The murder of President Garfield and the subsequent trial of his assassin Charles Guiteau had far reaching implications, even into the twentieth century. It changed the way courts and society looked at insanity and it changed the way our government awards civil service jobs.
Charles Guiteau’s use of the insanity defense was the first in a Federal trial. Immediately after his trial the cry went up from the medical profession to change his verdict. They wanted to study Guiteau in an effort to find out what begat his madness. Guiteau was a tricky case though. Was he insane? He argued he was not. He knew the difference between sane and insane. Today we argue a defendant must know he did wrong, contrary to the laws of God and man. According to Guiteau, he knew he was doing wrong in the eyes of man but not in the eyes of God, since God had told him to shoot the president. It wasn’t until 1895 that the Supreme Court took up the question of insanity in the case of Davis v. U.S. In that case they held that “malice is presumed from certain facts and persons are held responsible for the consequences of their acts upon the principle of presumption.”(Robinson,185) The courts in the nineteenth century struggled with the question of insanity and brought about a reform movement in that arena. The new ways of thinking were paternalistic and progressive and started to attack the old rules, including M’Naughtan. The trial of Guiteau made the shortcomings in the study of the insane all too apparent. The term “moral insanity” was obsolete. The trial also showed the fallibility of letting jurors decide the existence of insanity. Jurors, then as now, let circumstances influence their decisions. In the twentieth century John Hinckley was found legally insane after he shot President Reagan whereas Charles Guiteau was found legally sane. They both had delusions of grandeur, they both shot a president yet Guiteau was found criminally guilty. Guiteau’s death helped bring about a change in opinion in American psychiatry. In a more broad sense though, the trial helped shape a “modern and institutionalized intellectual life.”(Rosenberg,248) It marked ‘the beginning of modern academic medicine and science” in America when doctors strove for peer acceptance and approval.
Charles Guiteau was the catalyst for the Pendleton Act of 1883 which made civil service appointments and promotions based on merit. Before the War of the Rebellion there was widespread support for the spoils system. Cronyism was rampant, with many jobs in the government going to the biggest contributors to the winning party.There were some grumblings and attempts at reform but they usually died in Congress. Ironically, it was Garfield who “single handedly pushed the Pendleton bill forward.”(Maranto/Schultz,55) After his death there was hardly a newspaper in the nation, hardly a speech given that did not decry the spoils system and blame the assassination on it. Would Guiteau have shot Garfield had he not been a rejected office-seeker? Of course, we can’t know that. “The reform of 1883 was one of the most momentous events in the nation’s political and administrative development.”(Rosenbloom,1) The issue of civil service reform had been on the front burner, so to speak, for some time and the public uproar over reform unfortunately carried over to Guiteau’s trial, ensuring he would be executed. The Missouri Civil Service Reform Association actually “rejoiced over the attempted assassination which assured the success of reform.”(Hoogenboom,210) In this sense, Garfield became a martyr for civil service reform. After his death the cry went up that “reformed civil service would be the most fitting monument” to him.(Hoogenboom,213) In fact, a publication circulating at the time declared Garfield “died a martyr to the fierceness of factional politics and the victim” of the spoils system.”(Hoogenboom,213) After his death the cry went up to finish his work on civil service reform. Had the Pendleton bill already been in place, there would have been no reason for Guiteau to blame Garfield for not getting a job. His death was one of the biggest catalysts for civil service reform in America. Civil Service reform has underwent many changes through the years and different administrations, with the Progressive Era bringing about the most. “The overall goal of this era was to professionalize the federal bureaucracy” and to take the politics and corruption out of it.(Maranto/Schultz,81)
Garfield’s death also helped push forward protection for the president. It wasn’t until the assassination of President McKinley that the Secret Service, long an arm of the U.S. treasury had its duties expanded to include the protection of the President. It took three presidents to die at the hands an assassin but it was really after Garfield’s death that the cry went up that something must be done.
To say Charles Guiteau was responsible for changing government or attitudes about mental health would be overstating his importance. Of course, it would have delighted him. As I’ve said, civil service reform was already in the works. His case merely accelerated it. Reform was already underway in the psychiatric world also but his trial was debated in academic circles, discussion panels and seminars and added to the science of psychiatry. In the twentieth century the question of legal insanity is still being debated. We carry over the debate that started in the nineteenth century as to who was criminally culpable and what are the standards of insanity. We still debate the merit system with each president and administration pushing for changes, either through policies or Congress. “To this day, the politics/administration dichotomy is an important theoretical characteristic of the federal bureaucracy.”(Maranto/Schultz,81) I don’t think we’re any closer today than we were one hundred years ago.
