The Man Who Killed a President Over a Political Appointment
Charles Guiteau assassinated James Garfield in 1881. But, why?
WalkÂing inÂto the main exÂhibÂit hall of the MĂźtÂter muÂseum in PhilÂadelphia is like enÂterÂing a mausoÂleum. The reÂmains of the deÂparÂted are enÂcased in its walls, but inÂstead of marble nameÂplates obÂscurÂing the view, glass panes alÂlow visÂitÂors to look in and marÂvel. Each speÂciÂmen tells a story of a life not norÂmal: From the skelÂetÂon of a man whose muscles turned to bone, to the worldâs largest huÂman colon (it looks like a gnarly root of an oak tree), and the atÂtached livÂers of conÂjoined twins. All found their way here through donaÂtion or beÂcause docÂtors of yore would take souvenÂirs from their autopÂsies. Iâve come to check out one speÂciÂmen in parÂticÂuÂlar.
âThese are all my brains,â curÂatÂor Anna Dhody says, scanÂning a shelf in the muÂseumâs celÂlar. Weâre in the wet speÂciÂmen room, a reÂstricÂted area that reÂsembles a walk-in pantry from hell. Cold like a groÂcerâs freezÂer aisle, its shelves are crammed with jars of asÂsorÂted huÂman visÂcera shinÂing sickly unÂder fluorÂesÂcent lightÂing. âTheÂorÂetÂicÂally he should be here with all my brains,â she says. A few beats pass in siÂlence. âAhh, here we go.â
Next to a shalÂlow dish of kneeÂcaps, thatâs where we find itââCharlie,â as Dhody calls him. Â (Ten years curÂatÂing a muÂseum of medÂicÂal odditÂies and you too will be on first-name basis with the speÂciÂmens, she says.)
In a slender jar, sevÂerÂal secÂtions of cenÂtury-plus-old brain floatâlike marÂinÂated arÂtichokes in a jarâin a soluÂtion of 70 perÂcent alÂcoÂhol and 30 perÂcent waÂter. A laÂbel reads:Â âPorÂtions of brain of Charles Guiteau, asÂsasÂsin of PresÂidÂent GarÂfield.â
The brain of Charles Guiteau is more than an hisÂtorÂicÂal oddity. SciÂentÂists at the time of his death thought it could unÂlock a mysÂtery that had plagued and terÂrorÂized huÂmanÂity from the beÂginÂning: What sepÂarÂates a norÂmal man who lives by the law from a man moÂtivÂated senseÂlessly to murder? Guiteauâs murÂderÂous act, his apÂparÂent inÂsanÂity, and the enÂsuÂing diaÂgnosÂis of his brain came at a point in hisÂtory where soÂciÂety was shiftÂing away from the idea of sin beÂing a black and white quesÂtion, to one where we reÂcogÂnize thereâs a great field of gray obÂscurÂing these anÂswers.
One hunÂdred thirty years ago, those pieces of gray matÂter resided in the body of a five-foot-five man with a crooked smile and a damned desÂtiny.
Charles Guiteau, born SeptemÂber 8, 1841 in FreeÂport Illinois, was, by all acÂcounts, not a stable perÂson. Guiteau bounced around from beÂing a failed lawÂyer, a charÂlatÂan preachÂer, and a sticky fingered bill colÂlectÂor. He dodged rent his whole life, and subÂsided mainly from the symÂpathy of his sisÂter. He abÂused his wife, and when he wanted to diÂvorce her, he slept with a prosÂtiÂtute to speed up the proÂceedÂings. Guiteau was quick to jump on bandÂwagÂons, just to abanÂdon them in a fury. Like that time he joined the inÂfamÂous Oneida comÂmunity, a utoÂpiÂan-reÂliÂgious (and sex) comÂmune in upÂstate New York. Guiteau worÂshipped its leadÂer John NoyesââI have perÂfect, enÂtire and abÂsoÂlute conÂfidÂence in him in all things,â Guiteau wrote of himâbeÂfore fleeÂing (twice) and threatÂenÂing Noyes with blackÂmail. Guiteau would later plaÂgiÂarÂize Noyesâs writÂings as his own. Â
By 1875, Guiteauâs fathÂer thought his son had been posÂsessed by the devÂil. His sisÂterâs physÂiÂcian had deÂclared him inÂsane after he threatened her with an axe. Even Noyesâa man who pracÂticed a life of free-love polyamorÂism, and preached that JeÂsus had reÂturned to Earth in the year 70 A.D.âlater wrote proÂsecÂutors that âGuiteauâs inÂsanÂity had alÂways conÂsisted of viÂcious and irÂreÂsponsÂible habits.â
As he aged, Guiteau inÂcreasÂingly felt the diÂvine dicÂtatÂing his acÂtions. âLike Paul, he had been chosen to preach a new GosÂpel,â The TriÂal of the AsÂsasÂsin Guiteau, a 1968 hisÂtory of the case, exÂplains of his menÂtal state.
