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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)