Works Cited
Robinson, Daniel N. Wild beasts & idle humours the insanity defense from antiquity to the present. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1996.
Rosenberg, Charles E. The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau Psychiatry and the Law in the Gilded Age. New York: University Of Chicago P, 1995.
Maranto, Robert. Short history of the United States Civil Service. Lanham, Md: University P of America, 1991.
Centenary issues of the Pendleton Act of 1883 the problematic legacy of Civil Service reform. New York: M. Dekker, 1982.
Hoogenboom, Ari. Outlawing The Spoils. Urbana: University of Illinois P, 1968.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
President James Garfield died on September 19, 1881 at 10:35 P. M. Immediately, Charles Guiteau was not going to trial for attempted murder but murder in the first degree, a capital offense. The trial of Charles Guiteau was problematic and controversial from the beginning. It came down to the question: was Charles Guiteau a lunatic or simply a disgruntled office-seeker? Some have claimed he was a madman who snapped when he didn’t get a government appointment. True, he sought ambassadorships and a place in the Republican Party, perhaps as a speaker. Not that he was altruistic and wanted to benefit the nation but because he thought the jobs paid well and were easy. It’s not that he thought he was destined for greatness but by all accounts he was simply lazy, even in childhood, according to family members. When Guiteau was jailed in 1873 for not paying a bill he wrote his father for bail money. His father denied him the money “but said he would pray for Charles to be cured of egotism and self-will, and that spirit that has led you for years to live off from other people’s labors, and live in absolute laziness and good-for-nothingness…” (Clark, 14) He was finally banned from the white House on May 13 and in Guiteau’s mind it was obvious: Secretary of State Blaine was trying to oust all the Stalwarts from office. This disturbed him so much he wrote Garfield on May 16, complaining about the treatment Blaine had given him. It was May 18 that Guiteau came up with the perfect solution. Everything would be better if Garfield were removed. First of all, he would be famous. “I thought just what people would talk and thought what a tremendous excitement it would create.” (Clark, 47) He still hoped to get a government job, all the while plotting to kill Garfield. Finally, on May 23 he wrote his last letter to Garfield, demanding the termination of Blaine who he accused of ruining the G.O.P. Since Garfield wouldn’t get rid of Blaine there was nothing to do but get rid of Garfield. To most of the population, this would seem the rationale of a lunatic.
If one goes by the M’Naghten rule which states if one knows the difference between right and wrong then one is culpable. “…that every man is to presumed to be sane…it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason…as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” (1) (Goldstein, 45) M’Naghten though, is controversial. It views the mind as being compartmentalized and classifies someone as insane only if “he suffers from serious cognitive or intellectual impairment.” (Goldstein, 46) One problem with that is that few psychotics suffer from major cognitive impairment. If we go by the Durham rules, adopted in 1954 by the United States Court of Appeals, then clearly Guiteau was insane. They state if a defendant “could not be expected to respond properly to threats of sanction; he was not a “fit” object of anger and blame…” (Goldstein, 82) M’Naghten also states that a medical witness cannot give his opinion as to a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime, as to whether he could distinguish between right or wrong. That was for a jury to decide. The trial of United States v. Guiteau was the first case to contest this issue.
Guiteau clearly believed once the nation read his reasons and truly understood him he would be released from prison and in fact be made a hero for killing Garfield and thereby saving the G.O.P. and the nation itself. During his trial he compared himself to George Washington and U. S. Grant, a hero and patriot. In his mind he suffered” in bonds as a patriot, because I had the inspiration…to unite a great political party,” and saved the nation from another desolating war. (Rosenberg, 215) He firmly believed the American people were behind him in the “removal” of President Garfield. When he asked for money through the newspapers for his defense checks did come to him. Unfortunately, the checks were worthless and people simply got his autograph.