Guiteau was crazy by many acÂcounts, but not deÂbilÂitÂatÂingly so. AcÂquaintÂances ofÂten misÂtook him for an ecÂcentÂric. He was able to make it through life without beÂing picked up by poÂlice or reÂstrained in asylum.
That was, unÂtil 1880, when the voices inÂside his head led him to the Grand Old ReÂpubÂlicÂan party.
![](https://img.nationaljournal.com/media/media/2015/10/05/3g06402v.jpg?i10c=img.resize(width:740))
Â
BeÂfore Guiteau murdered GarÂfield, he was a die-hard supÂportÂer. In the lead up to the 1880 elecÂtion, Guiteau would haunt ReÂpubÂlicÂan party ofÂfices, begÂging to conÂtribÂute to the elecÂtion efÂfort. He was reÂlentÂless, and party ofÂfiÂcials caved and alÂlowed him to deÂlivÂer one inÂcoÂherÂent speech to a small group of black voters in New York City.
The conÂtriÂbuÂtion was minÂimÂal, but in Guiteauâs mind, âIt was this idea that elecÂted GenÂerÂal GarÂfield,â he wrote. And what should be his reÂward? A cushy European dipÂloÂmatÂic post. First, he thought ViÂenna. No: only ParÂis would do.
After the elecÂtion, Guiteau moved to WashÂingÂton to colÂlect his imaÂgined prize. These were the days when any orÂdinÂary citÂizen could pay visÂits to ofÂfiÂcials. Guiteau roamed the halls of the State DeÂpartÂment and White House, imÂplorÂing anyÂone who would listen that he deÂserved a dipÂloÂmatÂic post.
MeanÂwhile, he was wastÂing away. The TriÂal of the AsÂsasÂsin Guiteau deÂscribes his state:
He had no source of inÂcome, no lecÂturÂing, no books to sell, no bills to colÂlect; he had no famÂily; he nevÂer had any friends. His clothes, shabby enough when he reached WashÂingÂton, were deÂteriÂorÂatÂing. Even in March, with snow on the ground, he went about without boots or an overÂcoat. By June, his worn sleeves were pulled down over his hands and his coat buttoned up to his neck, for he had no colÂlar and posÂsibly lacked a shirt as well.
The words stung, and set Guiteau off on a bizarre chain of loÂgic which would resÂult in his deÂmise. Blaine was a menÂace to the ReÂpubÂlicÂan party. To get rid of Blaine, he reasoned, he had to kill the presÂidÂent. After all, it was GarÂfieldâs fault that such a man served in the State DeÂpartÂment. Guiteau heard these inÂstrucÂtions from God himÂself. It wouldnât be an asÂsasÂsinÂaÂtion, but a diÂvinely orÂdained âreÂmovÂal.â The plan was esÂsenÂtially motiveÂless, as the the death of the presÂidÂent wouldnât stand to beÂneÂfit Guiteau or any ReÂpubÂlicÂan. âIn the presÂidÂentâs madÂness he has wrecked the once grand old ReÂpubÂlicÂan party; and for this he dies,â Guiteau wrote in a letÂter of adÂmisÂsion.
