succession has been waging since the Constitution was first written, with many questions revolving around one issue or another, but none as much so as when it is time to let the Vice-President or another successor take the President’s place when they are lying on their deathbed and unable to perform their duties like Garfield was. That argument is still debated to this day, and that is important to the present day world with the increasing threat of terror attacks and chances for the President to be injured or worse.
Garfield, like I previously mentioned, wanted the government to move away from the Spoils system, believing that it would make the country more efficient if they did. Ironically, this was one of the main reasons that Guiteau shot him, due to the fact that Guiteau had believed he was qualified enough and had the necessary clout to receive a position just because he was apart of Garfield’s party. This desire of efficiency and fairness that Garfield held quite literally led to the advent of the civil service system used today; civil service meaning all of the appointees that work for the government. By the Pendleton Act that was passed in memory of Garfield, the spoil system was phased out and the merit system took its place, which appointed people based on their merits rather than their political or personal loyalties. This change is felt upon everybody in the country in the twenty-first century, with the most qualified people getting the jobs that best suit them, instead of having a random person get a governmental job just because he knows somebody or has a connection with a high level official. Though, admittedly, sometimes cronyism does still exist within the government today, it is no near as rampant as it was back in the nineteenth century.
The Garfield assassination also enormously impacted the present day world because it revolutionized the healthcare practices of the time. Like Ira Rutkow says, “the controversy surrounding Garfield’s death became a dividing line between the new and the old in American medicine.”1 Which basically means that doctors in the country were starting to embrace Dr. Joseph Lister’s antiseptic and sterility policies that were the foundations of present day medicine. Rutkow further writes, “fueled by the Garfield tragedy, an increasing number of positive articles concerning antisepsis brought about the acceptance of Listerism by the late 1880s.”2 Listerism is, of course, the practices that are executed by following the “sterile technique, developed by the British surgeon Joseph Lister in the mid-1860’s…which was accepted in France, Germany and other parts of Europe.”3 Without Joseph Lister’s work, and the prominence and notoriety that Garfield’s case brought, perhaps America would be in a different medical place that we are in today, which maybe would have stunted America’s rise to be the country that we are and have been since the end of World War II.
Its interesting reading about history and then actually living in the time that historians are writing about. For the most part, historians have constructed the Garfield story exactly like it happened, with a few exceptions here and there, of course. What they don’t pick up, however, are the various components of the relationships of the historical people that they are writing about, something that I have been lucky enough to witness for myself. I’ve seen the various intricacies of the story and the ties that bind the characters therein together, and on that aspect there are many other components that historians could discuss and talk about. Its unfortunate that this story isn’t as prominent and spoken about as much as it should be as I feel the country lost a potentially great President in Garfield, one that desereves regonition. Overall, however, this was an amazing experience, one that I wouldn’t trade in for the world. As an article in the Ohio Farmer that I have read ends with this, I think it best that I, too, end this adventure with the same words: by losing Garfield, “Americans have lost an able and fearless defender.”4
Well, now its back to the future, I hope you enjoyed my blog as much as I enjoyed writing it for you, so long!
Citations:
1 Rutkow, Ira M. James A. Garfield. 2006, Henry Holt and Company, p 132.
2 Rutkow, Ira M. James A. Garfield. 2006, Henry Holt and Company, p 132.
3 Schaffer, Amanda. "A President Felled by an Assassin and 1880’s Medical Care."
New York Times [New York] 25 July 2006.
4 "Death of the President." The Ohio Farmer 24 Sept. 1881: 204.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Blast to the Past: The Hand That Killed the President
September 25th, 1881
Hello to all my loyal readers!
After a short hiatus, and much research into my new subject matter, I am back with a brand new edition of my on-going blog Blast to the Past. Its quite absurd, really, to be back in the past writing this, while the research that I have been reading over the Internet was written over a hundred years later—its quite paradoxical after seeing it written out like that. Today I analyze and critique how historians have interpreted the assassination of Garfield, the impact the death had on the country, and even the specific cause of the President’s death. It seems that historians generally have focused on the care that Garfield received the most, but that is my no means a definitive comment as I have not read every theory, scanned every database, or perused every book on the subject. As such, I strive to give you an outline of their views on the subject to the best of my ability.
