1881 -- Where GOP Incitement Can Lead
I'm glad Congressman Wilson apologized and I am pleased that he looked so scared and teary eyed today. That means the GOP leadership took him to the woodshed and are not following the lead of the radio and internet crazies who are celebrating his appalling behavior.
I just re-read a book that brings home why we need to take this political ugliness seriously. The book by a Washington attorney (and Republican activist) is called "Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield."
The book is fascinating and reads like a heart-breaking thriller.
Ackerman shows that the 20th President was murdered not by some lone lunatic gone postal, but by a lunatic (yes, he was that) inspired by the non-stop venom directed at Garfield. The vitriol, starting from the moment of his surprise nomination, came from Republican operatives, office holders, editors and Congressional extremists.
No, Garfield wasn't African-American. But he was, by the standards of 1880, an insurgent. The frontrunner that year was former President Grant who was backed by powerful GOP interests planning on more graft income should there be a third corrupt Grant term.
Garfield wasn't even a candidate for a President in 1880 (he was a Congressman) and went to the convention to support one of the anti-Grant candidates.
But, after 35 ballots of deadlock, the Republican convention nominated Garfield who had won it over with a spellbinding speech. The Grant people went crazy, frustrated at the lost opportunities to rob the government blind for four more years and sat on their hands in November.
Grant himself refused to acknowledge that Garfield was the nominee and then President. Even after the inauguration, he personally snubbed Garfield at every opportunity and his supporters spread word of Grant's contempt for Garfield far and wide.
The corruptionist wing of the GOP (similar to the far right crazies of today) spewed incessant hatred at Garfield. To them, he was utterly illegitimate simply because he wasn't Grant and because he refused to appoint crooks whose names they suggested for government positions. Garfield spent the first four months of his Presidency trying to defeat the Grant faction (known as the Stalwarts, meaning they were stalwart backers of Grant).
But four months was all he had. Early in the summer, en route to his Williams College reunion, Garfield was shot at the Washington train station. The assassin shouted, "I am a Stalwart. Arthur is now President." (Garfield had picked Chester A. Arthur, a Stalwart, to appease that wing of the party).
Garfield was 49. He barely had 100 days; his agonized dying lasted as long as his Presidency.
The lesson: even in those seemingly more innocent times, America was rife with violent hate against politicians who stood in the way of certain interests. (In Garfield's case, it was what they called "boodle" or bribes). FDR was a target of that kind of hate, and Clinton, and, of course JFK. That is why the GOP needs to do what it can to crack down on the ugliness we saw demonstrated by the Republicans on Wednesday night, especially because, with Obama, is added the all-powerful race element.
Obama's adversaries oppose his policies but even more they despise his race. It is his race that impelled parents to try to keep him out of America's classrooms this week -- the horrible terror that their kids will see a black man in the role of President. This aspect of Obama hatred is unprecedented.
The Republicans need to understand that hate cannot be contained in neat little corners or bottled and used as needed. It explodes, whether the haters want a full-blown explosion or not. They cannot control the use that is made of their message. The people who instigated Garfield's murder didn't do so intentionally. They only wanted him politically dead .
When their words produced murder, many of the Stalwarts went into paroxysms of grief. Garfield's successor, Chester Arthur, was prostrated by the assassination and spent his entire term trying to make amends (he totally broke with the Stalwarts). The Grant wing of the party was discredited. There was great shame and grief among the former inciters.
That would not happen today, quite the contrary. The seditious Limbaugh, Savage, and Beck (and company) are in a whole different league. After all, they say that Obama's goal is to destroy America, that he is like Hitler, that -- unless stopped -- he will send Americans to death camps. That type of incitement allows for no regrets no matter what happens. They know what they are doing. And they will celebrate should it happen.
I can only hope that the Secret Service understands what it is up against.
PS The Obama haters in the GOP would have hated Garfield too. He devoted a thousands words in his inaugural address to achieving equality and full voting rights for African Americans including this:
"The emancipated race has already made remarkable progress. With unquestioning devotion to the Union, with a patience and gentleness not born of fear, they have 'followed the light as God gave them to see the light.' They are rapidly laying the material foundations of self-support, widening their circle of intelligence, and beginning to enjoy the blessings that gather around the homes of the industrious poor. They deserve the generous encouragement of all good men. So far as my authority can lawfully extend they shall enjoy the full and equal protection of the Constitution and the laws....