He stated repeatedly in his defense that 1. The order to kill Garfield came from God, therefore Guiteau was not responsible. 2. That he in fact did not kill the President; it was malpractice that killed him, which was probably true and 3. Garfield died in New Jersey, not in Washington, D.C. where the trial was being held; therefore the court had no jurisdiction. As for the insanity defense, Guiteau did not wish to be seen as insane by the public so while he invoked the insanity defense he also kept contradicting it. In fact, his attorney, George Scoville, said if he didn’t believe Guiteau to be insane he would not defend him at all. (Clark, 117) During the trial Guiteau said “I do not pretend to say that I am insane now any more than you are, but on the 2nd of July and for 30 days prior I was insane. That’s the issue.” (Clark, 118) To Guiteau there was a distinction between being run-of-the-mill insane and legally insane. During a trial in 1871 in which the insanity defense was invoked, Guiteau had written the judge, thanking him for “brushing away” the insanity defense, saving “all that a man would need to secure immunity for murder would be to tear his hair and rave a little, and then kill his man.” (Clark, 118) Yet, in a pre-trial interview, he admitted to a psychiatrist, “I knew from the time I conceived the act if I could establish the fact before a jury that I believed the killing was an inspired act I could not be held responsible before the law. You may add this, that the responsibility lies on the Deity, and not on me, and that, in law, is insanity.” (Clark, 121) As we have seen Guiteau clearly acted with premeditation. If one has the sense to plan an attack, going so far as to pick the type of pistol, isn’t that proof of sanity? If we take premeditation as proof of sanity then John Hinckley, the would-be assassin of President Reagan, would have been found culpable and be in prison. However, if we accept delusions of grandeur as proof then Guiteau is clearly insane. Yet, Charlie Manson is not considered insane and was sent to prison while he clearly had delusions of grandeur, the same as Hinckley. As we can see, insanity is as much a social concept as much as a psychiatric one. If a crime is so heinous and sparks such public outrage a jury is less likely to find a defendant not guilty. Also, as we’ve seen, society’s ideas about mental disease and treatment at the time play a big role in whether an insanity defense will work. In 1962 the court ruled in “McDonald v. United States” that a mental disease includes any abnormal condition of the brain that substantially affects mental or emotional processes and substantially impairs behavior controls. The newest ruling, called the ALI (American Law Institute)Rule enacted in 1955 says “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease…he lacks …capacity…to appreciate the criminality of his conduct…” (Goldstein, 87) Guiteau’s trial started on November 7, 1881. Finally, on January 26, 1882, the jury returned with the verdict. Guilty as charged.
Works Cited
Clark, James C. Murder of James A. Garfield the president's last days and the trial and execution of his assassin. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland, 1993.
Goldstein, Abraham S. The Insanity Defense. New Haven & London: Yale UP, 1967.
Rosenberg, Charles E. The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau Psychiatry and the Law in the Gilded Age. New York: University Of Chicago P, 1995.
If one goes by the M’Naghten rule which states if one knows the difference between right and wrong then one is culpable. “…that every man is to presumed to be sane…it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason…as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” (1) (Goldstein, 45) M’Naghten though, is controversial. It views the mind as being compartmentalized and classifies someone as insane only if “he suffers from serious cognitive or intellectual impairment.” (Goldstein, 46) One problem with that is that few psychotics suffer from major cognitive impairment. If we go by the Durham rules, adopted in 1954 by the United States Court of Appeals, then clearly Guiteau was insane. They state if a defendant “could not be expected to respond properly to threats of sanction; he was not a “fit” object of anger and blame…” (Goldstein, 82) M’Naghten also states that a medical witness cannot give his opinion as to a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime, as to whether he could distinguish between right or wrong. That was for a jury to decide. The trial of United States v. Guiteau was the first case to contest this issue.
Guiteau clearly believed once the nation read his reasons and truly understood him he would be released from prison and in fact be made a hero for killing Garfield and thereby saving the G.O.P. and the nation itself. During his trial he compared himself to George Washington and U. S. Grant, a hero and patriot. In his mind he suffered” in bonds as a patriot, because I had the inspiration…to unite a great political party,” and saved the nation from another desolating war. (Rosenberg, 215) He firmly believed the American people were behind him in the “removal” of President Garfield. When he asked for money through the newspapers for his defense checks did come to him. Unfortunately, the checks were worthless and people simply got his autograph.