After weeks of careÂful stalkÂing, Guiteau shot GarÂfield, twice, at the BalÂtimore and Ohio train deÂpot in D.C. Upon beÂing shot GarÂfield said âI am a dead man.â Heâd lay in agony for 80 more days beÂfore that asÂserÂtion beÂcame true.
Guiteau nevÂer really had a shot of goÂing free in triÂal. He was the most hated man in AmerÂica, and the only perÂson to come to his deÂfense with his brothÂer-in-law, an atÂtorÂney with very little courtroom exÂperÂiÂence. Â DurÂing the triÂal, Guiteauâwho served as his own co-counÂselâwould shout obÂscenÂitÂies and broke out inÂto song on one ocÂcaÂsion. He also deÂclared âThe docÂtors killed GarÂfield, I just shot him.â (Which sounÂded crazy at the time, but acÂtuÂally has some truth to it. âHis docÂtors were âthe best docÂtorsâ meanÂing old school,â Dhody exÂplains. âThey had trained beÂfore the theÂory of anÂtiÂsepsis, so they were not takÂing the neÂcesÂsary preÂcauÂtions, they were not sterÂilÂizÂing inÂstruÂments they were not sterÂilÂizÂing hands.â They also beÂlieved a perÂson could be fed rectally, and would give GarÂfield regÂuÂlar beef broth enÂemas. GarÂfield died many pounds thinÂner and riddled with inÂfecÂtion.)
The triÂal beÂcame less about Guiteauâs guilt or inÂnoÂcence, and more of a battleÂground for the dayâs leadÂing menÂtal health reÂsearchÂers to deÂbate a deep, dark quesÂtion that stretched beyÂond the sad cirÂcumÂstances of the acÂcusedâs life: What was wrong with Guiteau and crimÂinÂals like him?
The meÂdia covered the case in a simÂilÂar ferÂvor as, many years later, it would the O.J. triÂal. Each day newsÂpaÂpers would pubÂlish tranÂscripts of the proÂceedÂings. On the first day of the triÂal, the courtroom was packed, standÂing room only, with more waitÂing outÂside. This was the biggest stage posÂsible for physÂiÂcians workÂing in the murky sciÂence of the mind. âNo single probÂlem diÂvided AmerÂicÂan psyÂchiÂatÂrists more sharply than the propÂer definÂiÂtion of crimÂinÂal reÂsponsÂibÂilÂity,â RosenÂberg writes in The TriÂal. Â
On triÂal with Guiteau were two theÂorÂies of culpÂabÂilÂity.
The one supÂporÂted by the proÂsecÂuÂtion was called the MânaghtÂen test, which stipÂuÂlated that if the acÂcused simply knew the difÂferÂence between right and wrong, he could be held acÂcountÂable for his acÂtions. Guiteau was inÂtelÂliÂgent enough to know that murder was a crime, and thereÂfore should be senÂtenced. Maybe it was a life of sin that led him to his conÂsistÂent erÂratÂic beÂhaÂviÂor, the proÂsecÂuÂtion adÂmitÂted. But like an alÂcoÂholÂic takÂing a first swig, that was on Guiteau. In the mind of John Gray, the suÂperÂinÂtendÂent of the Utica State HosÂpitÂal and the chief medÂicÂal witÂness of the proÂsecÂuÂtion, Guiteau was simply a deÂpraved inÂdiÂviduÂal. âI see nothÂing but a life of morÂal deÂgradÂaÂtion, morÂal obÂliquity, proÂfound selfishÂness, and disÂregÂard for the rights of othÂers,â Gray said at triÂal. âI see no evidÂence of inÂsanÂity, but simply a life swayed by his own pasÂsions.â
The deÂfenseâs physÂiÂcians proÂposed a much more radÂicÂal theÂory: That even though some people may know the difÂferÂence between right and wrong, they arenât capÂable of proÂcessing realÂity. EdÂward Charles Spitzka, a cocky 30-year-old who was a fierce opÂponÂent of the MânaghtÂen rule, testÂiÂfied on Guiteauâs beÂhalf.