Historians over the years have analyzed the health of Garfield and the care that he received, with the hopes of finding out how exactly and why the President truly died. Many at the time said, and it’s a general agreement amongst historians today, that it was not the bullet that actually killed Garfield, but the doctors who operated on him and tried to heal him that was at fault for the President’s death. Specifically, it was when the doctors would search for the bullet in the wound with their dirty and completely unsterilized hands, giving the President bacterial infections around the wound. Ironically, Guiteau himself used the medical malpractice as a defense in his trial, to which Ira Rutkow, author of James A. Garfield, a biography of the President said, “Guiteau was a lunatic with few sane thoughts, but his courtroom utterances about medical malpractices were accurate.”1 As Allan Peskin writes, author of Garfield: A Biography, “It was this possibility which led Guiteau to deny that he killed Garfield.”2 But Peskin later disagrees that it was entirely the doctors’ fault, saying, “It was hardly necessary to place blame on the doctors when more obvious sources of infection were already festering in Garfield’s body. The putrefying fragments of shattered vertebrae were by themselves sufficient to cause blood poisoning without any further assistance from the germs of Doctor Bliss’s finger.”3
The New York Times in their article “A President Felled by an Assassin and 1880’s Medical Care”, by Amanda Schaffer, further perpetuates the idea of the President dying in part because of his doctors, saying “Sterile technique, developed by the British surgeon Joseph Lister in the mid-1860’s, was not yet widely appreciated in the United States, although it was accepted in France, Germany and other parts of Europe. Historians agree that massive infection, which resulted from unsterile practices, contributed to Garfield’s death.”4 He eventually died of a heart attack after being weakened by blood poisoning and bronchial pneumonia. Many historical opinions that I have come about have either stated directly or implied that Garfield would have survived if the doctors had not caused infections to his system by their actions.
Just as I had realized during the time of the President’s suffering, historians have also noticed that the country kept their eyes on the situation with great interest. Amanda Schaffer says it best when in her article when she says, “…the president’s fluctuating medical condition became a national obsession in the summer of 1881,”5 which corresponds with my thoughts perfectly. People really were obsessed with condition of the President, with many people discussing the rumors or information that they had heard from the newspapers. It was unprecedented event, a mix between an assassination and a President sick on his death bed: which only fueled the speculation about the twenty year Curse of Tippercanoe, which had started with Harrison in 1841, then struck Lincoln fifteen years prior to Garfield’s inauguration.
Like I mentioned in my previous blog, Guiteau’s attempt to and eventual success of killing the President brought the American Government to a crossroads: who exactly was the leader of the country while Garfield was being cared for? About the subject, Allan Peskin writes, “The Government could not drift leaderless indefinitely, yet there was neither a precedent or law available to resolve the situation.”6 Before then, the only problem that was similar to the one the country was facing was constitutional crisis that resulted after the death of William Henry Harrison died in office on his 32nd day. Chester Arthur was never named acting President during Garfield’s time of disability, but luckily enough, the Government shut down during the summer months in the 19th century, so a President was not needed during this time. Finally, after two months of waiting, Arthur was sworn into office on September 20th, becoming the President of the United States. The issue of a President being unable to perform the office’s duties or was otherwise incapacitated was not addressed until the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
Furthermore, historians have also analyzed the lasting impact that the assassination had on the country. Peskin states that he believes that the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which was an act that Garfield had called for in his inaugural address, was passed as a memorial to the President, a last celebration of his life.7 The act brought about the merit system to the government, which differed from the previously used informal practice of the spoils system. Without Garfield’s death, the act perhaps wouldn’t have passed, allowing the political party in power to hire their own people as a reward for helping them gain election, regardless of the merits the person had or did not have. Hiring and promoting people on the basis of their work ethic and their ability to perform like the merit system provides was an institution that Garfield believed would make the Government run more efficiently. While it was Garfield’s ideal, the passing of the act happened under Arthur’s watch, which earned him a favorable analysis by historians and the nickname of “The Father of Civil Service.”
Another area of analysis is the very nature of Garfield’s and his successor, Chester Arthur’s, Presidency. According to Justus D. Doenecke, author of The Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur, he believes that both Presidents were the fulcrum of the transition to a more powerful Presidency after the string of weak Presidents starting with Johnson and ended with the emergence of the strong and resolute Theodore Roosevelt.8 Doenecke’s view is quite ironic, as many historians and publications say that, “Garfield was not a natural born leader and did not dominate men or events.”9 Unfortunately, we will never know just how strong of a President Garfield would have been, or if his “kindheartedness…and intelligence,”10 would have transferred over to great political change and progress.