He stated repeatedly in his defense that 1. The order to kill Garfield came from God, therefore Guiteau was not responsible. 2. That he in fact did not kill the President; it was malpractice that killed him, which was probably true and 3. Garfield died in New Jersey, not in Washington, D.C. where the trial was being held; therefore the court had no jurisdiction. As for the insanity defense, Guiteau did not wish to be seen as insane by the public so while he invoked the insanity defense he also kept contradicting it. In fact, his attorney, George Scoville, said if he didn’t believe Guiteau to be insane he would not defend him at all. (Clark, 117) During the trial Guiteau said “I do not pretend to say that I am insane now any more than you are, but on the 2nd of July and for 30 days prior I was insane. That’s the issue.” (Clark, 118) To Guiteau there was a distinction between being run-of-the-mill insane and legally insane. During a trial in 1871 in which the insanity defense was invoked, Guiteau had written the judge, thanking him for “brushing away” the insanity defense, saving “all that a man would need to secure immunity for murder would be to tear his hair and rave a little, and then kill his man.” (Clark, 118) Yet, in a pre-trial interview, he admitted to a psychiatrist, “I knew from the time I conceived the act if I could establish the fact before a jury that I believed the killing was an inspired act I could not be held responsible before the law. You may add this, that the responsibility lies on the Deity, and not on me, and that, in law, is insanity.” (Clark, 121) As we have seen Guiteau clearly acted with premeditation. If one has the sense to plan an attack, going so far as to pick the type of pistol, isn’t that proof of sanity? If we take premeditation as proof of sanity then John Hinckley, the would-be assassin of President Reagan, would have been found culpable and be in prison. However, if we accept delusions of grandeur as proof then Guiteau is clearly insane. Yet, Charlie Manson is not considered insane and was sent to prison while he clearly had delusions of grandeur, the same as Hinckley. As we can see, insanity is as much a social concept as much as a psychiatric one. If a crime is so heinous and sparks such public outrage a jury is less likely to find a defendant not guilty. Also, as we’ve seen, society’s ideas about mental disease and treatment at the time play a big role in whether an insanity defense will work. In 1962 the court ruled in “McDonald v. United States” that a mental disease includes any abnormal condition of the brain that substantially affects mental or emotional processes and substantially impairs behavior controls. The newest ruling, called the ALI (American Law Institute)Rule enacted in 1955 says “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease…he lacks …capacity…to appreciate the criminality of his conduct…” (Goldstein, 87) Guiteau’s trial started on November 7, 1881. Finally, on January 26, 1882, the jury returned with the verdict. Guilty as charged.
Works Cited
Clark, James C. Murder of James A. Garfield the president's last days and the trial and execution of his assassin. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland, 1993.
Goldstein, Abraham S. The Insanity Defense. New Haven & London: Yale UP, 1967.
Rosenberg, Charles E. The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau Psychiatry and the Law in the Gilded Age. New York: University Of Chicago P, 1995.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
President James Garfield was shot by a lunatic named Charles Guiteau on July 2, 1881 at around 9:15 in the morning, less than 4 months into his term as the twentieth President. He died 11 weeks later on September 19, 1881. The shooting and ensuing months involved a cast of people for various reasons; Secretary of War Robert Lincoln (who had just lived through his fathers’ assassination, Alexander Graham Bell, who had just invented a crude type of metal detector and General William Sherman, charged with the protection of Charles Guiteau. Another innovation at the time was an air conditioner rigged up by the Army Corps of Engineers, to keep the President cool in the hot, humid summer of the Capitol. It was also a milestone in the use of the insanity plea in a murder trial.
Garfield left Washington D.C. that morning intent on going on holiday for the summer. First he had to stop at Williams College, his alma mater, to deliver a speech. As he entered the 6th Street railroad station he walked with Secretary of State Blaine. Guiteau, who had been laying in wait for him walked up behind him and, without saying a word, shot twice. The first bullet passed harmlessly through Garfield’s right coat sleeve but the second one entered him above his third rib and passed in front of his spinal cord, according to autopsy reports. Sadly, Secret Service protection for the President didn’t come about until the assassination of President McKinley, twenty years later.
