james garfield

The President Who Never Wanted the Crown: Why James Garfield's Story Still Resonates

In the grand, often mythologised narrative of the American presidency, certain figures loom large—Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy. Others, however, fade into the footnotes of history books, their potential cut short by tragedy. James A. Garfield, the 20th President of the United States, is one such figure. Ascending to the highest office in March 1881 and assassinated just six months later, his tenure is often reduced to a single, grim fact. But a new wave of cultural interest, sparked by a major Netflix series, is peeling back the layers of history to reveal a complex, fascinating man whose story is more relevant today than ever.

Garfield was a contradiction: a brilliant intellectual and a war hero, a man who genuinely didn't want the job but became one of its most progressive champions. His story is one of ambition, integrity, and a tragic collision with the corrupt political machine of his time. As modern audiences rediscover his legacy, we are forced to confront the timeless questions he embodied: Can a truly good person survive the brutal realities of power? And what does it mean to be a leader who is dragged, kicking and screaming, into the spotlight?

A Reluctant Leader's Rise to Power

To understand Garfield, one must first understand his reluctance. Unlike the career politicians who clamoured for the presidency, Garfield was a man of letters and a scholar. He was a professor of ancient languages, a skilled orator, and a devoted family man. As detailed in a recent Slate article titled "There’s One President in American History Who Absolutely Did Not Not Want the Job," Garfield was acutely aware of the burdens of the office. He saw the presidency not as a prize to be won, but as a "crown of thorns."

His path to the White House was a testament to this. The 1880 Republican National Convention was deadlocked. After 35 ballots, no candidate could secure the nomination. In a desperate attempt to break the impasse, party leaders turned to Garfield as a compromise candidate—a man who wasn't even actively campaigning for the role. He won the nomination and subsequently the presidency, entering office with a sense of duty rather than desire.

This reluctance, however, did not translate into passivity. Garfield was a principled man with a clear vision for the nation. He was a staunch opponent of the "spoils system," the deeply entrenched practice of awarding government jobs to political supporters. He believed in a government run by merit, not patronage. This very conviction would set the stage for his fatal conflict with a powerful political figure of the era, Charles Guiteau.

The Netflix Spotlight: "Death by Lightning" Ignites New Interest

For decades, Garfield’s story remained largely confined to history books and scholarly articles. That has changed dramatically with the release of "Death by Lightning," a new Netflix series that has captivated audiences and critics alike. The show, starring Matthew Macfadyen as Garfield and Michael C. Hall as his assassin, Charles Guiteau, has thrust the 20th president back into the public consciousness.

The series has been met with widespread acclaim for its meticulous attention to detail and its compelling character studies. The Los Angeles Times praised it as "a surprising story about an assassinated president gone too soon," highlighting its ability to transform a historical footnote into a gripping human drama. The Washington Post also offered a positive review, noting the powerful performance of Macfadyen, who portrays Garfield as a man grappling with immense pressure and political intrigue.

This new series is not just entertainment; it's a cultural event that has generated a significant buzz around its subject. It reframes the conversation from a simple "what if" scenario to a deeper exploration of Garfield's character, his struggles, and the political climate that ultimately consumed him. The show's success underscores a growing appetite for historical narratives that feel personal, complex, and emotionally resonant.

"Garfield was a man of immense intellect and integrity, thrust into a political system that rewarded the very opposite. His story is a timeless warning about the collision between principle and power." - A sentiment echoed in reviews of the Netflix series.

The Assassination: A Tragedy of Errors

The central event of Garfield's presidency is, of course, his assassination. On July 2, 1881, Charles Guiteau, a disgruntled and delusional office-seeker, shot the President at a Washington D.C. train station. The bullet, however, did not kill Garfield instantly. What followed was a gruesome and horrifying ordeal that lasted for 80 days.

Garfield did not die from the gunshot wound itself. He died from the medical "treatment" he received. The story of his decline is a chilling look at the state of 19th-century medicine. Doctors, led by Dr. Willard Bliss, probed the president's wound with unsterilized fingers and instruments, searching for the bullet. They refused to listen to the advice of Alexander Graham Bell, who had developed a primitive metal detector and offered to locate the bullet. The doctors' invasive and unsanitary procedures almost certainly introduced a raging infection into the President's body.

Garfield suffered excruciating pain, high fevers, and sepsis. He slowly wasted away over the summer, his body ravaged not by the assassin's bullet, but by the very people trying to save him. He finally passed away on September 19, 1881. Guiteau was executed for the crime, but history has judged the doctors almost as harshly as the killer. Garfield's death became a catalyst for medical reform, highlighting the critical importance of antiseptic procedures.

Contextual Background: The Gilded Age and the Spoils System

Garfield's story cannot be understood outside the context of the "Gilded Age," a period in American history (roughly 1870s-1900) characterised by rapid industrialisation, immense wealth for a few, and widespread political corruption. It was an era of backroom deals, powerful party bosses, and a federal government that was often for sale to the highest bidder.

The central conflict of Garfield's short presidency was his battle against this system, specifically the "spoils system." This was the practice whereby the winning political party would reward its loyal workers with government jobs. The most powerful figure in this arena was Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York, a staunch defender of the patronage system.

When Garfield nominated a man Conkling disliked for a key post, the senator and his allies went to war against the President. This political battle dominated the headlines of Garfield's brief tenure. It was in this climate of intense political bitterness that Charles Guiteau, a man who believed he was an instrument of God and deserved a consulship in Europe for his support of Garfield, became unhinged by his rejection and decided to take matters into his own hands.

Garfield’s fight against Conkling was not just a personal squabble; it was a fight for the soul of the American government. He was arguing that the President, not a handful of powerful senators, should control appointments. He won that fight just before he was shot, effectively breaking Conkling's power. It was a pyrrhic victory.

Immediate Effects: A Nation in Mourning and a System in Flux

The immediate impact of Garfield's assassination was profound. The nation, which had been glued to the newspapers for 80 days, was plunged into mourning. The sheer length of his suffering, reported in excruciating detail by a burgeoning press, created a shared national trauma.

His death also created a political vacuum that his successor, Chester A. Arthur, had to fill. Arthur was a product of the very spoils system Garfield had fought against. A close ally of Conkling, no one expected him to be a reformer. Yet, in a surprising turn, Arthur's time in office was marked by his championing of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. This landmark legislation, passed in 1883, was a direct result of the public outrage over Garfield's death. It established that many government jobs should be awarded on the basis of merit, not political connections. In a tragic irony, Garfield's sacrifice led to the very reform he had dedicated his presidency to achieving.

The Enduring Legacy: A President's Potential

The long-term effects of Garfield's story are more philosophical. He remains one of history's great "what ifs." What could a man of such intellect, empathy, and integrity have achieved with a full term or even two? His vision for a more just and equitable America, including support for African American civil rights and progressive economic policies, was cut short before it could be fully realised.

His story serves as a powerful commentary on the nature of leadership and