Talk:James A. Garfield

trivia

First Trivia entry: Of the 256 proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem in the "Pythagorean Proposition" by Elisha Scott Loomis, is attributed to Garfield.

what is attributed to Garfield?? i not a native english speaker and this sentence doesn't make any sense to me. could someone with knowledge about what is attributed to Garfield (a theorem, a book,.. ??) clear this sentence up. thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclador (talk • contribs) 10:56, June 22 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't resist adding the link to Mathworld. It is very incidental to history, but Garfield is, AFAIK, the only President of the United States to have a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem (or any theorem for that matter) to his name. Io 20:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

death by doctor

Should there be discussion in the article of the possibility that Garfield's doctors actually killed him? He apparently actually could have survived being shot but over-aggressive medical attention was the proximate cause of death. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:08 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC) Italic text

---

Wrote with both hands...

The old book: Incredible But True states that Garfield could write with both hands at once. He would dazzle people by writing with both hands in Latin and Greek. That is too awesome to skip over. Things like that get people interested in history and it sure would dazzle a teacher if some young lad put that on his school paper. Garfield was an amazing man, and yes his theorem proof should be noted too! If someone can find a good source please help me out with this one! JoeHenzi 11:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. He could write simultaneously in two different languages, both of which are incredibly difficult for English-speakers to master. Sure. And his method was magic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.18.172 (talk) 06:44, November 16 2006 (UTC)

Handedness

Why does the fact that Garfield was the first left-handed President merit mention in the first sentence, and how does it square with the later claim that he was ambidextrous? Josh Cherry 03:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) I fixed that little error. --Kross 01:10, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking, it is possible to be simultaneously left handed ambidextrous.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.47.92 (talk) 23:54, July 16 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it is not, as the literal meaning of ambidextrous is "having two right hands."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.150.118 (talk) 18:46, July 29 2006 (UTC)

Did some fixing

I moved the picture of Garfield (when he was 16) to the left side. That seems to have gotten rid of that big empty space that used to be there. --Kross 22:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

POV issues

Consider removing the last sentence from the Assassination section as it lacks NPOV. See for yourself: "One of the most intelligent men ever to live in the White House, Garfield had great - but tragically unfulfilled - potential." I don't think a Wikipedia article on Garfield ought to speculate on his potential, unfulfilled or otherwise. As for the most intelligent portion, I think a reader would be better served by being furnished with information to this end (his Pythagorean Theorem proof, writing with both hands and the rest) and then concluding on their own that Garfield might be one of the most intelligent men ever to live in the White House, rather than being told by an encyclopedia that he was.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.20.133 (talk) 02:39, August 2 2005 (UTC)

Place where Garfield was shot.

President Garfield was shot in the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station on the Mall in Washington not in Union Station (which did not open until 1907). The B&P station was demolished after Union Station was built.Philabrown 12:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Arthur's Supporters"?

The entry notes that there was short-lived speculation that Guiteau may have been a supporter of Vice President Arthur. I don't dispute this, but, and please forgive my ignorance, was the nature of the relationship between the President and the Vice President different then than it is now? I know the process of the Vice President's election was once different than it is now; the Vice President entry, for example, mentions the differences between original Constitutional standard and the one defined in Twelfth Amendment and those between that Amendment and the currently-accepted standard; however, none of these but the first seem to me to correlate to an idea that a Vice President's supporter(s) may assassinate the President, and Garfield's assassination was, of course, long after the Amendment's ratification.

I would think it helpful if someone familiar with the relevant details of, generally, the relationship between the offices of the President and Vice President in the era of Garfield's assassination or, more specifically, the relationship between Garfield and Arthur to explain shortly in the article why it was that people at the time would think that the Vice President or his supporters might've assassinated the President; that suspicion seems to contrast with the current notion of the relationship between the President and Vice President. DTM 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Added a brief notation to this effect in the segment on the assassination. At the time, Vice-Presidential candidates were often chosen for partisan political advantage--to placate various factions of the party, either within the party apparatus or among the voters. To a limited degree, this is still true, but then it was often done without any regard for political compatibility or skills. As a Stalwart, Arthur might conceivably have been so opposed to Garfield's policies as to desire to seize power, although subsequent events showed clearly that he did not. Mabus101 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Doctor, Doctor

I found this passage in a July 25, 2006, New York Times article about the Garfield assassination. The information about Bliss is both bizarre and amusing and seems worthy of inclusion.

