Introduction: A Nation in Shock
On the morning of July 2, 1881, the United States faced a tragedy that would forever change the course of its history. President James A. Garfield, only four months into his presidency, was shot twice at point-blank range in Washington, D.C. The assassination, carried out by a disgruntled office-seeker, ignited a national crisis. This event not only altered the trajectory of American politics but also had a profound impact on the reform movement of the late 19th century. Garfield’s death underscored the political corruption of the time and galvanized reformers across the nation.
This story explores Garfield’s rise to the presidency, the political climate of the 1880s, the shocking assassination itself, and the long-term ramifications that still resonate in the American political landscape today.
The Rise of James A. Garfield: From Humble Beginnings to President
James A. Garfield’s ascent from poverty to the presidency is a remarkable tale of ambition, resilience, and intellectual prowess. Born on November 19, 1831, in a log cabin in Moreland Hills, Ohio, Garfield’s early years were marked by hardship. His father died when he was only two years old, leaving his mother, Eliza, to raise him and his five siblings. Despite the financial difficulties, Garfield’s mother was determined to see her children receive a good education. Young Garfield was an avid reader and demonstrated an early interest in learning.
Garfield attended the Western Reserve Eclectic Institute (later known as Hiram College) in Ohio, where he studied classics, mathematics, and literature. His academic success opened doors for him, and he became a teacher at the institution after graduation. However, his true calling lay in public service. Garfield was soon drawn into politics and elected to the Ohio State Senate.
When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Garfield was a strong supporter of the Union cause. He enlisted as a lieutenant colonel in the 42nd Ohio Volunteer Infantry and quickly rose through the ranks. Garfield served with distinction during the war, participating in several key battles and earning the respect of his fellow officers. By the end of the conflict, he had attained the rank of brigadier general.
After the war, Garfield returned to Ohio and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1863. He became known for his keen intellect and his ability to navigate the complex political waters of the time. Garfield’s reputation grew as he became a strong advocate for Reconstruction and later for national economic development.
By the time of the 1880 Republican National Convention, Garfield had built a successful political career. Although he was not initially considered a leading contender for the presidency, a divisive convention battle between the reform-minded Half-Breeds and the patronage-driven Stalwarts resulted in Garfield’s surprise nomination. He was seen as a compromise candidate who could unify the fractured Republican Party. Garfield went on to win the election, narrowly defeating Democrat Winfield Scott Hancock.
The Political Climate of 1881: Patronage, Factions, and Division
The political climate of 1881 was shaped by intense factionalism and a system of government patronage that had been entrenched for decades. The “spoils system,” which rewarded political loyalty with government positions, was a major issue. By the time Garfield took office, this system had led to rampant corruption and inefficiency within the federal government.
The Republican Party was deeply divided between two factions: the Stalwarts and the Half-Breeds. The Stalwarts, led by figures like Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York, were committed to maintaining the patronage system, believing it was essential to their political power. On the other hand, the Half-Breeds, including Garfield and Senator James G. Blaine, sought to reform the civil service by promoting government positions based on merit rather than political loyalty.
Garfield, although aligned with the reformist Half-Breeds, attempted to navigate a middle ground, trying to please both factions. His administration was thus caught in the crossfire of this bitter battle. Early on, Garfield had to contend with demands from both sides for patronage positions, and his attempt to avoid alienating either faction ultimately failed.
At the same time, there was widespread discontent among the public regarding the political corruption that plagued the nation. The assassination of President Garfield, while shocking, can be seen as a tragic consequence of the deeply entrenched patronage system, which created a toxic environment where individuals like Charles J. Guiteau believed they could take extreme actions to assert their personal interests.
The Assassination: July 2, 1881 – A Nation Stunned
Charles J. Guiteau: The Assassin
The man responsible for President Garfield’s death was Charles J. Guiteau, a 39-year-old lawyer with a long history of delusional behavior. Guiteau had been an ardent supporter of Garfield during the 1880 presidential election. He believed his speeches and efforts had played a pivotal role in Garfield’s victory. However, when Garfield’s administration did not reward him with a diplomatic post in Paris, Guiteau’s sense of entitlement turned to bitterness.