The historical analysis and interpretation of the Garfield assassination has been intriguing to both read about, and be able to critique by living through the time. To know that the doctors themselves played a part of the President’s death is a truly terrifying thought, being that you put your life in their usually capable hands. I hope that the country never has to live through a time like the one I’m living in, always wondering if the person you look up to as a leader is going to be alive the next day or not. Like historians around the country, I believe that Garfield was an incredibly savvy politician, and its unfortunate that the nation never got a chance to experience his Presidency, because he could have been great if his merit system desires showed us anything.
Citations:
1) Rutkow, Ira M. James A. Garfield. 2006, Henry Holt and Company, p 131.
2) Peskin, Allan. Garfield. 1978, Kent State University Press, p 603.
3) Peskin, Allan. Garfield. 1978, Kent State University Press, p 603.
4) Schaffer, Amanda. "A President Felled by an Assassin and 1880’s Medical Care."
New York Times [New York] 25 July 2006.
5) Schaffer, Amanda. "A President Felled by an Assassin and 1880’s Medical Care."
New York Times [New York] 25 July 2006.
6) Peskin, Allan. Garfield. 1978, Kent State University Press, p 603.
7) Peskin, Allan. Garfield. 1978, Kent State University Press, p 610.
8) Doenecke, Justus. The Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. 2007,
University Press of Kansas.
9) Rutkow, Ira M. James A. Garfield. 2006, Henry Holt and Company, p 137.
10) Rutkow, Ira M. James A. Garfield. 2006, Henry Holt and Company, p 137.
Hello to all my loyal readers!
After a short hiatus, and much research into my new subject matter, I am back with a brand new edition of my on-going blog Blast to the Past. Its quite absurd, really, to be back in the past writing this, while the research that I have been reading over the Internet was written over a hundred years later—its quite paradoxical after seeing it written out like that. Today I analyze and critique how historians have interpreted the assassination of Garfield, the impact the death had on the country, and even the specific cause of the President’s death. It seems that historians generally have focused on the care that Garfield received the most, but that is my no means a definitive comment as I have not read every theory, scanned every database, or perused every book on the subject. As such, I strive to give you an outline of their views on the subject to the best of my ability.
Historians over the years have analyzed the health of Garfield and the care that he received, with the hopes of finding out how exactly and why the President truly died. Many at the time said, and it’s a general agreement amongst historians today, that it was not the bullet that actually killed Garfield, but the doctors who operated on him and tried to heal him that was at fault for the President’s death. Specifically, it was when the doctors would search for the bullet in the wound with their dirty and completely unsterilized hands, giving the President bacterial infections around the wound. Ironically, Guiteau himself used the medical malpractice as a defense in his trial, to which Ira Rutkow, author of James A. Garfield, a biography of the President said, “Guiteau was a lunatic with few sane thoughts, but his courtroom utterances about medical malpractices were accurate.”1 As Allan Peskin writes, author of Garfield: A Biography, “It was this possibility which led Guiteau to deny that he killed Garfield.”2 But Peskin later disagrees that it was entirely the doctors’ fault, saying, “It was hardly necessary to place blame on the doctors when more obvious sources of infection were already festering in Garfield’s body. The putrefying fragments of shattered vertebrae were by themselves sufficient to cause blood poisoning without any further assistance from the germs of Doctor Bliss’s finger.”3
The New York Times in their article “A President Felled by an Assassin and 1880’s Medical Care”, by Amanda Schaffer, further perpetuates the idea of the President dying in part because of his doctors, saying “Sterile technique, developed by the British surgeon Joseph Lister in the mid-1860’s, was not yet widely appreciated in the United States, although it was accepted in France, Germany and other parts of Europe. Historians agree that massive infection, which resulted from unsterile practices, contributed to Garfield’s death.”4 He eventually died of a heart attack after being weakened by blood poisoning and bronchial pneumonia. Many historical opinions that I have come about have either stated directly or implied that Garfield would have survived if the doctors had not caused infections to his system by their actions.
Just as I had realized during the time of the President’s suffering, historians have also noticed that the country kept their eyes on the situation with great interest. Amanda Schaffer says it best when in her article when she says, “…the president’s fluctuating medical condition became a national obsession in the summer of 1881,”5 which corresponds with my thoughts perfectly. People really were obsessed with condition of the President, with many people discussing the rumors or information that they had heard from the newspapers. It was unprecedented event, a mix between an assassination and a President sick on his death bed: which only fueled the speculation about the twenty year Curse of Tippercanoe, which had started with Harrison in 1841, then struck Lincoln fifteen years prior to Garfield’s inauguration.