Spitzka agreed with Gray: Yes, Guiteau had lived an imÂmorÂal life. But in Spitzkaâs view, Guiteau suffered from a menÂtal conÂdiÂtion that preÂvenÂted him from unÂderÂstandÂing morÂalÂity in the first place. He called this morÂal inÂsanÂityâsomething we might reÂgard today as soÂciopathyâwhich he deÂscribed as âa perÂson who is born with so deÂfectÂive a nervous orÂganÂizÂaÂtion that he is alÂtoÂgethÂer deÂprived of that morÂal sense.â
To Spitzka, Guiteauâs conÂdiÂtion was âanaÂlogÂous in that reÂspect to the conÂgenÂitÂal cripple who is born speechÂless, or with one leg shortÂer than the othÂer, or with any othÂer monÂstrous deÂvelÂopÂment, that we now and again see.â These poor souls should be pitÂied. Throughout the triÂal, Guiteau beÂlieved that the AmerÂicÂan people and the newly sworn in PresÂidÂent Chester ArÂthur would rally to his side, realÂizÂing Guiteau was an inÂstruÂment of the diÂvine. How is that based in any unÂderÂstandÂing of realÂity?
âWhen people brought up the noÂtion of morÂal inÂsanÂity, it was a way of broadÂenÂing the noÂtion of âwhat is a leÂgitÂimÂate illÂness,ââ RosenÂberg says on reÂcent phone call. âAnd it was sayÂing, in efÂfect, that you could be seemÂingly raÂtionÂal [but still menÂtally ill]âcogÂniÂtion was not enough of a test of health. Of course to many people that was subÂversÂive. It pushed the boundÂarÂies of what you could be held reÂsponsÂible for.â
Spitzka beÂlieved that this morÂal inÂsanÂity was the resÂult of a deÂformÂity in Guiteauâs brain, which he likely acÂquired through heredÂity. If only docÂtors could open him up, theyâd plainly be able to see the difÂferÂence.
DocÂtors did open him up. That is, after he was found guilty and senÂtenced to hang from a noose unÂtil dead. The chance to autopsy an inÂfamÂous crimÂinÂal was irÂresÂistÂible to top docÂtors at the time. âYou had all these ilÂlusÂtriÂous, well known physÂiÂcians, they all wanted to get their hands on his body, beÂcause they wanted to be the one who could say âhey, this is what did it,ââ Dhody says. âThey were tryÂing to find any visÂible, physÂicÂal reasÂon for why he did what he did.â One of the exÂamÂiners was a felÂlow at the colÂlege that runs the MĂźtÂter muÂseum, which is why âCharlieâ is in its colÂlecÂtion.
The autopsy didnât comÂpletely vinÂdicÂate Spitzkaâs ideas, but it did lend them some evidÂence. âSevÂerÂal medÂicÂal journÂals, preÂviÂously hosÂtile to any sugÂgesÂtion that the asÂsasÂsin might have been inÂsane, now reÂversed their poÂsÂiÂtionâ after the autopsy, RosenÂberg wrote.
The autopsy hinÂted that Guiteau may have conÂtracÂted syphÂilÂis durÂing one of his enÂcounÂters with prosÂtiÂtutes. In its later stages, syphÂilÂis inÂfects the brain and causes menÂtal inÂstabilÂity. âThe dura maÂter that surÂrounÂded his brain was thickÂer than norÂmal, that is someÂtimes a charÂacÂterÂistÂic of neurÂosyphÂilÂis,â Dhody says. The autopsy also found damÂage to blood vesÂsels in sevÂerÂal areas.
But that diaÂgnosÂis doesnât hold up unÂder modÂern-day scruÂtiny. George Paulson is the former chair of NeurÂoÂlogy at the Ohio State UniÂversity who, in 2006, reÂviewed the autopsy reÂcords for the journÂal HisÂtorÂicÂal NeurÂosÂcience. LookÂing back, he says, the evidÂence for neurÂosyphÂilÂis is inÂconÂclusÂive. âMost people with third stage syphÂilÂisâeven though they can be granÂdiÂose and paraÂnoid and get deÂmenÂted, usuÂally it doesnât hang on slowly for four or five years,â Paulson says. Thereâs usuÂally a draÂmatÂic loss of cogÂnitÂive funcÂtion, he says. Guiteau was crazy for decÂades. DocÂtors now could defÂinÂitely prove whethÂer he had syphÂilÂis post-mortem, Paulson says, but not in the 1880s. Itâs more likely Guiteau was schizoÂphrenÂic, with a side of granÂdiÂose narÂcissÂism.
