“Murder of a President”: Analysis of Documentary

Need help with assignments?

Our qualified writers can create original, plagiarism-free papers in any format you choose (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, etc.)

Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.

Click Here To Order Now

After watching the documentary about President Garfield, I believe that he could have become one of the greatest presidents of the United States. Garfield’s attitude and the willingness to drive change were unmatched, but they got him killed eventually. The scenery and the costumes represented the time period perfectly, focusing on the tangible pretentiousness of Garfield’s era. Overall, the most interesting part of the documentary is how every little detail is highlighted by the director to prove that Garfield was a unique leader with an exceptional living experience. After watching the whole documentary, I do not think I have any problems with the contents or the looks of the episode about President Garfield. It was a rather content-rich story about a what-if president that could have changed the development vector for the whole country.

The main reason why I chose to learn about Garfield is his background. Despite the hardships, he persevered and became a role model for numerous contemporary Americans that needed guidance. The same can be said about historians who portrayed Garfield as a man who did not make any uninformed decisions under pressure (Rapley). Not only is this an important personal quality, but it also hints at how Garfield turned the office into a much more prestigious and powerful place. Garfield could have brought the country together after the Reconstruction if he had survived the attack.

Even though Winfield Hancock was a pro-unionist politician, he went against Garfield because of his rigid positions on Gettysburg and state rights. In order to refute Hancock’s statements, Garfield eventually capitalized on the lack of political experience and Hancock’s vague rhetoric (Rapley). Even though Garfield was involved in a scandal as well, he managed to neutralize Hancock and proceed to be elected as the new US President.

As Garfield’s assassin, Guiteau thought about being rewarded because he was moved by divine inspiration. After being allegedly convinced by God to kill Garfield, Guiteau started believing that it would get him a better position in Congress near Vice President Chester Arthur. Even Guiteau’s arrest did not avert him from believing that the vice president would save him from prison time. These delusions made the assassin believe in rewards that never existed in real life, causing him to kill Garfield in vain.

Another questionable issue to be discussed when discussing Garfield’s assassination is how the main doctor mistreated the US President and left him to die. Despite no vital organs or arteries being affected by the slug, Garfield had to suffer because of the bullet remaining in the pancreas region (Rapley). Unsterilized instruments and hands ultimately made things worse for the president, as he most likely died from an infection, not the bullet wound.

The most interesting thing about Garfield is that he actually never wanted to take a spot in the presidential office. It was a rather surreal experience for Garfield when he got a chance to serve as a compromise candidate to resolve the standoff between Blaine, Grant, and Sherman. Garfield easily won the election, but it actually took him by surprise because he never expected to become the US President. In a sense, it was a blessing for the United States to have Garfield as a president due to his pure intentions and ambition.

Work Cited

Rapley, Rob. Murder of a President. PBS, 2016.

Need help with assignments?

Our qualified writers can create original, plagiarism-free papers in any format you choose (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, etc.)

Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.

Click Here To Order Now