Like I mentioned in my previous blog, Guiteau’s attempt to and eventual success of killing the President brought the American Government to a crossroads: who exactly was the leader of the country while Garfield was being cared for? About the subject, Allan Peskin writes, “The Government could not drift leaderless indefinitely, yet there was neither a precedent or law available to resolve the situation.”6 Before then, the only problem that was similar to the one the country was facing was constitutional crisis that resulted after the death of William Henry Harrison died in office on his 32nd day. Chester Arthur was never named acting President during Garfield’s time of disability, but luckily enough, the Government shut down during the summer months in the 19th century, so a President was not needed during this time. Finally, after two months of waiting, Arthur was sworn into office on September 20th, becoming the President of the United States. The issue of a President being unable to perform the office’s duties or was otherwise incapacitated was not addressed until the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
Furthermore, historians have also analyzed the lasting impact that the assassination had on the country. Peskin states that he believes that the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which was an act that Garfield had called for in his inaugural address, was passed as a memorial to the President, a last celebration of his life.7 The act brought about the merit system to the government, which differed from the previously used informal practice of the spoils system. Without Garfield’s death, the act perhaps wouldn’t have passed, allowing the political party in power to hire their own people as a reward for helping them gain election, regardless of the merits the person had or did not have. Hiring and promoting people on the basis of their work ethic and their ability to perform like the merit system provides was an institution that Garfield believed would make the Government run more efficiently. While it was Garfield’s ideal, the passing of the act happened under Arthur’s watch, which earned him a favorable analysis by historians and the nickname of “The Father of Civil Service.”
Another area of analysis is the very nature of Garfield’s and his successor, Chester Arthur’s, Presidency. According to Justus D. Doenecke, author of The Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur, he believes that both Presidents were the fulcrum of the transition to a more powerful Presidency after the string of weak Presidents starting with Johnson and ended with the emergence of the strong and resolute Theodore Roosevelt.8 Doenecke’s view is quite ironic, as many historians and publications say that, “Garfield was not a natural born leader and did not dominate men or events.”9 Unfortunately, we will never know just how strong of a President Garfield would have been, or if his “kindheartedness…and intelligence,”10 would have transferred over to great political change and progress.
The historical analysis and interpretation of the Garfield assassination has been intriguing to both read about, and be able to critique by living through the time. To know that the doctors themselves played a part of the President’s death is a truly terrifying thought, being that you put your life in their usually capable hands. I hope that the country never has to live through a time like the one I’m living in, always wondering if the person you look up to as a leader is going to be alive the next day or not. Like historians around the country, I believe that Garfield was an incredibly savvy politician, and its unfortunate that the nation never got a chance to experience his Presidency, because he could have been great if his merit system desires showed us anything.
Citations:
1) Rutkow, Ira M. James A. Garfield. 2006, Henry Holt and Company, p 131.
2) Peskin, Allan. Garfield. 1978, Kent State University Press, p 603.
3) Peskin, Allan. Garfield. 1978, Kent State University Press, p 603.
4) Schaffer, Amanda. "A President Felled by an Assassin and 1880’s Medical Care."
New York Times [New York] 25 July 2006.
5) Schaffer, Amanda. "A President Felled by an Assassin and 1880’s Medical Care."
New York Times [New York] 25 July 2006.
6) Peskin, Allan. Garfield. 1978, Kent State University Press, p 603.
7) Peskin, Allan. Garfield. 1978, Kent State University Press, p 610.
8) Doenecke, Justus. The Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. 2007,
University Press of Kansas.
9) Rutkow, Ira M. James A. Garfield. 2006, Henry Holt and Company, p 137.
10) Rutkow, Ira M. James A. Garfield. 2006, Henry Holt and Company, p 137.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Blast to the Past: The Rise and Fall of James Garfield
History 415 Assignment
October, 1880
Hello to all of my loyal readers, I have something marvelous to tell you. I woke up yesterday morning and found out that, incredibly, I have been transported over a hundred years back to the 1880’s, specifically 1880. How this is possible, I still have yet to find out, but just as amazingly, my laptop and its Internet connection also made the jump with me, allowing me to continually blog about my adventure in the past. I will tell you all just what happens on a daily basis, what is going on in the world, and what or who is creating headlines in America. As a history buff myself, this will allow me to live in and witness the history that is being made all around me, giving me a much greater understanding of the stories that I would never know about if not for my journey to the past.
