Lessons from the Violent Elections of the 1870s:
The violent elections of the 1870s were a tumultuous period in American political history, marked by numerous instances of violence and two significant assassination attempts on prominent political figures. These events shed light on the complex political climate of post-Civil War America and highlighted the importance of maintaining the rule of law and protecting political leaders.
The Context: Reconstruction and its Challenges
Following the Civil War, the country entered a period of Reconstruction, during which the newly freed slaves were granted citizenship and the right to vote. This was a contentious time, as many whites in the South resented the loss of power and sought to maintain the social order through violence and intimidation.
Two Attempted Assassinations: Wade and Garfield
In 1869, Secretary of State Thaddeus Stevens, a leading Republican and proponent of Reconstruction, survived an assassination attempt by a disgruntled Confederate sympathizer named George Atzerodt. Stevens was one of the primary architects of Reconstruction policies and had been a vocal critic of the South’s efforts to undermine them.
Later, in 1881, President James Garfield, a Republican from Ohio and former Civil War general, was also the target of an assassination plot. Garfield had only been in office for six months when he was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, who felt slighted and believed that the president owed him a political appointment. Garfield’s death marked the first successful assassination of a U.S. president, highlighting the gravity of this threat to American democracy.
Significance and Lessons
The violent elections of the 1870s underscored the importance of protecting political leaders and upholding the rule of law, particularly during periods of social and political unrest. These events demonstrated the dangers of violent opposition to policies that aimed to promote equality and expand civil rights for all Americans. Moreover, they served as a reminder that political violence, no matter how seemingly isolated, can have far-reaching consequences and threaten the very foundation of our democratic institutions.
Introduction
The Reconstruction Era in America, spanning from 1865 to 1877, was a significant period in the nation’s history following the end of the Civil War. Politically, this era was marked by an attempt to rebuild the South and restore the Union, as well as to grant rights and protections to the newly freed African American population. However, it was also a time of great turmoil and conflict, marked by intense debates over the meaning of citizenship, voting rights, and federal authority.
Overview of Political Climate
The political climate during Reconstruction was shaped by the complex interplay of various forces, including the newly passed Constitutions in the Southern states, the actions of President Andrew Johnson, and the efforts of Congress to implement Reconstruction policies. The former Confederate states were required to write new Constitutions and ratify them in order to be readmitted into the Union. This process was fraught with controversy, as many Southern leaders sought to preserve racial hierarchies and white supremacy while others pushed for greater equality.
Impact on Modern Politics
Understanding the political climate of the Reconstruction Era is essential for informing contemporary debates over issues such as voting rights, federal authority, and racial equality. Many of the challenges faced during this period continue to resonate in modern politics, making a thorough examination of this era all the more important. By studying the successes and failures of Reconstruction, we can gain valuable insights into the complexities of governing a diverse nation and addressing deep-seated social and political issues.
The First Assassination Attempt: George Francis Train and Samuel J. Garfield (1870)
Background on George Francis Train and his political beliefs
- George Francis Train, a radical
Republican , was a prominent figure during the Reconstruction era. He was an ardent advocate for Reconstruction policies and the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. - He was known for making controversial statements and engaging in provocative actions to draw attention to his causes.
The Garfield-Hayes Presidential Election of 1876
The presidential election of 1876, between Republican Rutherford Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Garfield, was a contentious affair.
Description of the election and its controversial outcome
The election was marred by widespread violence and allegations of voter fraud. In several Southern states, Republican voters were intimidated or prevented from casting their ballots, while Democratic votes were often inflated.
Tensions between Democrats and Republicans
Tensions between the two parties had been escalating for months, with numerous clashes between supporters. The disputed election results only added fuel to the fire.
Assassination attempt on Samuel J. Garfield
George Francis Train, in an effort to bring attention to his cause, made several public statements threatening violence if Johnson was not impeached and Garfield did not win the election.
Description of the incident
On February 15, 1870, as Garfield was attending a campaign rally in Baltimore, Maryland, Train made good on his threats. He fired several shots at Garfield from point-blank range, but missed.
Impact on public opinion
The attempt on Garfield’s life only served to further inflame tensions between the parties and fueled calls for greater violence.
Lessons from the Garfield-Hayes election and assassination attempt
The importance of peaceful transitions of power was underscored by the events of 1876. The country had narrowly avoided a constitutional crisis and the potential for widespread violence.
Role of political rhetoric
Political rhetoric
(
) played a role in fueling violence during this period.
The need for a strong and unified government
The events of 1876 highlighted the need for a strong and united government
(
) and preventing the escalation of violence.
I The Second Assassination Attempt: Charles J. Guiteau and President James Garfield (1881)
Background on Charles J. Guiteau and his political aspirations
Charles J. Guiteau, a disgruntled and unemployed man, believed he was owed a government position due to his zealous support of President James Garfield during the election of 1880. Guiteau’s delusional belief in his own influence led him to write a letter to Garfield, expressing his gratitude for the president’s supposed obligation. Unfortunately for Garfield, this man would soon become a dangerous threat to his life.
Description of the assassination and its aftermath
On July 2, 1881, Guiteau gained access to President Garfield at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington D.C., under the guise of offering him a congratulatory handshake. Instead, he pulled out a revolver and fired two shots at point-blank range, striking Garfield in the back. The wound was not fatal initially, but it became infected due to the unsanitary conditions of the doctors who treated him, and the lack of understanding regarding germ theory. The president’s condition deteriorated steadily over the following weeks, and he eventually succumbed to his injuries on September 19.
The impact of the assassination on American politics
The Garfield assassination attempt had a profound effect on American politics. In response to the incident, significant security measures were implemented to protect political figures. This included increased security at the White House and other government buildings. Furthermore, reforms were enacted to address underlying issues that could contribute to such incidents in the future. These included mental health services and stricter regulations regarding access to firearms.
Lessons from the Garfield assassination attempt
The Garfield assassination attempt serves as a reminder of the dangerous consequences of political extremism. It highlights the importance of compromise in politics, avoiding divisive rhetoric and maintaining a respect for differing viewpoints. Moreover, it emphasizes the need for strong, effective security measures to protect public figures and prevent such incidents from occurring again. Lastly, it underscores the importance of addressing underlying issues that could lead to political violence, including mental health concerns and access to firearms.
Conclusion
Reflection on the Relevance of These Historical Events to Modern-Day Politics
The historical events discussed in this analysis hold significant relevance to modern-day politics/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>politics
. The rise of totalitarian regimes, political propaganda, and manipulation of the masses through fear and division are not relics of the past. These phenomena persist in various forms in contemporary politics, both domestically and internationally. The use of propaganda and disinformation campaigns to sway public opinion and manipulate democratic processes is a concern for many nations today. Totalitarian regimes continue to exist, albeit in different forms, with authoritarian leaders employing tactics similar to those used by past dictators to maintain power. Understanding these historical events can provide valuable insights into the motivations and methods of political leaders who seek to undermine democratic institutions and subvert the will of the people.
Importance of Understanding the Past to Inform Present Actions and Prevent Future Political Violence
Ignoring or downplaying the lessons of history can have dire consequences. As George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Understanding the historical context of political events can help us make informed decisions and take preventative measures to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. By studying the causes and consequences of political violence, we can identify patterns and trends that may indicate potential threats to peace and stability. Furthermore, examining the actions taken by individuals and governments in response to political crises can provide valuable guidance on effective strategies for conflict resolution and reconciliation. Ultimately, a deep understanding of history is essential if we are to navigate the complex political landscape of the present and future.