"To violate the freedom and sanctities of the suffrage is more than an evil. It is a crime which, if persisted in, will destroy the Government itself. Suicide is not a remedy. If in other lands it be high treason to compass the death of the king, it shall be counted no less a crime here to strangle our sovereign power and stifle its voice"
But then he was assassinated and no sucessor made a similar pledge for 84 years. That was LBJ.
If anything should happen, heaven forbid, they'll be no taking responsiblity and indicating no grief.
The liberals will be excoriated for exploiting a painful situation and even though Obama was a no-good socialist/fascist/totalitarian/anarchist, them frothing at the mouth over this insanity will not have caused it in any way and it's a disgrace to say otherwise, they will all be broadcasting. Except when they get a little liquored up and if we listen carefully we'll overhear late night mirth spiced with the N word.
Which is why I say we need to be in their faces right now blaming them fully in advance and not backing down but strongly escalating should they try to weasel out. I don't what Mrs. Rabin would say, but that's my lesson.
September 10, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
U.S. Representative Joe Wilson lied last night.
All of August, we have heard the Teabaggers screaming, "Read the Bill." We have to assume that Joe Wilson read the bill. The bill in question setting up the public option does so through "affordability credits."
Section 246 of the Bill is captioned as follows:
"
"Sec. 246. No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens."
Then Section 246 reads as follows:
"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
Joe Wilson said that President Obama was lying. By doing so he lied.
Joe's lie is just one of many designed to stir up the base. The health care bill lies have become a list of all the evils which Jesse Helms used to use to stir up fear: non-whites, communism, abortion, euthanisia, welfare queens, and illegal aliens.
The lies and incitement are escalating and are dangerous.
September 10, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of our presidents have either had attempts on their lives made or had someone/people actively plotting such attempts.
We can't live in fear because that is what the conservatives do. Is there a risk to our president's safety? Sure. But the Secret Service has never been better at doing their jobs. It could happen but I refuse to dwell on it and work myself to distress aver it.
Don't be distracted by the haters and crawl into the gutter with them...keep pushing forward.
September 10, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone had a wonderful piece in the New Yorker early this year or late last on presidential inaugural speeches. Garfield was an uncommonly thoughtful and eloquent man who took great care with that speech. His death was a sad moment and should have been a lesson for more than civil service reform.
September 10, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a great piece about his inaugural address. I think he had truly great potential. He was a great liberal on race. Most of the 19th century Republicans were okay but he really was good.
On the other hands, the two Democrats before FDR were terrible racists: Cleveland and the despicable Woodrow.
September 10, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressman Wilson is a coward and a halfwit.
Reports were be "bolted" from the chamber after the speech. Only cowards run.
The Republican's have largely become the party of craven shouters, fear mongers and liars and they are not going to lead this nation to a sound future.
September 10, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Wilkes Booth ran from Ford's theater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes_Booth
He was also a Confederate sympathizer vehement in his denunciation of the Lincoln Administration and outraged by the South's defeat in the American Civil War. He strongly opposed the abolition of slavery in the United States and Lincoln's proposal to extend voting rights to recently emancipated slaves.
Booth had hoped that the assassinations would create sufficient chaos within the Union that the Confederate government could reorganize and continue the war, as long as one Confederate army remained in the field or, that failing, to avenge the South's defeat.
Booth, then jumped from the President's box to the stage, where he raised his knife and shouted "Sic semper tyrannis" (Latin for "Thus always to tyrants",
Southern States radical, outraged by the Republican defeat.
Strongly opposed to Healthcare Reform
Firing of a vocal shot, intended to rally opposers of the Presidents plan.
Good thing Senator Wilson did not have a pistol.
Does the TSA check Blackberry's for explosives?
Or maybe the Senator who left early forgot his briefcase?
This country is under attack from within and Senator Wilson only has to apologize.
While his co-conspirators, regard him as a hero.
September 10, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
For at least part of his Presidency, Grant supported black rights. He only changed course when it was about to cost the Republicans the state of Ohio (according to political observers of the day). My history professor at Columbia, the late Jim Shenton argued that much of the animosity directed at Grant originated in the anger generated because of his support of the rights of the freedmen.