So far I have noticed that one man has created the most stories over the past few weeks. His name is James Garfield, a republican politician and Civil War veteran from Ohio. He was nominated, last June, for the Republican nomination for the President of the United States. Apparently, he was a dark horse candidate, someone who was only nominated because he was a compromise between James G. Blaine and Ulysses S. Grant, who were deadlocked in the fight for the nomination. Even so, he was not an unknown man and he was apparently an ethically dedicated Republican, as Charles E Fitch writes in The International Review, “…where Republicans put forward no unknown man. Neither did they make any compromise with principle in the character of their candidate…. They selected one of their most conspicuous champions, who for twenty years has been in the blaze of publicity, and has made full and forcible utterance of their ideas.”1
The life story of Garfield that Fitch relays in his article seems intriguing, too. He was born in the township of Orange, Ohio, on November 19th, 1831. His family hails from New England, having come from Wales sometime in the 1700s. In 1854, he entered Williams College, where he graduated as the “third of Commencement honors.”2 After fighting and leading troops in the Civil war as a Major General, he served in the House of Representatives, and became the Senator-elect of Ohio for Senator Allen Granberry Thurman’s seat. His nomination was out of the blue, so to speak, because from what I can gather, he originally attended the Republican National Convention for the sole purpose of supporting John Sherman, the Secretary of the Treasury, for President. In opposition to his Presidency is William Scott Hancock, the Democratic nomination.
I’m excited to watch how the events unfold, even though I already know the outcome. The back-story, what happened outside of the textbooks that will be written in the future, is great prospect and I look forward to seeing if their was anything different that what I already know. James Garfield seems like a good man, someone who shouldn’t be overlooked in the history books like he usually is. Unfortunately for him, however, he is only remembered for his death and not his life.
March 10th, 1881
It has been nearly a week since James Garfield was inaugurated and took office on March 4th. According to The Independent, a newspaper that is devoted to politics, “over 50,000 persons were gathered to witness the installation ceremonies on the east front and to listen to the inaugural address.”3 From what I understand, it was a marvelous celebration; one that The Independent doubts that any other “has met with so general and complete an observance as that just celebrated.” It reminds me of the Barack Obama inauguration that happened over a month before I was transferred back in time. Incidentally, the Independent says that the Inauguration Ball was of a “promiscuous nature…a considerable number of colored persons were present.”4 Given what I know about the South during the Gilded Age, it is surprising that any colored people were there at all, let alone a considerable number. But then again, Garfield wants “Negroes of this country to be protected in all their civil and political rights,” and he also pledges “the authority of his office to secure these ends,”5 so perhaps the colored attendance was planned to go along with his ideals. It is also surprising that so many people attended as it was such a close count, with Garfield only winning by .01 percent and that “uncertainty regarding the proper count of the electoral vote at that period prevailed almost until the very day appointed for the inauguration.”6 Overall, I believe it was a very successful day, and brought joy and hope into the hearts of Americans.
July 7th, 1881
The tragedy of James Garfield has finally hit the nation. On July 2nd, “while standing in the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Depot and Washington, the President of the United Sates was shot twice,”7 with the culprit being “Charles J. Guiteau, an Illinois lawyer.”8 Fortunately, “the President has remained conscious throughout and shows great nerve and courage.”9 While the bullet has not been removed, at the time that I wrote this entry to my blog, “the condition of President Garfield is more favorable than it has been at any period since the shooting, and, though by no means out of danger, his attending physicians express considerable encouragement and hope for a satisfactory result.”10 I will update with news about the President soon.
July 21st, 1881
It is an interesting world I’m living in. James Garfield has not recovered yet, and “there is no probability that…he is a well man,”11 after he recovers, if he ever does. His situation is causing a constitutional debate, as well, over when the Vice-President may “assume the powers and duties of the office, the Constitution gives no light.”12 It is interesting to watch as they try and figure out the proper time to hand the powers over to Chester A. Arthur, knowing from my future knowledge that it is inevitable that he will take office.
Guiteau, meanwhile, is causing a stir as many feel the most extreme punishment he can get, eight years in prison, “is wholly inadequate to the enormity of the crime.”13 Many lawyers and other folk are participating in trying to get Guiteau to be punished more severely.