Bell's invention failed on two occasions to pinpoint the bullet's location. Historians say this may have been because the device picked up metal coils in the president’s mattress, or because Bell searched only on the right side of Garfield's body, where the lead physician, Dr. Doctor Willard Bliss — Doctor was his given name — had come to believe the bullet was lodged.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.150.118 (talk) 18:46, July 29 2006 (UTC)

Actions as President

At some point, we should note what he actually did in the four months between taking office and being shot. Biruitorul 08:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Things that need to be added to this artcile

This article is good for basic information, but needs to things added to it that are very important: Star Route Scandal and involvement with Roscoe Conkling —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.212.112 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

No lasagna trivia

While amusing, there is little relation between Garfield the fictional lasagna-loving cat and President Garfield. Cartoonist Jim Davis' middle name is Garfield, after his grandfather, who was named after the president. [1] The connection ends there. I'm removing the associated trivia item. --Adavidb 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an error

The very first line is wrong, I don't know the dates off hand but I know he served less than year not 50 years.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence includes the date range of Garfield's life, not his service as president. --Adavidb 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha. Hahahahahaha. Okay I am done laughing at myself. I don't know why I would think that. All the Wiki is like that. I am slow today. Sorry.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Garfield, KS

Garfield, KS is named after President Garfield after he visited there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.42.85.138 (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Little square between templates

When I view the templates at the bottom of the page, there is a little square between the "Presidents of the United States of America" and "United States Republican Party Presidential Nominees" templates. I can't work out where it is coming from. Any thoughts? Evil Monkey - Hello 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The small square was caused by the use of 'start box' and 'end box' templates surrounding the Presidents template — not a succession box, with which they're intended for use. I removed these start and end templates and the square is no longer displayed. —Adavidb 10:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Half-Breeds?

The Stalwarts strongly opposed Garfield's Half-Breeds

What are these Half-Breeds that are referred to but not explained? Please add something about that to the article. All I can think of is that old Cher song. —mjb 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the Half-Breeds; I added it as a wikilink within the Garfield article. —Adavidb 00:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Guiteau

This article perpetuates the common belief that assasin Guiteau was a "disgruntled office seeker." If you read Rosenberg's book, or read contemporary newspaper articles about the man, it is clear that Guiteau had a life-long battle with mental illness. Modern psychology would probably diagnose him as a paranoid schizophrenic. In any case, there is much evidence about his violent, sociopathic behavior since childhood. I'm not sure his condition rises to the level of psychopath, but in any case, by ascertaining that the man's problems had to do with his career choices is ludicrous. Not unlike Lee Harvey Oswald, Guiteau picked up and dropped various political causes in his life as an expression of his mental illness and extreme alienation from society, not the other way around. Are these people still held liable for their crimes? Yes; the insanity defense is rarely used or successful. But it would be far more accurate to say Garfield was assasinated by a mentally ill sociopath than a "disgruntled office seeker."Don 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with access to reliable sources, who can cite that information for verification, is welcome to use it to improve the article. —Adavidb 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sitting Senator

Garfield was not a Sitting Senator when he was elected president. He was a sitting member of the House of Representatives when he was elected President. He was in fact never a Sitting Senator in his entire life and never took his seat in the Senate. He was a Senator-elect when elected president, which is a different thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.48.3 (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He was elected to the Senate by the legislature, so he was technically one of the state's two Senators at that point. This whole deal has to do with the question of whether Harding was the first or second Senator elected to the Presidency. Facts About the Presidents stated that Harding was the second. That makes Garfield the first, although he was not yet a "sitting" Senator. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He was not a "sitting" Senator, but he was one of the two Senators from his state, as the one he replaced had left office. Senator-elect or otherwise, he was a Senator until he resigned the position to accept his election as President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Murdered in DC category