Also, as I understand it, many of the anti-corruption Republicans were happy to abandon the freedmen. Conversely, many Stalwarts supported the rights of the freedmen. (If Ackerman casts serious doubt upon that relationship, his book will be an important contribution to the history of the period.)
Certainly, Grant appointed some corrupt people to his administration, but I am unaware of any serious claims that he was personally corrupt.
September 10, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
September 10, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
One sure wouldn't have guessed agreement from the way the blog was written.
The picture you paint of Grant as the corrupt Boss Tweed and the conquering hero of Garfield is as out-of-whack as the canonization of Reagan.
You might want to check out an essay by Stephen Ambrose in the his To America titled Grant & Reconstruction. It gives a slightly different view point of this period.
The chapter on Robber Barons in People's History of the United States is also instructive on the less angelic side of the democratic party in America before the turn of the century.
September 11, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read this post immediately after seeing a headline on the front page that someone with a shotgun was arrested outside the Capitol last night.
Admittedly, I've never recovered from Nov. 22, 1963. Having lived through the 'ritual' once and read about it in connection with the Garfield assassination years ago, I try to tell myself I'm being irrational, unduly alarmist. But it's all too easy to envision all this poison pushing some unstable person over the edge, leading them to believe that horrific behavior would be accepted and even praised. (Not unlike Rep. Wilson, I suspect. He would not have felt free to give voice to his thoughts if he knew that all his peers would condemn him.)
The ones like Limbaugh, etc. who are fomenting this have no care, and likely would have no regret, but there are - I have to believe - still some conservative and moderate Republican leaders in this country who do not support this type of behavior -- or, at the least, don't want to bear responsibility for where it could lead. I like to think that at least some of the boos directed toward Wilson last night were coming from the Republican side of the room.
The President, the Democrats, the liberals in this country have no way to get through to or be heard by those who are soaking up the poison and hating the President -- along with all Democrats and liberals. The only ones who can have any impact on the situation are conservatives, Republicans in leadership roles, nationally and locally. The fact that they are not actively encouraging the mob mentality does not absolve them from responsibility. They certainly weren't averse to the attitudes and actions of that group before the election when they wanted their votes (heck, even made one of them a VP candidate!).
This is a very serious suggestion: a copy of M.J.'s column should be sent to every Republican Senator or Congressperson, with this sentence in bold: "Even they can't control the use that is made of their message." They - the only ones with a real chance to change the direction - should be forced to think about it NOW, not when it may be too late.
September 10, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Elizabeth. I've never gotten over JFK either.
Sitting in school and hearing that announcement was something that doesn't go away.
And it wasn't just because it was Kennedy. The inciters and the others who mock those of us who worry about this just do not understand the role the President plays in American lives.
That is why, until last night, the opposition party did not scream out at "their" President. That is why we Democrats were horrified when From, Moore and Hinckley tried to kill Ford and Reagan.
Until now, both sides recognized the President as head of state and political leader.
That is over now. It started with Clinton (my brother, a Viet vet, would go to Arlington every year with his "Nam" comrades to turn their back on Clinton on Memorial Day).
Sometimes I think it is amazing Clinton survived.
September 10, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't gone to the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas, you should. I can't say that it makes the memories more "bearable" but it has some kind of good effect, perhaps remebering how very close together we all held each other in the immediate aftermath. (And, strangely, seeing that a tree has now grown so that it blocks the line of sight between the window and where the President was.)
Anyway, I seriously hope that you - or someone - will take the step of sending your post to every Rep. Senator or Representative. Some, probably Wilson, won't 'get it,' but I continue to believe that there are people of honesty and good faith in both parties - and they are the *only* ones who have a hope of tamping down this ugly phenomenon. Wish I had the time to do it.
September 10, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The corruptionist wing of the GOP (similar to the far right crazies of today) spewed incessant hatred at Garfield. To them, he was utterly illegitimate because he wasn't Grant. He spent the first four months of his Presidency trying to push back the Grant wing (known as the Stalwarts, meaning they were stalwart backers of Grant).
But four months was all he had. Early in the summer, en route to his Williams College reunion, Garfield was shot at the Washington train station. The assassin shouted, "I am a Stalwart. Arthur is now President." (Garfield had picked Chester A. Arthur, a Stalwart, to appease that wing of the party).
Garfield was 49. He barely had 100 days; his agonized dying lasted as long as his Presidency.