September 24th, 1881
The Ohio Farmer says it best: “The long suspense is over. James A. Garfield, the scholar and statesman, the patriot soldier, the loving husband and father, the noble man and humble Christian, and the genuine type of our highest civilization, is dead.”14 He died on September 19th, finally succumbing by way of a heart attack after suffering from gunshot wounds that were inflicted two months prior. He will surely be missed, as he “was a man of the people a representative American, a splendid illustration of what can be accomplished in this land.”15 As the article ends with this, I think it best that I, too, end this blog entry with the same words: “Americans have lost an able and fearless defender.”16
Citations:
1 Fitch, Charles E. "James A. Garfield." The International Review (1880): 447-58
2 Fitch, Charles E. "James A. Garfield." The International Review (1880): 447-58
3 "The Inauguration of President Garfield." The Independent [New York] 10 Mar. 1881:
15.
4 "The Inauguration of President Garfield." The Independent [New York] 10 Mar. 1881:
15.
5 "The Inauguration of President Garfield." The Independent [New York] 10 Mar. 1881:
15.
6 "The New Administration." The Independent [New York] 10 Mar. 1881:
16.
7 "President Garfield Shot By An Assassin." The Independent [New York] 7 July 1881:
15.
8 "President Garfield Shot By An Assassin." The Independent [New York] 7 July 1881:
15.
9 "President Garfield Shot By An Assassin." The Independent [New York] 7 July 1881:
15.
10 "President Garfield Shot By An Assassin." The Independent [New York] 7 July 1881:
15.
11 "The President's Inability." The Independent [New York] 21 July 1881: 16.
12 "The President's Inability." The Independent [New York] 21 July 1881: 16.
13 "The President's Inability." The Independent [New York] 21 July 1881: 16.
14 "Death of the President." The Ohio Farmer 24 Sept. 1881: 204.
15 "Death of the President." The Ohio Farmer 24 Sept. 1881: 204.
16 "Death of the President." The Ohio Farmer 24 Sept. 1881: 204.
October, 1880
Hello to all of my loyal readers, I have something marvelous to tell you. I woke up yesterday morning and found out that, incredibly, I have been transported over a hundred years back to the 1880’s, specifically 1880. How this is possible, I still have yet to find out, but just as amazingly, my laptop and its Internet connection also made the jump with me, allowing me to continually blog about my adventure in the past. I will tell you all just what happens on a daily basis, what is going on in the world, and what or who is creating headlines in America. As a history buff myself, this will allow me to live in and witness the history that is being made all around me, giving me a much greater understanding of the stories that I would never know about if not for my journey to the past.
So far I have noticed that one man has created the most stories over the past few weeks. His name is James Garfield, a republican politician and Civil War veteran from Ohio. He was nominated, last June, for the Republican nomination for the President of the United States. Apparently, he was a dark horse candidate, someone who was only nominated because he was a compromise between James G. Blaine and Ulysses S. Grant, who were deadlocked in the fight for the nomination. Even so, he was not an unknown man and he was apparently an ethically dedicated Republican, as Charles E Fitch writes in The International Review, “…where Republicans put forward no unknown man. Neither did they make any compromise with principle in the character of their candidate…. They selected one of their most conspicuous champions, who for twenty years has been in the blaze of publicity, and has made full and forcible utterance of their ideas.”1
The life story of Garfield that Fitch relays in his article seems intriguing, too. He was born in the township of Orange, Ohio, on November 19th, 1831. His family hails from New England, having come from Wales sometime in the 1700s. In 1854, he entered Williams College, where he graduated as the “third of Commencement honors.”2 After fighting and leading troops in the Civil war as a Major General, he served in the House of Representatives, and became the Senator-elect of Ohio for Senator Allen Granberry Thurman’s seat. His nomination was out of the blue, so to speak, because from what I can gather, he originally attended the Republican National Convention for the sole purpose of supporting John Sherman, the Secretary of the Treasury, for President. In opposition to his Presidency is William Scott Hancock, the Democratic nomination.
I’m excited to watch how the events unfold, even though I already know the outcome. The back-story, what happened outside of the textbooks that will be written in the future, is great prospect and I look forward to seeing if their was anything different that what I already know. James Garfield seems like a good man, someone who shouldn’t be overlooked in the history books like he usually is. Unfortunately for him, however, he is only remembered for his death and not his life.