The Category:People murdered in Washington, D.C. was recently added and then removed in this edit, which noted that Garfield did not die for some time after he was shot. While he did not die in D.C., his murder certainly took place there. While his assassin could certainly make the same claim, he was found guilty of killing Garfield. I would agree if the category were "Deaths in Washington, D.C.]], but I am inclined to keep the category as it is titled in this article. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I contend that the name of the category is confusing when applied to someone who didn't die in the given location soon after the murder attempt. While it may be correct that Garfield was fatally wounded in Washington, D.C. – historians debate whether the president's doctors themselves contributed to his death – I don't believe it's correct to imply that Garfield was actually murdered (killed) in Washington. —ADavidB 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Being "murdered" somewhere doesn't mean you were "killed" there—you are confusing the meanings of the two words. You can be murdered in one locale and die in another, as Alansohn points out. If I am shot in Montana and then cross the border into Canada and die in Canada, I was "murdered" in Montana, but I died in Canada. The murderer would be charged under Montana law, not under Canadian law. The same principles apply here. Note that the shooter was convicted of murder in federal court, which has jurisdiction over D.C., so despite the prodding of Garfield's doctors, those no (legal) question that Garfield was murdered in Washington, D.C. A criminal takes his victim (and the victim's doctors) as he find him, and if the medical care sucks, it doesn't matter—it's still murder. In any case, if you disagreed with the category, you should have not deleted it outright, but at least included its parent, Category:People murdered in the United States. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What source are you using for your word definitions? A murder is an unlawful killing, based on every dictionary definition I've read. While legal actions may be based on the site of a crime's occurrence, wounding someone such that they die of complications months later somewhere else is not a killing at the place the incident first occurred. While I don't consider the term accurate in Garfield's case, I'd prefer a "murdered in the U.S." category over the DC-specific one, so will go ahead and change it as you suggested. —ADavidB 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing the words "murdered" and "killing", or more accurately, the ideas of being "murdered" somewhere and "dying" somewhere. They are not equivalents. Yes, murder is unlawful killing, but the murder takes place not where the person dies, but where the actions that precipitate death take place (that is, where the "murderer's" actions take place). The doctors were not convicted of murder, but the shooter was, whose actions took place in D.C. Thus, the murder took place in D.C., as the court determined. It's a fairly standard legal interpretation, used thousands of times in courts every year in U.S. courts as well as in other jurisdictions. I'm not sure why this is too difficult to understand. So far you seem to be the only confused person so I'm not sure if a change of category is really necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Weighing in to help with consensus: I'm in agreement with User:Good Olfactory. The terms have different meanings and took place in different locales. Garfield was murdered in DC and later died in New Jersey. The murder in DC didn't BECOME murder until Garfield died, but the murderous actions (and thus the murder itself) took place at the moment and locale of the shooting. This is a clear and imminently consistent legal distinction. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't state that I was confused, only that the "Murdered in DC" category name is confusing (in this unusual case of significant separation – in both time and distance – between Garfield's being shot and later dying). While my opinion on this hasn't changed, I will concede to use of the DC murder category.—ADavidB 05:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the concept of "the name is confusing" with the concept of "I am confused". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deaths by firearm category

Are there any objections to tightening the "Deaths by firearm in the United States" category to "Deaths by firearm in New Jersey"? —ADavidB 05:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon creating these, I wasn't sure where to place Garfield, so I left him in the parent category. I've no objection to him going in the NJ category if you think that makes sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean, there might be some confusion, since Garfield wasn't shot with a firearm in NJ? ;-) I'm kidding, though do see a parallel. Regardless, this and the other category should probably be consistent in their specificity. —ADavidB 05:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's because of the discussion above that I hesitated placing it in either the NJ or the DC category. I suppose that having him in the murdered in DC category and the firearm deaths in NJ would be a type of compromise situation, since he was legally murdered in DC but factually died in NJ. Then the article could be approached via the subcategories of Category:Washington, D.C. or the subcategories of Category:New Jersey. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivia - Direct Descendent?

In the Trivia section, we have:

"Garfield was a direct descendant of Mayflower passenger John Billington through his son Francis, another Mayflower passenger.[18]"

Would not a "direct descendent" be a continuous descent in the male line, making for a President Billington rather than Garfield?

76.199.66.245 (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)genie

As I understand it, the term "direct descendant" means related through a line of children, not necessarily all male children. In other words, there's a blood *parent/*child relationship between two individuals who are direct descendants, with the '*' allowing for potential 'grand-' or a number of 'great-grand-' prefixes. —ADavidB 05:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

House Resignation Date

It says in this article he was in Congress until March 3, 1881.

In Ohio's_19th_congressional_district, it says his last day was Nov. 8, 1880. Anyone know which is correct, and can we then fix to make the dates consistent? Simon12 (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely that he resigned right after the election. The last day of his term would be March 3 unless he resigned earlier. He had no need to resign before his term expired. It wasn't commonly done in those days. Do we have evidence he resigned early?  Randall Bart   Talk  20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

find a better reference

One of the citations is for SparkNotes. If anyone can find a better reference, it'd be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Kingturtle (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a perhaps more reliable reference source and put it in place of the SparkNotes one. —ADavidB 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks! Kingturtle (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion

It would probasbly be more accurate to say that Garfield was a member of the Disciples of Christ, not the Church of Christ. Garfield was from the North, definitely not a pacifist, and was one of the founders of the Christian Standard, which came down on the side of the Disciples. The split that produced the Churches of Christ was not formally recognized until 1906. Dwight911 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)