Guiteau’s mental state had been deteriorating for some time, and he had convinced himself that Garfield’s presidency was detrimental to the nation. He believed that by killing Garfield, he would restore political order and bring about the ascendancy of Vice President Chester A. Arthur, a leading Stalwart. Guiteau’s delusions reached a fever pitch, and he convinced himself that his actions were both justified and necessary for the greater good.
On July 2, 1881, Guiteau followed Garfield to the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington, D.C., where the president was preparing to board a train for a trip to New Jersey. Standing behind Garfield, Guiteau pulled out a revolver and fired two shots at close range. One bullet struck Garfield in the back, and the other grazed his abdomen.
After the shooting, Guiteau calmly walked away from the scene, telling bystanders, “I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts. I did it, and I want to be arrested.” He was promptly apprehended by police, and his bizarre behavior in the aftermath would only add to the tragedy of the event.
The Immediate Aftermath: The Battle for Life
Garfield was rushed to the White House, where doctors attempted to save him. Initially, there was hope that he would survive. However, the medical treatment he received was a mix of missteps and ignorance. At the time, antiseptic procedures were not well understood, and Garfield’s doctors frequently probed his wound with unsterilized hands and instruments. One of the primary doctors, Dr. Willard Bliss, insisted on removing the bullet without proper techniques, which likely led to the spread of infection.
Garfield’s health began to deteriorate rapidly. Though he was conscious for several days after the shooting, his condition worsened. Doctors performed several surgeries in a desperate attempt to remove the infection, but their efforts were ultimately futile. In the final days of his life, Garfield’s pain was excruciating, and he had difficulty breathing.
The nation watched in suspense, with newspapers reporting on Garfield’s condition every day. The public remained hopeful, but as time went on, it became clear that the president would not recover.
On September 19, 1881, after nearly three months of suffering, President Garfield died from a combination of infection and internal hemorrhaging. He was only 49 years old.
The Trial of Charles Guiteau: A Bizarre Defense
After Garfield’s death, the nation’s attention turned to his assassin, Charles Guiteau. His trial began in November 1881, and it became a public spectacle, attracting widespread media coverage. Guiteau’s defense attorneys argued that he was insane, pointing to his eccentric behavior and irrational beliefs. They contended that Guiteau’s delusions had led him to believe that killing Garfield would be a patriotic act.
Guiteau’s defense, however, was undermined by his own behavior. Throughout the trial, he displayed an alarming degree of self-importance and continued to claim that his actions were justified. In one memorable exchange, Guiteau insisted that he had “saved” the country by killing Garfield and that the American people should be grateful.
The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that Guiteau was fully aware of his actions and should be held accountable for his crime. The jury agreed, and Guiteau was convicted of murder.
On June 30, 1882, nearly a year after the assassination, Guiteau was executed by hanging. His last words were a rambling, disjointed statement, but he expressed no remorse for his actions. The execution brought an end to the trial, but Guiteau’s bizarre conduct continued to haunt the public consciousness.
The Impact on American Politics: Reform and Legacy
Garfield’s assassination had far-reaching consequences for American politics, particularly in relation to the civil service reform movement. Prior to his death, Garfield had made it clear that he intended to pursue reforms to end the corrupt patronage system. His death created a sense of urgency among reformers, and the public clamored for change.
In 1883, just two years after Garfield’s death, Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, a landmark piece of legislation that established a merit-based system for federal employment. The Pendleton Act created the Civil Service Commission, which would oversee the hiring and firing of federal employees based on their qualifications
Sources
- The Assassination of James A. Garfield by Charles A. Cerami
- The Garfield Assassination by William R. W. P. Hazzard
- James A. Garfield: The 20th President of the United States by John W. Carney
- The Presidential Assassinations by Michael M. Quimby
History in 5 Minutes or less 
Leave a comment