The law likes hard rules, which menÂtal health avoids. We can all know crazy when we see it, but the line between a culpÂable mind and an inÂsane one isnât so easÂily drawn. These events ocÂcurred more than 13 decÂades ago, but simÂilÂar draÂmas play out in courtrooms every year. Who of sound mind could act like James Holmes, who knowÂingly and without much reasÂon opened fire in a crowded ColÂorÂado theatÂer? His inÂsanÂity plea was reÂjecÂted by a jury, though he was spared a death senÂtence. âIn a way [diaÂgnosÂis] makes it simple, but it doesnât make the soÂcial proÂcess about âwhat do you do about the guyâ simple,â RosenÂberg says.
Guiteau willed his body to a locÂal minÂisÂter who felt some symÂpathy for him, on the conÂdiÂtion that he would reÂceive a propÂer buriÂal. Grave robÂbing, esÂpeÂcially of the noÂtoriÂous, wasnât unÂpreÂcedÂenÂted. A secret gravesÂite was seÂlecÂted in the sub celÂlar of the Army jail. A 1890 New York Times inÂvestÂigÂaÂtion reÂcalls what happened next. âThe body lay there unÂdisÂturbed for a few days⌠It had been ceÂmenÂted inÂto its restÂing place, and the stone flags covered it so that is was proÂfoundly hidÂden.â But âunÂknown and mysÂterÂiÂous men were conÂstantly prowlÂing around.â PrisÂon ofÂfiÂcials feared that a guard or conÂvict may exÂhume Guiteau and sell his body.
So Guiteauâs body was dug up by the auÂthorÂitÂies in secret. It was boiled in a chemÂicÂal soluÂtion and reÂduced to a skelÂetÂon. âUpon the skull,â the Times reÂcalled, one could still see Guiteauâs âsarÂdonÂic leer.â The reÂmains were boxed up, âand, without ceÂreÂmony or fresh serÂvice, put away.â
The MĂźtÂter muÂseum has anÂothÂer famÂous brain in itâs colÂlecÂtion: AlÂbert EinÂsteinâs. In the main colÂlecÂtion room, a slice of his cauliÂflower-shaped craÂniÂal tisÂsue is mounÂted on a slide unÂder a magÂniÂfyÂing glass.
SciÂentÂists have been specÂuÂlatÂing for years what might have been difÂferÂent about it, what clues it holds to the secret of his sinÂguÂlar geniÂus. Most apÂparÂent was that is showed few signs of the neuroÂdeÂgenÂerÂaÂtion that come with aging. His autopsy also noted that his brain lacked a sylviÂan fisÂsure, which may have alÂlowed for inÂcreased neurÂoÂloÂgicÂal conÂnecÂtions across his mind. But for the most part, it was a norÂmal brain. Even a  little lightÂer than avÂerÂage.
What in the brain sepÂarÂates a man like EinÂstein from a man like Guiteau is not alÂways posÂsible to disÂcern post-mortem. GeniÂus or psyÂchosÂis can only be seen in life. âIn so many cases, you have these inÂcredÂibly menÂtally ill people but the brain is not physÂicÂally difÂferÂent upon gross exÂamÂinÂaÂtion,â Dhody says. âThatâs why studyÂing the brain is much easiÂer to do on livÂing inÂdiÂviduÂals than on dead; a dead brain is a dead brain. Itâs statÂicâall the elecÂtriÂcity, all the spark is gone.â Â Â
I think of that, starÂing inÂto the glass jar with Guiteauâs brain. Itâs just dead matÂter. The scafÂfoldÂing of a house, not its conÂtents. I take out my camÂera and start to take picÂtures.
âHe would have loved this,â Dhody says, as I start, tryÂing to capÂture his best angles. Â