March 10th, 1881
It has been nearly a week since James Garfield was inaugurated and took office on March 4th. According to The Independent, a newspaper that is devoted to politics, “over 50,000 persons were gathered to witness the installation ceremonies on the east front and to listen to the inaugural address.”3 From what I understand, it was a marvelous celebration; one that The Independent doubts that any other “has met with so general and complete an observance as that just celebrated.” It reminds me of the Barack Obama inauguration that happened over a month before I was transferred back in time. Incidentally, the Independent says that the Inauguration Ball was of a “promiscuous nature…a considerable number of colored persons were present.”4 Given what I know about the South during the Gilded Age, it is surprising that any colored people were there at all, let alone a considerable number. But then again, Garfield wants “Negroes of this country to be protected in all their civil and political rights,” and he also pledges “the authority of his office to secure these ends,”5 so perhaps the colored attendance was planned to go along with his ideals. It is also surprising that so many people attended as it was such a close count, with Garfield only winning by .01 percent and that “uncertainty regarding the proper count of the electoral vote at that period prevailed almost until the very day appointed for the inauguration.”6 Overall, I believe it was a very successful day, and brought joy and hope into the hearts of Americans.
July 7th, 1881
The tragedy of James Garfield has finally hit the nation. On July 2nd, “while standing in the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Depot and Washington, the President of the United Sates was shot twice,”7 with the culprit being “Charles J. Guiteau, an Illinois lawyer.”8 Fortunately, “the President has remained conscious throughout and shows great nerve and courage.”9 While the bullet has not been removed, at the time that I wrote this entry to my blog, “the condition of President Garfield is more favorable than it has been at any period since the shooting, and, though by no means out of danger, his attending physicians express considerable encouragement and hope for a satisfactory result.”10 I will update with news about the President soon.
July 21st, 1881
It is an interesting world I’m living in. James Garfield has not recovered yet, and “there is no probability that…he is a well man,”11 after he recovers, if he ever does. His situation is causing a constitutional debate, as well, over when the Vice-President may “assume the powers and duties of the office, the Constitution gives no light.”12 It is interesting to watch as they try and figure out the proper time to hand the powers over to Chester A. Arthur, knowing from my future knowledge that it is inevitable that he will take office.
Guiteau, meanwhile, is causing a stir as many feel the most extreme punishment he can get, eight years in prison, “is wholly inadequate to the enormity of the crime.”13 Many lawyers and other folk are participating in trying to get Guiteau to be punished more severely.
September 24th, 1881
The Ohio Farmer says it best: “The long suspense is over. James A. Garfield, the scholar and statesman, the patriot soldier, the loving husband and father, the noble man and humble Christian, and the genuine type of our highest civilization, is dead.”14 He died on September 19th, finally succumbing by way of a heart attack after suffering from gunshot wounds that were inflicted two months prior. He will surely be missed, as he “was a man of the people a representative American, a splendid illustration of what can be accomplished in this land.”15 As the article ends with this, I think it best that I, too, end this blog entry with the same words: “Americans have lost an able and fearless defender.”16
Citations:
1 Fitch, Charles E. "James A. Garfield." The International Review (1880): 447-58
2 Fitch, Charles E. "James A. Garfield." The International Review (1880): 447-58
3 "The Inauguration of President Garfield." The Independent [New York] 10 Mar. 1881:
15.
4 "The Inauguration of President Garfield." The Independent [New York] 10 Mar. 1881:
15.
5 "The Inauguration of President Garfield." The Independent [New York] 10 Mar. 1881:
15.
6 "The New Administration." The Independent [New York] 10 Mar. 1881:
16.
7 "President Garfield Shot By An Assassin." The Independent [New York] 7 July 1881:
15.
8 "President Garfield Shot By An Assassin." The Independent [New York] 7 July 1881:
15.
9 "President Garfield Shot By An Assassin." The Independent [New York] 7 July 1881:
15.
10 "President Garfield Shot By An Assassin." The Independent [New York] 7 July 1881:
15.
11 "The President's Inability." The Independent [New York] 21 July 1881: 16.
12 "The President's Inability." The Independent [New York] 21 July 1881: 16.
13 "The President's Inability." The Independent [New York] 21 July 1881: 16.
14 "Death of the President." The Ohio Farmer 24 Sept. 1881: 204.
15 "Death of the President." The Ohio Farmer 24 Sept. 1881: 204.
16 "Death of the President." The Ohio Farmer 24 Sept. 1881: 204.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)