Charles Guiteau was considered a lunatic, from all references. As a lawyer he was abysmal and dealt mainly with collections, of which it is said he took a 75% commission, unheard of today. He was a deadbeat, according to The National Police Gazette: New York who would skip out on his boarding house bill in the middle of the night.(1) Having been run out of Chicago for his stealing ways, he ended up in New York where he advertised himself as a lawyer and Theologian. According to the New York Herald he was jailed there for indebtedness. After the New York press took him to task and publicized his misdeeds he moved back to Chicago in 1868. During this time he married a Miss Annie Bunn in 1869. Everything was good initially but within the first year Charles was back to skipping out on bills and getting them evicted. According to his wife she had to once beg to get into the storage area where their things were locked up for nonpayment so she could get a dress to sell to pay the bills. He also started abusing her and would lock her in a closet all night and beat her. She divorced him in 1874, after they had moved back to New York, following the Chicago fire.(2)
It was in 1880 that Charles turned to politics. At first a Republican he turned to the “Stalwart” faction of the party who supported the reelection of U.S. Grant, after Garfield was elected, he became a Garfield supporter. Having once given a speech supporting Garfield (a rehashed version he wrote for Grant) he felt Garfield owed him. According to Guiteau, it was him that got Garfield elected. After Garfield’s election Guiteau moved to Washington D.C. in hopes of securing an appointment. Those were the days when cronyism filled ambassadorships and departments. He wanted an appointment as the ambassador to Vienna but would settle for Paris. He was a frequent visitor to the White House and to the State Department where he would wander the halls or just hang out, writing notes to himself and others, using government stationary until Col. Crook, the disbursing clerk, put a stop to that. In a telling exchange with Crook, after being put off the stationary, said “Do you know who I am? I am one of the men who made Garfield President”. He accosted and annoyed Secretary of State James Blaine so much that at one point Blaine told him “Never speak to me again of the Paris consulship as long as you live.”(3) Rebuffed at every turn, Guiteau became a Stalwart again and turned against Garfield. It was in May of 1881 he decided to get rid of Garfield and in June of 1881 he sent several messages to newspapers and even one to the Whit House explaining his actions. In his “Address to the American People” he sought to explain that his upcoming deed was not murder, it was a political necessity. Garfield’s crime was “he has wrecked the once grand old Republican party; and for this he dies”. He also wrote a letter to General Sherman to be delivered after the assassination saying “I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts…” and asking for protection from the mob that he knew would form.(4)
Guiteau borrowed, some say $10, some say $15, to buy a gun that summer. He chose his gun carefully, finally settling on a .44 Webley British Bulldog revolver. It was relatively small and concealable but with a huge impact. There were two models available; one with wooden handles and one with ivory handles. Guiteau picked the ivory handles because “he thought it would look good as a museum exhibit” after the assassination.(5) He stalked Garfield the entire month of June, looking for a chance to kill him and once could have at a rail station but Mrs. Garfield was there, feeling poorly, and he didn’t want to upset her.(6)
After Guiteau shot Garfield he simply put the gun back in his pocket and started for the cab he had waiting to take him to jail. Earlier in the week he had actually visited the jail, trying to get a walk through. He told the police he wanted to see what his future accommodations were going to be. At any rate, before Guiteau could leave, policeman Patrick Kearney grabbed him and put him under arrest. In a funny aside, Kearney was so wrapped up in arresting Guiteau he forgot to disarm him until they got to the jail. Garfield was taken to the second floor of the railroad station, attended by many physicians. There they tried to find the bullet but were unable and unwilling to possibly cause more harm decided it was best to move him to the White House where he would be more comfortable.
1.National Police gazette, July 23, 1881
2.Charles Guiteau Collection,http://library.Georgetown.edu/dept/speccoll/c1133.htm
3.Peskin, Allan "Garfield: A Biography, Kent State University Press, 1978 Page 590
4.Vowell, Sarah "Assassination Vacatin", Simon and Schuster, 2005 Pages 164-165
5.Peskin, Allan Page 591
6.Peskin, Allan Page 592
Garfield left Washington D.C. that morning intent on going on holiday for the summer. First he had to stop at Williams College, his alma mater, to deliver a speech. As he entered the 6th Street railroad station he walked with Secretary of State Blaine. Guiteau, who had been laying in wait for him walked up behind him and, without saying a word, shot twice. The first bullet passed harmlessly through Garfield’s right coat sleeve but the second one entered him above his third rib and passed in front of his spinal cord, according to autopsy reports. Sadly, Secret Service protection for the President didn’t come about until the assassination of President McKinley, twenty years later.
