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.