The bottom line is that even in those seemingly more innocent times, America was rife with violent hate against politicians who stood in the way of certain interests. (In Garfield's case, it was what they called "boodle" or bribes). That is why the GOP needs to do what it can to crack down on the ugliness we saw demonstrated by the Republicans last night. And, with Obama, is added the all-powerful race element. Obama's adversaries oppose his policies but even more they despise his
=================================================
WHERE do you get this stuff? The assassin SUPPORTED Garfield in the election and was disappointed that he wasn't rewarded with a plum job. To fit your scenario, we'd have to be profiling unhappy Democrats who didn't get the job they wanted in the Obama administration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield_assassination
After failing in several ventures—theology, a law practice, bill collecting, time in the Oneida Community—Charles Guiteau's interest turned to politics. He wrote a speech in support of Ulysses S. Grant called "Grant vs. Hancock", which he subsequently revised to "Garfield vs. Hancock" after Garfield won the Republican nomination in the 1880 presidential campaign. Guiteau never even delivered the speech in a public setting, instead printing up several hundred copies[3], but he believed that this speech along with his other efforts were largely responsible for Garfield's narrow victory over Winfield S. Hancock in the election of 1880. Guiteau believed he should be awarded a diplomatic post for his vital assistance, first asking for Vienna, then settling for Paris[4]. He loitered around Republican headquarters in New York City during the 1880 campaign, expecting rewards for his effort, to no avail.[5] Still believing he would be rewarded, Guiteau arrived in Washington on March 5, the day after Garfield's inauguration, and actually obtained entrance to the White House and saw the President on March 8, dropping off a copy of his speech.[6] He proceeded to spend the next two months roaming around Washington, shuffling back and forth between the State Department and the White House, approaching various Cabinet members and other prominent Republicans and seeking support, to no avail. Guiteau was destitute and increasingly slovenly due to wearing the same clothes every day, the only clothes he owned, but he did not give up. On May 13, 1881, he was banned from the White House waiting room. On May 14, 1881, he was finally told personally never to return by Secretary of State James G. Blaine: "Never speak to me again of the Paris consulship as long as you live."[7]
After this encounter, Guiteau decided that he had been commanded to kill the ungrateful President. Guiteau borrowed $15 and went out to purchase a revolver.
As he surrendered to authorities, Guiteau uttered the exulting words, repeated everywhere: "'I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts! I did it and I want to be arrested! Arthur is President now!'"[20] This statement briefly led to unfounded suspicions that Arthur or his supporters had put Guiteau up to the crime.
September 10, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I know this stuff. I've always read books. I don't get my info from wikipedia.
Yes, Guiteau voted for Garfield. He was a Republican and also an assassin.
But he was a Grant Republican who hated Garfield.
Read the Ackerman book or any book on the subject.
September 10, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I know this stuff. I've always read books. I don't get my info from wikipedia.
Yes, Guiteau voted for Garfield. He was a Republican and also an assassin.
But he was a Grant Republican who hated Garfield.
Read the Ackerman book or any book on the subject
===========================================
Actually, you don't. You've just tortured history to try and make it fit your agenda when it doesn't. I've read lots on this period too, and only link wiki because it's easy to grab. Aren't we just superior?
Guiteau was an unbalanced individual who threw himself (in his mind) into Garfield's campaign and was devastated when he wasn't rewarded after Garfield's victory. There is zero correspondence in that situation with the present - I mean unless you know lots of Democrats who hate Obama because he didn't give them jobs.
You're much like liberals who like to cite all the segregationist hostility in Texas to Kennedy before his assassination, only to miss the point that Oswald was really a Marxist sympathizer and didn't fit the segregationist profile at all.
September 10, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're conflating Guiteau's public acts and his private thoughts. I'll forgive you because I'm a magnanimous sort. May others choose similarly.
Guiteau wrote:
"I read the newspapers carefully, for and against the Administration, and gradually the convictions settled on me that the President's removal was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men that made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the Republic.
"In the President's madness he has wrecked the once grand old Republican party; and for this he dies.
"This is not murder. It is a political necessity."
Now, that he once supported Grant, then supported Garfield, and then had his rage stoked by the administration's refusal to make him Ambassador to Mars: this has no bearing whatsoever on the work done on his psyche by those who believed that Guiteau was a "traitor to the men that made him."