Charles Guiteau was considered a lunatic, from all references. As a lawyer he was abysmal and dealt mainly with collections, of which it is said he took a 75% commission, unheard of today. He was a deadbeat, according to The National Police Gazette: New York who would skip out on his boarding house bill in the middle of the night.(1) Having been run out of Chicago for his stealing ways, he ended up in New York where he advertised himself as a lawyer and Theologian. According to the New York Herald he was jailed there for indebtedness. After the New York press took him to task and publicized his misdeeds he moved back to Chicago in 1868. During this time he married a Miss Annie Bunn in 1869. Everything was good initially but within the first year Charles was back to skipping out on bills and getting them evicted. According to his wife she had to once beg to get into the storage area where their things were locked up for nonpayment so she could get a dress to sell to pay the bills. He also started abusing her and would lock her in a closet all night and beat her. She divorced him in 1874, after they had moved back to New York, following the Chicago fire.(2)
It was in 1880 that Charles turned to politics. At first a Republican he turned to the “Stalwart” faction of the party who supported the reelection of U.S. Grant, after Garfield was elected, he became a Garfield supporter. Having once given a speech supporting Garfield (a rehashed version he wrote for Grant) he felt Garfield owed him. According to Guiteau, it was him that got Garfield elected. After Garfield’s election Guiteau moved to Washington D.C. in hopes of securing an appointment. Those were the days when cronyism filled ambassadorships and departments. He wanted an appointment as the ambassador to Vienna but would settle for Paris. He was a frequent visitor to the White House and to the State Department where he would wander the halls or just hang out, writing notes to himself and others, using government stationary until Col. Crook, the disbursing clerk, put a stop to that. In a telling exchange with Crook, after being put off the stationary, said “Do you know who I am? I am one of the men who made Garfield President”. He accosted and annoyed Secretary of State James Blaine so much that at one point Blaine told him “Never speak to me again of the Paris consulship as long as you live.”(3) Rebuffed at every turn, Guiteau became a Stalwart again and turned against Garfield. It was in May of 1881 he decided to get rid of Garfield and in June of 1881 he sent several messages to newspapers and even one to the Whit House explaining his actions. In his “Address to the American People” he sought to explain that his upcoming deed was not murder, it was a political necessity. Garfield’s crime was “he has wrecked the once grand old Republican party; and for this he dies”. He also wrote a letter to General Sherman to be delivered after the assassination saying “I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts…” and asking for protection from the mob that he knew would form.(4)
Guiteau borrowed, some say $10, some say $15, to buy a gun that summer. He chose his gun carefully, finally settling on a .44 Webley British Bulldog revolver. It was relatively small and concealable but with a huge impact. There were two models available; one with wooden handles and one with ivory handles. Guiteau picked the ivory handles because “he thought it would look good as a museum exhibit” after the assassination.(5) He stalked Garfield the entire month of June, looking for a chance to kill him and once could have at a rail station but Mrs. Garfield was there, feeling poorly, and he didn’t want to upset her.(6)
After Guiteau shot Garfield he simply put the gun back in his pocket and started for the cab he had waiting to take him to jail. Earlier in the week he had actually visited the jail, trying to get a walk through. He told the police he wanted to see what his future accommodations were going to be. At any rate, before Guiteau could leave, policeman Patrick Kearney grabbed him and put him under arrest. In a funny aside, Kearney was so wrapped up in arresting Guiteau he forgot to disarm him until they got to the jail. Garfield was taken to the second floor of the railroad station, attended by many physicians. There they tried to find the bullet but were unable and unwilling to possibly cause more harm decided it was best to move him to the White House where he would be more comfortable.
1.National Police gazette, July 23, 1881
2.Charles Guiteau Collection,http://library.Georgetown.edu/dept/speccoll/c1133.htm
3.Peskin, Allan "Garfield: A Biography, Kent State University Press, 1978 Page 590
4.Vowell, Sarah "Assassination Vacatin", Simon and Schuster, 2005 Pages 164-165
5.Peskin, Allan Page 591
6.Peskin, Allan Page 592
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)