The argument to "political necessity" is eerily reminiscent of the ravings of the current crop of fat, cowardly blowhards, who'd like nothing more than to restore this country to white folks. Sorry, but it's that simple: the Republicant party has become the party of white folks and self-hating negores--and this, of course, is itself an amazement worthy of volumes.
Oh, and Mr. Miller: you seem to have gotten lost and started posting rants about Democrats on the wrong page. That it happened to a fringe of the Republican party that orchestrated the unfortunate Garfield affair is no more relevant than the fact that Democrats are a calculating lot who, at the time, were happy to throw any part of the populace under the trolley to win an election. That merely makes both parties scummy; but the moral of the Guiteau story is beyond that particular, boring argument.
September 11, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
" Laus Deo!"
With Charity for All
Lot of Democrates dont like the Free medical care. My father in law will not return my call, he is a Dr. and voted for Obama and know what government care means, 'skin in the game' is an understatement.
September 10, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ. Great post. One of your best. Keep em comming, and thanks for the book tip.
September 10, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Salladin
September 11, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The front runner in 1880 was not Grant, rather it was Winfield Scott Hancock, who lost what still remains the closest election in U.S. history.
It was electoral chicanery in the city of New York which tilted the election to Garfield. Ever since his extraordinary exploits in the Civil War, Hancock's career and reputation had been accosted by Grant and associates. The spotlight had long shone on Grant, but it was truly Hancock who had made the greatest difference on so many days of battle, quite particularly on the last day of the Battle of Chancellorsville.
If not for Hancock's actions there, the war would have soon ended, in favor of the Confederacy. The Battle of Gettysburg, a few weeks hence, would simply never have occurred. Lee and his forces would have attacked Washington from the south.
September 11, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting but irrelevant. I'm talking about the GOP.
Anyway, the Democratic party from Jefferson through FDR was the party of racism, disenfranchisement of blacks, and the Old South.
Hancock was a good general but his party still smelled of the treason of 1861.
That is why there were only two "Democrats" between 1860 and 1932: Cleveland and Wilson. Both were Dixiecrats (although Cleveland was a northerner).
Electoral chicanery in NY was a blip compared to the Democrats' use of terror in the south to keep blacks from voting.
That Democratic party started dying with FDR and LBJ killed it dead. As a result, the party of Lincoln is now the racist party and the Solid South is Solid GOP.
September 11, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was only a matter of time before this would hit the page:
What's next? A reference to Hitler?By the way, the democratic party was the party of racists right up until the civil rights movement started in the 50s. That was when the GOP went "south" to confront a democratic party rising in popularity and polluted its ranks by bring in your party's racists.
Prego.
September 11, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, MJ: and a sobering reminder of where untrammeled violent rhetoric can lead even a "civilized" society. But I think the electoral dynamic of 1880, as you lay it out, is a bit oversimplified. Yes, Grant's unusual post-term bid for re-relection (backed by the Corruption Lobby of the day) was a problem for the GOP - but they weren't completely stupid, or in the bag. There was a considerable anti-corruption movement afoot, and the GOP PTW knew that the electorate in general (embarrassed by the endemic graft and shenanigans like the Tilden-Hayes fiasco) weren't an absolute lock for Republican votes, given an attractive- (and clean-)enough Dem alternative (like Hancock). Nominating the likes of Garfield - honest enough, but thought unlikely to seriously rock the gravy-boat - was pretty much the only way to go: and, as pointed out, the election was still pretty close, thanks to the recent reenfranchisements in the South.
But subsequent history proved the GOP correct in their choices for frontmen: Chester Arthur, hackish mediocrity that he was, was pretty much forced by public anguish over the Garfield assassination (which attempt to paint Guiteau as merely a "lone wacko" didn't much assuage) to enact a bunch of governmental reforms, which enraged his own Party, didn't impress the anti-corruption crusaders, and led to the election of 1884. There, the Republicans threw off all pretenses of any commitment to reform, and "doubled down"; nominating the consummate corrupt insider, James G. Blaine. Who got his grafting ass handed to him by Grover Cleveland.
September 11, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most "violent" political leaders have not been personally violent (Hitler, Mugabe, the list goes ever on), but incited others to act -- they channeled others' resentments and rage. Worth remembering.
September 11, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink