Gar: Garfield

See below for annotated biographies of Radical Republicans. Source: Scribner’s Dictionary of American Biography; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography.

GARFIELD, James Abram, 1831-1881, lawyer, Union general.  Lt. Colonel, 42nd Regiment Ohio Volunteers.  Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.  Twentieth President of the United States. 

(Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Volume II, pp. 599-605; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 4, Pt. 1, p. 145; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Volume 8, p. 715; Biographical Dictionary of the U.S. Congress 1774-1927 (1928); Congressional Globe).

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Volume 4, Pt. 1, pp. 145-150:

GARFIELD, JAMES ABRAM (November 19, 1831-September 19, 1881), soldier, congressman, president of the United States, was the last of the chief executives to be born in the typical American environment of the log cabin. He was preceded by at least six Garfields born in America, his immigrant ancestor having come to Massachusetts Bay with Winthrop (E. G. Porter, in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, XIX, 1882, p. 83). They were all "hungry for the horizon," and in successive generations they made the cabin and its attributes a part of the family inheritance (G. F. Hoar, Eulogy upon ... James Abram Garfield, 1882, p. 9). Abram Garfield, the father of James, was married in 1820 to Eliza Ballou, of old Rhode Island ancestry. He moved with his family to Ohio, and in 1827, when there were already three children, took a contract to be worked out in the construction of the Ohio Canal; but he abandoned this occupation and became a pioneer farmer in Cuyahoga County in time to welcome to his cabin his last child, James Abram, to become a member of the Disciples of Christ, and to die of a sudden "ague" in 1833. His widow became the man of the family and steered her children through poverty and uncertainty to an honored independence. It was a life of hardship for all of them, and Garfield knew every kind of frontier work, and nothing of that leisure and security that come from economic freedom. Before he was thirty he had scraped together an education, exhausted the intellectual offering of the Western Reserve Eclectic Institute (later Hiram College), joined the Disciples church, worked his way into and through Williams College with the class of 1856, and served as teacher and even principal of the Institute at Hiram Young for the position, he had as advantages nearly six feet of height, great breadth of shoulders, and a "round German-looking face," which he generally obscured with a heavy beard. He married, on November 11, 1858, Lucretia Rudolph, his childhood playmate, fellow student, and pupil. In the following year he was elected to the Ohio Senate as a Republican; and when in 1861 the crisis of the Civil War came he was a leader who upheld the right of the federal government to coerce a state.

His power of debate, already ripe, increased by his efforts as lay-preacher in his church, and his oratorical style, more florid than it was to be later in his life, made Garfield a useful agent in raising troops and stimulating enlistments. In the summer of 1861 he helped assemble a regiment, the 42nd Ohio Volunteer Infantry, that contained many of his Hiram students; and of this he became lieutenant-colonel, and then colonel. He had no military experience to warrant his appointment to a line command, but he possessed what was rare among citizen officers of the Civil War, a willingness to study and an ability to understand books. With a manual before him he made his recruits into soldiers; and he looked and acted his part so well that a few days after he and his regiment joined Major-General Don Carlos Buell in Kentucky he was given a brigade and was sent to the Big Sandy to confront Humphrey Marshall, a West Pointer commanding the Confederate army there (F. H. Mason, The Forty-Second Ohio Infantry: A History, 1876). At Middle Creek, on January 10, 1862, he won a victory that seemed important because of the scarcity of Union successes, and gained the rank of brigadier-general of volunteers. In April, with his new rank, he fought at Shiloh on the second day; and in the following winter he sat at Washington upon the famous court of inquiry in the Fitz-John Porter case (Senate Executive Document No. 37, 46 Congress, 1 Session). Bad health had brought him in from the field, but, his condition improving, he was reassigned to active duty and joined Rosecrans's Army of the Cumberland early in 1863. Here, with an option before him, he chose to be chief of staff rather than to command a brigade; and in this capacity he served through the Chickamauga campaign, winning high praise from subsequent military historians because of his comprehension of the duties of a staff officer (Whitelaw Reid, Ohio in the War: Her Statesmen, her Generals, and Soldiers, 1868). He organized a division of military information that was far ahead of prevailing American military practise. For five months the army of Rosecrans remained at Murfreesboro, Tennessee. It finally advanced, contrary to the almost unanimous judgment of its officers, chiefly because Rosecrans was convinced by Garfield of the wisdom of the action. In the engagement at Chickamauga that follow ed, on September 19, 20, 1863, Thomas was the hero and Rosecrans was discredited; while Garfield, chief of staff, gained wide repute for both courage and good sense. He was made a major-general of volunteers, dating from Chickamauga, as a reward; but he was through with fighting, as other opportunities had come to him. In December 1863, he took his seat in the Thirty-eighth Congress as representative from the 19th Ohio district.

The military successes of Garfield in the spring of 1862 made him a prominent political figure in northeastern Ohio, where anti-slavery radicalism had long maintained Joshua R. Giddings in Congress. Giddings had been displaced in 1858 by John Hutchins, whose retirement now was made easier by a new apportionment law passed after the census of 1860. Garfield, young and popular, nominated while he was in the service, was elected by a heavy majority. He did not take his seat until his military services had been rewarded by promotion; and it has been suggested that he surrendered his major-generalcy in December 1863 only because Lincoln believed that major-generals were easier to procure than Administration-Republican representatives. Eight times more, after 1862, Garfield came before the Republican convention of his district, sometimes after Democratic alterations in its boundaries had made Republican success highly doubtful, and once after the breath of scandal had endangered his future; every time he gained the nomination to succeed himself, and every time his people elected him to Congress. He was by nature a student, by training an orator, and by experience became a finished parliamentarian. His industry and his careful personal habits gave him other advantages, which he seized as they appeared. When Thaddeus Stevens passed off the stage of politics in 1868, James G. Blaine and Garfield knew they were ready to become the congressional leaders of their party (G. F. Hoar, Autobiography of Seventy Years, 1903, I, 239); and when, in 1876, Blaine was translated to the Senate, Garfield had no real rival in the House.

The committee assignments of Garfield indicate the development of his interests. He took an important place on the committee on military affairs when he appeared in 1863, for he was fresh from the battlefield and the war was yet to be won. In later sessions he served on the committee on appropriations and the committee on ways and means. He developed and trained an interest in public finance that was so sound as to endanger his political prospects. When the Northwest was carried away by the "Ohio" (greenback) idea, and advocated the issuance of irredeemable pa per money, Garfield stuck to the promise of a resumption of specie payments. He was too lukewarm on the subject of the protective tariff to suit all of his Republican constituents, for northeastern Ohio contained many factories that were in a period of rapid expansion between the Civil War and the panic of 1873. But his independence of thought caused him le ss trouble than did two of the scandals of a period full of scandals. He was named in the memorandum book of Oakes Ames [q. v.] as one of the congressmen who had accepted stock in the Credit Mobilier Company. This Garfield denied, and the proof was far from being complete (House Report, No. 77, 42 Congress, 3 Session); yet the suspicion remained an available weapon for his enemies throughout his life. In the case of the DeGolyer paving contract there was no doubt about the underlying fact. He did accept a retaining fee for services rendered to a company ambitious to furnish the City of Washington with wooden-block pavement (Nation, July 1, 1880, p. 5). The interpretation placed upon the episode by his critics was that while a member of Congress he took pay from a company seeking favors from the government of the District; his answer was that he had no connection with the District government by which the paving award was to be made, and that his services were not to be differentiated from those which congressmen and senators were continually performing when they practised the profession of law in the federal courts. Both of these scandals were before his constituents when he appeared for reelection in 1874, but he surmounted them.

When the Republican party was thrown into the minority in the House after the election of 1874, Garfield and Blaine were its most effective leaders, and worked together with no more suspicions and jealousies than were to be expected. When the latter became senator from Maine in 1876, Garfield became the Republican candidate for speaker and was leader of the minority for the rest of his service in the House. He had taken an active part in the canvass for Hayes, and had gone to Louisiana as one of the "visiting statesmen" to watch the count of votes. He was active in framing the compromise legislation that settled the electoral contest, and served as a member of the electoral commission, where he voted for Hayes on every count. His natural desire to take John Sherman's place as senator from Ohio, when the latter went into the cabinet, was repressed at the request of Hayes who wanted him to remain as Republican leader in the House; but in 1880 there was no such obstruction and the legislature elected him to succeed Allen G. Thurman for the term of six years after 1881. His name, said the Milwaukee Sentinel (January 10, 1880), "is exceptionally clean for a man who has been engaged for twenty years in active politics." He never sat in the Senate. On the day that his term would otherwise have begun he was inaugurated as president of the United States.

At the time of Garfield's election to the Senate, John Sherman might easily have sought the post for himself, for he expected to be out of the cabinet after March 4, 1881. But Sherman desired the Republican presidential nomination of 1880, and efforts were made to induce Garfield to promise support in exchange for Sherman's support for the senatorship. Garfield seems to have refused to make a bargain, although he let it be known that his attitude towards Sherman's candidacy would be affected by Sherman's treatment of his. After his election he still declined to pledge support to Sherman, but on January 26, 1880, he wrote: "I have no doubt that a decisive majority of our party in Ohio favors the nomination of John Sherman. He has earned this recognition" (Cincinnati Gazette, January 28, 1880). As the spring advanced, the substantial unanimity of Ohio for Sherman brought Garfield into the movement. He went to the Chicago national convention as head of the delegation and manager for Sherman, and on the floor attained a commanding position because of the soundness of his case and the skill with which he managed it. Blaine and Grant were the leading rivals of Sherman for the nomination, and the "Stalwart" leaders who directed the fight for Grant took unsound positions in insisting upon the unit rule for state delegations, and upon the right of state conventions to instruct district delegates how they should vote. Garfield conducted the fight for the freedom of the delegate and blocked the paths of both Grant and Blaine but could not procure a majority for his own candidate. On the thirty-fifth ballot sixteen of the twenty Wisconsin votes were shifted to Garfield, and on the next roll call the nomination was made unanimous in a stampede. The Grant forces, led by Conkling, Cameron, and Logan, never forgave Garfield for his opposition; Blaine, who could not have been nominated, was grateful for the defeat of Grant; Sherman laid his failure to the stubbornness of Blaine and only late in life came to believe that Garfield had been disloyal to him. James Ford Rhodes agrees with Sherman's later opinion, writing that "apparently the thought of his [Garfield's] trust was overpowered by the conviction that the prize was his without the usual hard preliminary work" (History of the United States from Hayes to McKinley, 1877-1896, 1919, p. 126). But no evidence of importance has been produced to show that the management of Sherman's cause was anything but loyal; and historical proofs are incapable of determining whether under any circumstances it was ethical for the manager of Sherman to accept the nomination for himself.

In the canvass of 1880 the followers of Blaine and Sherman gave good support to the ticket, but those of Grant sulked, the leaders offering little more than a formal pledge of devotion to the party. Roscoe Conkling [q.v.], in particular, was outraged and held aloof. The nomination from his own following of Chester A. Arthur as vice-president gave him no pleasure. The selection of Marshall Jewell [q.v.] to be chairman of the national committee was an affront since Jewell had been summarily dismissed by Grant from the office of postmaster-general in 1876. On August 5 Garfield made a pilgrimage to New York to sit with a meeting of the national committee, in the hope that the New York wing of the party might be persuaded to help the ticket, but Conkling could not be induced even to meet him. He distrusted, says his nephew and biographer, "Garfield's imperfect memory of a private conversation" (A. R. Conkling, The Life and Letters of Roscoe Conkling, 1889, p. 6n). In September, however, Conkling, Cameron, and Grant finally decided to recognize the candidate and made a western trip; in connection with this, Grant presided and Conkling spoke at a rally in Garfield's old district at Warren, Ohio, and they paid a visit of formal courtesy to Garfield at his Mentor farm; What they said to the candidate and what he said to them played a large part in the later political controversy as the "Treaty of Mentor," but cannot be documented. Garfield at least wrote in his diary, "I had no private conversation with the party" (T. C. Smith, post, p. 1032). The "Stalwarts" later chose to say that he promised them "fair" treatment as the price of support; and they insisted throughout his presidency that it was for them to determine in what fair treatment consisted. The canvass progressed somewhat more smoothly after this. On October 20 a New York weekly, Truth, printed what pretended to be a letter from Garfield to one H. L. Morey in which he advocated the importation of cheap Oriental labor for employment in factories. The Democratic national committee gave wide circulation to this document, in spite of its instant denunciation as a fraud; and Hancock and English, the Democratic candidates, secured five of the six electoral votes of California, where the feeling against the Chinese was strong. But Garfield and Arthur nevertheless carried the country with a plurality of about 10,000 popular votes, and with 214 electoral votes, against 155.

Garfield resigned from the House early in November. He surrendered the Senate seat as well, thus enabling John Sherman to return in 1881 to his old post as senator from Ohio. The President- Elect remained at Mentor, entrenched behind his "snow works" (Cincinnati Gazette, November 16, December 13, 1880), keeping up the hard-wood fires in his grates, smoking his large, thick cigars, and listening with non-committal patience to every one who came to see him. All the political leaders came, Conkling as well as Blaine, but the major appointments were kept guarded until Garfield was ready to transmit them to the Senate after his inauguration on March 4, 1881. He attempted to build a conciliation cabinet, but the appointment of James G. Blaine at its head as secretary of state caused it to be regarded by the "Stalwart" element in the party as a triumph for him. Continuously from the moment when Garfield asked Blaine to take the post, he was the recipient of letters of counsel from the latter. Much of the advice was good and some of it was taken. For the treasury, Garfield, appreciating the usual western "jealousy of Eastern financial leadership" (Harper's Weekly, March 26, 1881, p. 194), selected Senator William Windom of Minnesota, whom Sherman guaranteed as faithful to sound money and hostile to monopolies. Robert T. Lincoln, secretary of war, was a Grant man before the convention of 1880, but was appointed chiefly because of the tradition that he represented. William H. Hunt, who began life as a Southern Whig, became secretary of the navy. The selection of Wayne MacVeagh of Philadelphia as attorney-general involved an interesting situation, since he was at once a vigorous anti-Cameronian in Pennsylvania politics, and a son-in-law of old Simon Cameron. MacVeagh was known as a reformer, and was angered when Garfield named for assistant attorney- general William E. Chandler, a warm partisan of Blaine. Chandler, however, failed of confirmation by the Senate. Thomas L. James of New York, a Conkling man, had been postmaster of New York City, and became postmaster-general with a suspicion already lodged in his mind that the postal service needed purification. Senator Samuel J. Kirkwood of Iowa took the Interior department.

The doubts that had kept the "Stalwarts" lukewarm during the canvass, and had impelled Conkling to minatory counsels after election, were intensified as the winter of 1881 advanced. On February 11, with Arthur in the chair and Grant among those present, a commemorative dinner was given at Delmonico's in New York to Stephen W. Dorsey [q.v.]; and at this it was made to appear that to him as secretary of the national committee was due the credit for the victory of the Garfield ticket. His sharp strategy in carrying Indiana was specially commended. But Garfield's recognition of the "Stalwarts" was less than they expected, or at least desired. On March 23 he sent to the Senate a long list of minor nominees, including men of his own choice for the difficult New York custom-house posts that had occasioned Hayes so much trouble. Conkling took this as an open declaration of war against his friends, and as a violation of pledges that had been given him as the price of his support. He relied upon "senatorial courtesy" to accomplish the rejection of the distasteful nominees, advancing once more the theory that had been fought out with Hayes, that federal appointments within a state must be personally acceptable to the senator from that state. Garfield met the issue with more stubbornness than he usually displayed, telling John Hay, "They may take him [Robertson, the nominee for collector of the port] out of the Senate head first or feet first; I will never withdraw him" (New York Tribune, January 11, 1882).

The political battle soon shifted to the Post-Office Department, where Garfield and James had inherited a corrupt situation of old standing. The practise had been allowed to develop whereby rings of contractors in Washington received as lowest bidders scores of "star routes"-where the mails were carried by stage or rider rather than by railroad or steamboat. They then sublet the actual performance to local carriers, whom they paid what the service was worth, and by collusion later secured an unwarranted increase in the compensation to themselves. Ex-Senator Dorsey was heavily involved in "star route" contracts, as was the second assistant postmaster-general, Thomas J. Brady, in whose office the compensations were arranged. An investigation of Brady's work was under way in 1880 when he had asked for a deficiency appropriation of about $1,700,000. It h ad for a time appeared that the attacks were only the usual Democratic nagging of a Republican administration; but James brought to Garfield a report from the field workers of the department that uncovered more scandal than could be denied or concealed. Brady was dismissed on April 20, 1881, and a list of ninety-three suspected "star routes" was given to the press (Annual Report of the Postmaster-General, 1881, pp. 467, 516). The dismissal of Brady and the incidental involvement of Dorsey in charges of fraud came while the Senate was delaying the confirmation of the appointees of March 23. Attempts were made to scare off the investigation, by suggestion s that Garfield knew all about the frauds, had connived at them, and had been aware that a share of the plunder had found its way to the Republican campaign fund which Dorsey had administered so skilfully the preceding summer. (Much of Dorsey's campaign correspondence was printed by him in the New York Herald, December 18, 1882.) The reply of Garfield to this intimidation was to direct the preparation of the cases to be brought against the conspirators, and to withdraw all other nominations for New York positions except those for the custom-house, so as to emphasize his determination to maintain the independence of the president in matters of appointment. On M ay 4, however, a letter written August 23, 1880, was made public (New York Herald, May 5, 1881), showing that Garfield had th en inquired of Jay A. Hubbell, chairman of the Republican congressional campaign committee, how the departments were doing, and expressed the hope that Brady would help as much as possible.

It had been easier for opponents of Garfield to delay action on his appointments because the control of the Senate was insecure for several weeks after the inauguration. Accordingly, the Republican caucus, anxious not to break with the President and not to lose the aid of the votes influenced by Conkling, proceeded slowly in determining party policy. The public reactions respecting the "star route" frauds, and party bosses, and the hobbling theory that underlay Conkling's demand, determined the outcome of the contest. When it became quite clear that Garfield would not surrender, the caucus agreed to confirm. Conkling, with his New York colleague as trailer, resigned his seat upon the issue, and appealed to the New York legislature for a vindication which he did not receive. The two New York vacancies again threw the control of the Senate in doubt, but they transferred the turmoil from Washington to Albany, and gave to Garfield a release from the excitement and pressure that he had been under for two months. He now allowed Blaine to show the hand of the administration in foreign matters, issuing a call for a conference of the American republics to meet in Washington in 1882, and taking up where Hayes and Evarts had left it the contention with England that the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850 was no longer adequate (Alice F. Tyler, The Foreign Policy of James G. Blaine, 1927, pp. 38-41, 165).

Before either of these matters could be pushed to a conclusion, there came an enforced hiatus in the administration. On July 2, while at the Washington railroad station en route for a northern trip and a visit to his college, Garfield was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, an erratic if not crazy lawyer and a disappointed office-seeker, who declared loudly that his was a political crime, that he was a "Stalwart" and wanted Arthur to be president. For eleven weeks Garfield was nursed at the White House, and then at Elberon, New Jersey, a summer resort where his family was in residence. The official bulletins from his physicians were numerous, but hardly revealed from day to day whether he was incapacitated or not, in the meaning of the Constitution. He never left his sick-bed, however; and on September 19, 1881, he died. The friends of the murdered President raised a handsome fund for the support of his widow and the five children who survived him. One of the latter, James Rudolph Garfield, was to have a distinguished career in politics, serving as secretary of the interior from 1907 to 1909; a second, Harry Augustus Garfield, became president of Williams College and United States fuel administrator during the World War.

Garfield's tragic death silenced the voice of criticism and gave the tone to many laudatory biographies. Not enough of his administration had been revealed for any estimate of it to be possible. He had failed to bring about the harmony that both good nature and selfish interest had urged him to attempt. Whether he could have managed to rule without "Stalwart" support is uncertain. Up to the moment of his accidental nomination for the presidency his career, to an unusual degree, resembles that of a typical successful parliamentary leader in a country possessing responsible government and the cabinet system. He would in England have been in line for Downing Street and the office of premier. In the United States such talents as his could obtain their chance ori.ly by accident.

[In addition to the Congressional Record, where the speeches of Garfield's Jong career are to be found, and to the newspapers which gave him abundant space, and to his obituaries, among which the address by James G. Blaine in the hall of the House of Representatives, February 27, 1882, Congressional Record, 47 Congress, 1 Session, p. 1465, is the most distinguished, there are many eulogistic biographies of the campaign type. Probably the best of these is Burke A. Hinsdale, The Republican Text-Book for the Campaign of 1880: A Full History of General James A. Garfield's Public Life (1880). Garfield's speeches were collected by Hinsdale and published as The Works of James Abram Garfield (2 volumes, 1882-83). The personal papers, which Garfield preserved in great number, were carefully arranged immediately after his death but were not worked over for nearly a generation, when they were entrusted to Prof. Theodore C. Smith, of Williams College. They include extensive diaries and a large collection of letters. The resulting biography by Professor Smith, The Life and Letters of James Abram Garfield (2 volumes, 1925), one of the best presidential biographies in existence, is adequate for all reasonable needs.]

F. L. P-n.

Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography, 1888,Volume II, pp. 599-605:

GARFIELD, James Abram, twentieth president of the United States, born in Orange, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 19 November, 1831; died in Elberon, New Jersey, 19 September, 1881. His father, Abram Garfield, was a native of New York, but of Massachusetts ancestry, descended from Edward Garfield, an English Puritan, who in 1630 was one of the founders of Watertown. His mother, Eliza Ballou, was born in New Hampshire, of a Huguenot family that fled from France to New England after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in 1685. Garfield, therefore, was from lineage well represented in the struggles for civil and religious liberty, both in the Old and in the New World. Abram Garfield, his father, moved to Ohio in 1830, and settled in what was then known as “The Wilderness,” now as the “Western Reserve,'” which was occupied by Connecticut people. Abram Garfield made a prosperous beginning in his new home, but died, after a sudden illness, at the age of thirty-three, leaving a widow with four small children, of whom James was the youngest. In bringing up her family, unaided in a lonely cabin (see accompanying illustration), and impressing on them a high standard of moral and intellectual worth, Mrs. Garfield displayed an almost heroic courage. It was a life of struggle and privation; but the poverty of her home differed from that of cities or settled communities—it was the poverty of the frontier, all shared it, and all were bound closely together in a common struggle, where there were no humiliating contrasts in neighboring wealth. At three years of age James A. Garfield went to school in a log hut, learned to read, and began that habit of omnivorous reading which ended only with his life. At ten years of age he was accustomed to manual labor, helping out his mother's meagre income by work at home or on the farms of the neighbors. Labor was play to the healthy boy; he did it cheerfully, almost with enthusiasm, for his mother was a staunch Campbellite, whose hymns and songs sent her children to their tasks with a feeling that the work was consecrated; but work in winter always yielded its claims to those of the district school, where he made good progress, and was conspicuous for his assiduity. By the time he was fourteen, young Garfield had a fair knowledge of arithmetic and grammar, and was particularly apt in the facts of American history, which he had eagerly gathered from the meagre treatises that circulated in that remote section. Indeed, he read and re-read every book the scanty libraries of that part of the wilderness supplied, and many he learned by heart. Mr. Blaine attributes the dignity and earnestness of his style to his familiarity with the Bible and its literature, of which he was a constant student. His imagination was especially kindled by the tales of the sea; a love for adventure took strong possession of him. He so far yielded to it that in 1848 he went to Cleveland and proposed to ship as a sailor on board a lake schooner. But a glance showed him that the life was not the romance he had conceived. He turned promptly from the shore, but, loath to return home without adventure and without money, drove some months for a boat on the Ohio canal. Little is known of this experience, except that he secured promotion from the tow-path to the boat, and a story that he was strong enough and brave enough to hold his own against his companions, who were naturally a rough set. During the winter of 1849-'50 he attended the Geauga seminary at Chester, Ohio, about ten miles from his home. In the vacations he learned and practised the trade of a carpenter, helped at harvest, taught, did anything and everything to get money to pay for his schooling. After the first term, he asked and needed no aid from home; he had reached the point where he could support himself. At Chester he met Miss Lucretia Rudolph, his future wife. Attracted at first by her interest in the same intellectual pursuits, he quickly discovered sympathy in other tastes, and a congeniality of disposition, which paved the way for the one great love of his life. He was himself attractive at this time, exhibited many signs of intellectual superiority, and was physically a splendid specimen of vigorous young manhood. He studied hard, worked hard, cheerfully ready for any emergency, even that of the prize-ring; for, finding it a necessity, he one day thrashed the bully of the school in a stand-up fight. His nature, always religious, was at this period profoundly stirred in that direction. He was converted under the instructions of a Campbellite preacher, was baptized and received into that denomination. They called themselves “The Disciples,” contemned all doctrines and forms, and sought to direct their lives by the Scriptures, simply interpreted as any plain man would read them. This sanction to independent thinking, given by religion itself, must have had great influence in creating that broad and catholic spirit in this young disciple which kept his earnest nature out of the ruts of moral and intellectual bigotry. From this moment his zeal to get the best education grew warmer; he began to take wider views, to look beyond the present into the future. As soon as he finished his studies in Chester, he entered (1851) the Hiram eclectic institute (now Hiram college), at Hiram, Portage county, Ohio, the principal educational institution of his sect. He was not very quick of acquisition, but his perseverance was indomitable, and he soon had an excellent knowledge of Latin and a fair acquaintance with algebra, natural philosophy, and botany. He read Xenophon, Cæsar, and Virgil with appreciation; but his superiority was more easily recognized in the prayer-meetings and debating societies of the college, where he was assiduous and conspicuous. Living here was inexpensive, and he readily made his expenses by teaching in the English departments, and also gave instruction in the ancient languages. After three years he was well prepared to enter the junior class of any eastern college, and had saved $350 toward the expenses of such an undertaking out of his salary. He hesitated between Yale, Brown, and Williams colleges, finally choosing Williams on the kindly promise of encouragement sent him by its president, Mark Hopkins. It was natural to expect he would choose Bethany college, in West Virginia, an institution largely controlled and patronized by the “Disciples of Christ.” Garfield himself seems to have thought some explanation for his neglect to do so necessary, and with particularity assigns as reasons that the course of instruction at Bethany was not so extended as in the old New England colleges; that Bethany was too friendly in opinion to slavery; and—most significant of all the reasons he gave—that, as he had inherited by birth and association a strong bias toward the religious views there inculcated, he ought especially to examine other faiths. Entering Williams in the autumn of 1854, he was duly graduated with the highest honors in the class of 1856. His classmates unite with President Hopkins in testifying that in college he was warm-hearted, large-minded, and possessed of great earnestness of purpose and a singular poise of judgment. All speak, too, of his modest and unassuming manners. But, outside of these and other like qualities, such as industry, perseverance, courage, and conscientiousness, Garfield had exhibited up to this time no signs of the superiority that was to make him a conspicuous figure. But the effects of twenty-five years of most varied discipline, cheerfully accepted and faithfully used, begin now to show themselves, and to give to history one of its most striking examples of what education—the education of books and of circumstances—can accomplish. Garfield was not born, but made; and he made himself by persistent, strenuous, conscientious study and work. In the next six years he was a college president, a state senator, a major-general in the National army, and a representative-elect to the National congress. American annals reveal no other promotion so rapid and so varied.

On his return to Ohio, in 1856, he resumed his place as a teacher of Latin and Greek at Hiram institute, and the next year (1857), being then only twenty-six years of age, he was made its president. He was a successful officer, and ambitious, as usual, beyond his allotted task. He discussed before his interested classes almost every subject of current interest in scholarship, science, religion, and art. The story spread, and his influence with it; he became an intellectual and moral force in the Western Reserve. It was greatest, however, over the young. They keenly felt the contagion of his manliness, his sympathy, his thirst for knowledge, and his veneration for the truth when it was found. As an educator, he was, and always would have been, eminently successful; he had the knowledge, the art to impart it, and the personal magnetism that impressed his love for it upon his pupils. His intellectual activity at this time was intense. The canons of his church permitted him to preach, and he used the permission. He also pursued the study of law, entering his name, in 1858, as a student in a law-office in Cleveland, but studying in Hiram. To one ignorant of the slow development that was characteristic of Garfield in all directions, it would seem incredible that he now for the first time began to show any noticeable interest in politics. He seems never to have even voted before the autumn of 1856. No one who knew the man could doubt that he would then cast it, as he did, for John C. Frémont, the first Republican candidate for the presidency. As moral questions entered more and more into politics, Garfield's interest grew apace, and he sought frequent occasions to discuss these questions in debate. In advocating the cause of freedom against slavery, he showed for the first time a skill in discussion, which afterward bore good fruit in the house of representatives. Without solicitation or thought on his part, in 1859 he was sent to represent the counties of Summit and Portage in the senate of Ohio. Again in this new field his versatility and industry are conspicuous. He makes exhaustive investigations and reports on such widely different topics as geology, education, finance, and parliamentary law. Always looking to the future, and apprehensive that the impending contest might leave the halls of legislation and seek the arbitrament of war, he gave especial study to the militia system of the state, and the best methods of equipping and disciplining it.


The war came, and Garfield, who had been farmer, carpenter, student, teacher, lawyer, preacher, and legislator, was to show himself an excellent soldier. In August, 1861, Governor William Dennison commissioned him lieutenant-colonel in the 42d regiment of Ohio volunteers. The men were his old pupils at Hiram college, whom he had persuaded to enlist. Promoted to the command of this regiment, he drilled it into military efficiency while waiting orders to the front, and in December, 1861, reported to General Buell, in Louisville, Kentucky. General Buell was so impressed by the soldierly condition of the regiment that he gave Colonel Garfield a brigade, and assigned him the difficult task of driving the Confederate general Humphrey Marshall from eastern Kentucky. His confidence was such that he allowed the young soldier to lay his own plans, though on their success hung the fate of Kentucky. The undertaking itself was difficult. General Marshall had 5,000 men, while Garfield had but half that number, and must march through a state where the majority of the people were hostile, to attack an enemy strongly intrenched in a mountainous country. Garfield, nothing daunted, concentrated his little force, and moved it with such rapidity, sometimes here and sometimes there, that General Marshall, deceived by these feints, and still more by false reports, which were skilfully prepared for him, abandoned his position and many supplies at Paintville, and was caught in retreat by Garfield, who charged the full force of the enemy, and maintained a hand-to-hand fight with it for five hours. The enemy had 5,000 men and twelve cannon; Garfield had no artillery, and but 1,100 men. But he held his own until re-enforced by Gens. Granger and Sheldon, when Marshall gave way, leaving Garfield the victor at Middle Creek, 10 January, 1862, one of the most important of the minor battles of the war. Shortly afterward Zollicoffer was defeated and slain by General Thomas at Mill Spring, and the Confederates lost the state of Kentucky. Coming after the reverses at Big Bethel, Bull Run, and the disastrous failures in Missouri, General Garfield's triumph over the Confederate forces at Middle Creek had an encouraging effect on the entire north. Marshall was a graduate of West Point, and had every advantage in numbers and position, yet seems to have been out-generaled at every point. He was driven from two fortified positions, and finally completely routed—all within a period of less than a fortnight in the month of January, 1862. In recognition of these services, especially acknowledged by General Buell in his General Order No. 40 (20 January, 1862), President Lincoln promptly made the young colonel a brigadier-general, dating his commission from the battle of Middle Creek. During his campaign of the Big Sandy, while Garfield was engaged in breaking up some scattered Confederate encampments, his supplies gave out, and he was threatened with starvation. Going himself to the Ohio river, he seized a steamer, loaded it with provisions, and, on the refusal of any pilot to undertake the perilous voyage, because of a freshet that had swelled the river, he stood at the helm for forty-eight hours and piloted the craft through the dangerous channel. In order to surprise Marshall, then intrenched in Cumberland Gap, Garfield marched his soldiers 100 miles in four days through a blinding snow-storm. Returning to Louisville, he found that General Buell was away, overtook him at Columbia, Tennessee, and was assigned to the command of the 20th brigade. He reached Shiloh in time to take part in the second day's fight, was engaged in all the operations in front of Corinth, and in June, 1862, rebuilt the bridges on the Memphis and Charleston railroad, and exhibited noticeable engineering skill in repairing the fortifications of Huntsville. The unhealthfulness of the region told upon him, and on 30 July, 1862, under leave of absence, he returned to Hiram, where he lay ill for two months. On 25 September, 1862, he went to Washington, and was ordered on court-martial duty, and gained such reputation in this practice that, on 25 November, he was assigned to the case of General Fitz-John Porter. In February, 1863, he returned to duty under General Rosecrans, then in command of the Army of the Cumberland. Rosecrans made him his chief-of-staff, with responsibilities beyond those usually given to this office. In this field, Garfield's influence on the campaign in Middle Tennessee was most important. One familiar incident shows and justifies the great influence he wielded in its counsels. Before the battle of Chickamauga (24 June, 1863), General Rosecrans asked the written opinion of seventeen of his generals on the advisability of an immediate advance. All others opposed it, but Garfield advised it, and his arguments were so convincing, though pressed without passion or prejudice, that Rosecrans determined to seek an engagement. General Garfield wrote out all the orders of that fateful day (19 September), excepting one—and that one was the blunder that lost the day. Garfield volunteered to take the news of the defeat on the right to General George H. Thomas, who held the left of the line. It was a bold ride, under constant fire, but he reached Thomas and gave the information that saved the Army of the Cumberland. For this action he was made a major-general, 19 September, 1863, promoted for gallantry on a field that was lost. With a military future so bright before him, Garfield, always unselfish, yielded his own ambition to Mr. Lincoln's urgent request, and on 3 December, 1863, resigning his commission, and hastened to Washington to sit in congress, to which he had been chosen fifteen months before, as the successor of Joshua R. Giddings. In the mean time Thomas had received command of the Army of the Cumberland, had reorganized it, and had asked Garfield to take a division. His inclination was to accept and continue the military career, which had superior attractions; but he yielded to the representations of the President and Sec. Stanton, that he would be more useful in the house of representatives.

General Garfield was thirty-two years old when he entered congress. He found in the house, which was to be the theatre of his lasting fame, many with whom his name was for the next twenty years intimately associated. Schuyler Colfax was its speaker, and Conkling, Blaine, Washburne, Stevens, Fenton, Schenck, Henry Winter Davis, William B. Allison, and William R. Morrison were among its members. His military reputation had preceded him, and secured for him a place in the committee on military affairs, then the most important in congress. His first speech (14 January, 1864), upon a motion to print extra copies of General Rosecrans's official report, was listened to with attention; and, indeed, whenever he spoke upon army matters, this was the case. But the attention was given to the man for the information he possessed, and imparted rather than to the orator; for in effective speech, as in every other matter in which Garfield succeeded, he came to excellence only by labor and practice. He was soon regarded as an authority on military matters, and his opinion was sought as an expert, experienced and careful. To these questions he gave all necessary attention, but they did not exhaust his capacity. He began at this time, and ever afterward continued, a thorough study of constitutional and financial problems, and to aid him in these researches he labored to increase his familiarity with the German and French languages. In this, his first session, he had to stand almost alone in opposition to the bill that increased the bounty paid for enlistment. He advocated liberal bounties to the veterans that reenlisted, but would use the draft to secure raw recruits. History vindicated his judgment. In the same session he spoke on the subject of seizure and confiscation of rebel property, and on free commerce between the states. On 13 January, 1865, he discussed exhaustively the constitutional amendment to abolish slavery.

In the 39th congress (1865) he was changed, at his own request, from the committee on military affairs to the ways and means committee, which then included Messrs. Morrison, of Illinois, Brooks and Conkling, of New York, and Allison, of Iowa. His reason for choosing this new field was that, the war being ended, financial questions would have supreme importance, and he wished to have his part in their solution. In the 40th congress (1867) he was restored to his old committee on military affairs, and made its chairman. In March, 1866, he made his first speech on the question of the public debt, foreshadowing, in the course of his remarks, that republican policy which resulted in the resumption of specie payment, 1 January, 1879. From this moment until the treasury note was worth its face in gold, he never failed, on every proper occasion, in the house and out, to discuss every phase of the financial question, and to urge upon the National conscience the demands of financial honor. In May, 1868, he spoke again on the currency, dealing a staggering blow to the adherents of George H. Pendleton, who, under the stress of a money panic, were clamoring for the government to “make the money-market easier.” It may be said that he was at this, as at later times, the representative and champion of the sound-money men in congress, and first and last did more than any one else, probably, in settling the issues of this momentous question. In 1877 and 1878 he was again active in stemming a fresh tide of financial fallacies. He treated the matter this time with elementary simplicity, and gave in detail reasons for a hard-money policy, based not so much upon opinion and theory as upon the teachings of history.

In the 41st congress a new committee—that on banking and currency—was created, and Garfield was very properly made its chairman. This gave him new opportunities to serve the cause in which he was heartily enlisted, and no one now seeks to diminish the value of that service. The most noticed and most widely read of these discussions was a speech on the National finances, which he delivered in 1878, at Faneuil hall, Boston. It was circulated as a campaign document by thousands, and served to win a victory in Massachusetts and to subdue for a while the frantic appeals from the west for more paper money. He served also on the select committee on the census (a tribute to his skill in statistics) and on the committee on rules, as an appreciation of his practical and thorough knowledge of parliamentary law. In the 42d and 43d congresses he was chairman of the committee on appropriations. In the 44th, 45th, and 46th congresses (the house being Democratic) he was assigned a place on the committee of ways and means. In reconstruction times, Garfield was earnest and aggressive in opposition to the theories advocated by President Johnson. He was a kind man, and not lacking in sympathy for those who, from mistaken motives, had attempted to sever their connection with the Federal Union; but he was not a sentimentalist, and had too earnest convictions not to insist that the results won by so much treasure and blood should be secured to the victors. An old soldier, he would not see Union victories neutralized by evasions of the constitution. On these topics no one was his superior in either branch of congress, and no opponent, however able, encountered him here without regretting the contest.

In 1876, General Garfield went to New Orleans, at President Grant's request, in company with Senators Sherman and Matthews and other Republicans, to watch the counting of the Louisiana vote. He made a special study of the West Feliciana parish case, and embodied his views in a brief but significant report. On his return, he made, in January, 1877, two notable speeches in the house on the duty of congress in a presidential election, and claimed that the vice-president had a constitutional right to count the electoral vote. He was opposed to an electoral commission; yet, when the commission was ordered, General Garfield was chosen by acclamation to fill one of the two seats allotted to Republican representatives. His colleague was George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts. Garfield discussed before the commission the Florida and Louisiana returns, on 9 and 16 February, 1877. Mr. Blaine left the house in 1877 for the senate, and this made Garfield the undisputed leader of the Republican party in the house. He was at this time, and subsequently, its candidate for speaker.

The struggle begun in the second session of the 45th congress (1879), when the Democratic majority sought to control the president through the appropriations, gave Garfield a fine opportunity to display his powers as a leader in opposition. The Democratic members added to two general appropriation bills, in the shape of amendments, legislation intended to restrain the use of the army as a posse to keep the peace at elections, to repeal the law authorizing the employment of deputy U. S. marshals at the elections of members of congress, and to relieve jurors in the U. S. courts from the obligation of the test oath. The senate, which was Republican, refused to concur in these amendments, and so the session ended. An extra session was promptly called, which continued into midsummer. Contemporary criticism claims that, in this contest, General Garfield reached, perhaps, the climax of his congressional career. A conservative man by nature, he revolted at such high-handed measures, and in his speech of 29 March, 1879, characterized them as a “revolution in congress.” Against this insult to the spirit of the law he protested with unwonted vigor. Like Webster in 1832, he stood the defender of the constitution, and his splendid eloquence and resistless logic upheld the prerogatives of the executive, and denounced these attempts by the legislature to prevent or control elections, however disguised, as an attack upon the constitution. He warned the house that its course would end in nullification, and protested that its principle was the “revived doctrine of state sovereignty.” (See speeches of 26 April, 10 and 11 June, and 19 and 27 June, 1879.) The result of it was that the Democrats finally voted $44,600,000 of the $45,000,000 of appropriations originally asked—a great party victory, to which General Garfield largely contributed. His arguments had the more weight because not partisan, but supported by a clear analysis and statement of the relations between the different branches of the government. His last speech to the house was made on the appointment of special deputy marshals, 23 April, 1880. At the same time he made a report of the tariff commission, which showed that he was still a sincere friend to protection. He was already United States senator-elect from Ohio, chosen after a nomination of singular unanimity, 13 January, 1880.

Where there is government by party, no leader can escape calumny; hence it assailed Garfield with great venom. In the presidential canvass of 1872, he, with other Republican representatives, was charged with having bought stock in the Credit Mobilier, sold to them at less than its value to influence their action in legislation affecting the Union Pacific railroad. A congressional investigation, reporting 13 February, 1875, seemed to establish these facts so far as Garfield was concerned. He knew nothing of any connection between the two companies, much less that the Credit Mobilier controlled the railway. Garfield denied that he ever owned the stock, and was vaguely contradicted by Oakes Ames, who had no evidence of his alleged sale of $1,000 worth of the stock to Garfield, except a memorandum in his diary, which did not agree with Ames's oral testimony that he paid Garfield $329 as dividend on the stock. Garfield admitted that he had received $300 in June, 1868, from Ames, but claimed that it was a loan, and that he paid it in the winter of 1869. It was nowhere claimed that Garfield ever received certificate, or receipt, or other dividends, to which, if the owner of the stock, he was entitled, or that he ever asked for them. The innocence of General Garfield was generally recognized, and, after the circumstances became known, he was not weakened in his district. Another investigation in the same congress (43d) gave calumny a second opportunity. This was the investigation into the conduct of the government of the District of Columbia. It revealed startling frauds in a De Golyer contract, and Garfield's name was found to be in some way connected with it. The facts, corroborated in an open letter by James M. Wilson, chairman of the committee, were: In May, 1872, Richard C. Parsons, a Cleveland attorney, then marshal of the supreme court in Washington, having the interests of the patents owned by De Golyer in charge, was called away. He brought all his material to Garfield, and asked him to prepare the brief. The brief was to show the superiority of the pavement (the subject of patent) over forty other kinds, and did not otherwise concern the contract or have anything to do with its terms. The fraud, as is generally understood, was in the contract, not in the quality of the pavement. Garfield prepared the brief and delivered it to Parsons; but did not himself make the argument. Parsons sent Garfield subsequently $5,000, which was a part of the fee Parsons had received for his own services. As thoughtful people reviewed the case, there was no harsher criticism than that suggested by General Garfield's own lofty standard of avoiding even the appearance of evil—that he had not shown his usual prudence in avoiding any connection, even the most honest, in any way, with any matter that could in any shape come up for congressional review. It was the cruel and unjust charges made in connection with these calumnies which sent the iron into his soul, and made wounds which he forgave but never forgot.

In June, 1880, the Republican convention to nominate a successor to President Hayes was held in Chicago, and to it came Garfield, naturally, at the head of the Ohio delegation. He sympathized heartily with the wish of that delegation to secure the nomination for John Sherman, and labored loyally for that end. There could be no criticism of his action, nor could there be any just criticism of his loyalty to his candidate, except (and that he never concealed) that he wished more to defeat the nomination of Grant than to secure that of Senator Sherman. He believed a third term such a calamity that patriotism required the sacrifice of all other considerations to prevent it. That view he shared with Mr. Blaine, also a candidate in this convention, whose instructions to his friends were, “Defeat a third term first, and then struggle for the prize of office afterwards. Success in the one case is vital; success in the other is of minor importance.” On the thirty-third ballot Grant had 306 votes, the remaining 400 being divided between Blaine, Edmunds, and Washburne. The hope of the Grant men or the Blaine men to secure the prize faltered, and in the thirty-fourth ballot Wisconsin broke the monotony by announcing thirty-six votes for James A. Garfield. This put the spark to fuel that had been unconsciously prepared for it by the events of the long struggle. In all the proceedings, peculiar fitness had put Garfield to the front as the counsellor and leader of the anti-Grant majority, and the exhibition of his splendid qualifications won increasing admiration and trust. His tact and readiness in casual debate, and the beauty and force of the more elaborate effort in which he nominated Sherman, won the wavering convention. On the thirty-sixth ballot the delegates broke their ranks and rushed to him. He received 399 votes, and then his nomination (8 June, 1880) was made unanimous. General Garfield left the convention before the result was announced, and accepted the nomination by letter. This was a thoughtful document, and acceptable to the Republican voters. Disregarding precedent, he spoke in his own behalf in Ohio, New York, and other states. He spoke sensibly and with great discretion, and his public appearance is thought to have increased his popularity. He was elected (2 November, 1880) over his competitor, General Winfield Scott Hancock, by the votes of every northern state except New Jersey, Nevada, and California. His inaugural address, 4 March, 1881, was satisfactory to the people generally, and his administration began with only one cloud in the sky. His cabinet was made up as follows: James G. Blaine, of Maine, secretary of state; William Windom, of Minnesota, secretary of the treasury; Wayne MacVeagh, of Pennsylvania, attorney-general; Thomas L. James, of New York, postmaster-general; Samuel J. Kirkwood, of Iowa, secretary of the interior; Robert T. Lincoln, of Illinois, secretary of war; William H. Hunt, of Louisiana, secretary of the navy. There was bitter dissension in the party in New York, and Garfield gave much consideration to his duty in the premises. He was willing to do anything except yield the independence of the executive in his own constitutional sphere. He would give to the New York senators, Conkling and Platt, more than their share of offices; but they should not be allowed to interfere with or control the presidential right of nomination. He made nominations to the senate—as many, it is said, as twelve—in that interest, and then (23 March, 1881) sent in the name of William H. Robertson, a leader in the other faction, as collector of the port of New York. Senator Conkling protested, and then openly resisted his confirmation. Yielding to him in the interest of senatorial courtesy, his Republican colleagues, in caucus, 2 May, 1881, agreed to let contested nominations lie over practically until the following December. This was a substantial victory for Mr. Conkling; but it was promptly met by the president, who, a few days afterward (5 May), withdrew all the nominations that were pleasing to the New York senator. This brought the other senators to terms. Mr. Conkling, recognizing defeat, and Mr. Platt with him, resigned their offices, 16 May, 1881. On 18 May, Collector Robertson was confirmed. The early summer came, and peace and happiness and the growing strength and popularity of his administration cheered the heart of its chief. At a moment of special exaltation, on the morning of 2 July, 1881, he was shot by a disappointed office-seeker. The avowed object was to promote to the presidential chair Vice-President Arthur, who represented the Grant or “stalwart” wing of the party. The president was setting out on a trip to New England, anticipating especial pleasure in witnessing the commencement exercises of his alma mater at Williamstown. He was passing through the waiting-room of the Baltimore and Potomac depot, at nine o'clock that morning, leaning on the arm of Mr. Blaine, when the assassin fired at him with a pistol. The first ball passed through his coat-sleeve; the second entered by the back, fractured a rib, and lodged deep in the body. The president was carried to the White House, where, under the highest medical skill, and with every comfort that money and devotion could bring, he lingered for more than ten weeks between life and death. The country and the world were moved by the dastardly deed; and the fortitude and cheerfulness with which the president bore his suffering added to the universal grief. Daily bulletins of his condition were published in every city in the United States and in all the European capitals. Many of the crowned heads of Europe sought by telegraphic inquiry more particular news, and repeated their wishes for his recovery. A day of national supplication was set apart and sacredly observed, and the prayers at first seemed answered. His physicians were hopeful, and gave expression to their hope. His condition seemed to improve; but when midsummer came, the patient failed so perceptibly that a removal was hazarded. On 6 September, 1881, he was taken to Elberon, New Jersey, by a special train. He bore the journey well, and for a while, under the inspiration of the invigorating sea-breezes, seemed to rally. But on 15 September, 1881, symptoms of blood-poisoning appeared. He lingered till the 19th, when, after a few hours of unconsciousness, he died peacefully. A special train (21 September) carried the body to Washington, through a country draped with emblems of mourning, and through crowds of reverent spectators, to lie in state in the rotunda of the capitol two days, 22 and 23 September The final services held here were never surpassed in solemnity and dignity, except on 27 February, 1882, when, in the hall of representatives, at the request of both houses of congress, his friend, James G. Blaine, then secretary of state, delivered a memorial address, in the presence of the president and the heads of all the great departments of the government, so perfect that the criticism of two continents was unqualified praise. In a long train, crowded with the most illustrious of his countrymen, which in its passage, day or night, was never out of the silent watch of mourning citizens, who stood in city, field, and forest, to see it pass, Garfield's remains were borne to Cleveland and placed (26 September, 1882) in a beautiful cemetery, which overlooks the waters of Lake Erie. The accompanying illustration represents the imposing monument that is to mark his last resting-place.

His tragic death assures to Garfield the attention of history. It will credit him with great services rendered in various fields, and with a character formed by a singular union of the best qualities—industry, perseverance, truthfulness, honesty, courage—all acting as faithful servants to a lofty and unselfish ambition. Without genius, which can rarely do more than produce extraordinary results in one direction, his powers were so many and well-trained that he produced excellent results in many. If history shall call Garfield great, it will be because the development of these powers was so complete and harmonious. It has no choice but to record that, by the wise use of them, he won distinction in many fields: a teacher so gifted that his students compare him with Arnold of Rugby; a soldier, rising by merit in rapid promotion to highest rank; a lawyer heard with profit and approbation in the supreme court; an eloquent orator, whose own ardent faith kindled his hearers, speaking after thorough preparation and with practised skill, but refusing always to win victory by forensic trick or device; a party leader, failing in pre-eminence only because his moral honesty would not let him always represent a party victory as a necessity of national well-being. In all these characters he was the friend of learning and of virtue, and would probably ask no other epitaph than the tribute of a friend, who said that, “among the public men of his era, none had higher qualities of statesmanship and greater culture than James A. Garfield.”

Garfield's speeches are almost a compendium of the political history of the stirring era between 1864 and 1880. Among those worthy of special mention, on account of the importance of the subjects or the attractive and forcible presentation of them, are the following: On the Enrolling and calling out of the National Forces (25 January, 1864); on the Reconstruction of the Southern States (February, 1866); on Civil-Service Reform, in the congress of 1870 and other congresses; on the Currency and the Public Faith (April, 1874); on the Democratic Party and the South (4 August, 1876), of which a million copies were distributed as a campaign document; the speech in opposition to the Wood bill, which was framed to break down the protective tariff (4 June, 1878); the speeches on Revolution in Congress (4 March and 4 April, 1879); on Congressional Nullification (10 June, 1879); on Treason at the Polls (11 June, 1879); and on the Democratic Party and Public Opinion (11 October, 1879). Among his speeches in congress, less political in character, were that on the National Bureau of Education (8 June, 1866); a series on Indian Affairs, covering a period of several years; one on the Medical and Surgical History of the Rebellion (2 March, 1869); two on the Census (6 April and 16 December, 1879); one on Civil-Service Reform; many addresses on the silver question; and one on National aid to education (6 February, 1872). He found time to make frequent orations and addresses before societies and gatherings outside of congress. His address on College Education, delivered before the literary societies of Hiram college (14 June, 1867), is an admirable plea for a liberal education, and on a subject in which the author was always deeply interested. On 30 May, 1868, he delivered an address on the Union Soldiers, at the first memorial service held at Arlington, Virginia. A eulogy of General Thomas, delivered before the Army of the Cumberland, 25 November, 1870, is one of the happiest of his oratorical efforts. On the reception by the house of the statues of John Winthrop and Samuel Adams, he spoke with a great wealth of historical allusion, and all his memorial addresses, especially those on his predecessor in congress, Joshua R. Giddings, Lincoln, and Profs. Morse and Henry, are worthy of study. But in all this series nothing will live longer than the simple words with which, from the balcony of the New York custom-house, he calmed the mob frenzied at the news of Lincoln's death: “Fellow-citizens: Clouds and darkness are around him; His pavilion is dark waters and thick clouds; justice and judgment are the establishment of his throne; mercy and truth shall go before his face! Fellow-citizens! God reigns, and the Government at Washington lives.”

After the death of President Garfield, a popular subscription for his widow and children realized over $360,000. The income of this fund is to be paid to Mrs. Garfield during her life, after which the principal is to be divided among the children—four sons and a daughter. More than forty of Garfield's speeches in congress have been published in pamphlet-form, as has also his oration on the life of General George H. Thomas. A volume of brief selections, entitled “Garfield's Words,” was compiled by William R. Balch (Boston, 1881). His works have been edited by Burke A. Hinsdale (2 vols., Boston, 1882). The most complete life of President Garfield is that by James R. Gilmore (New York, 1880).
A monument to President Garfield, designed by John Q. A. Ward, was erected in Washington, D. C., by the Society of the army of the Cumberland, and dedicated on 12 May, 1887. It consists of a bronze statue of Garfield, l0½ feet high, standing on a circular pedestal, 18 feet in height, with buttresses, on which are three reclining figures, representing a student, a warrior, and a statesman. The U. S. government gave the site and the granite pedestal, besides contributing to the cost of the statues, and furnishing cannon to be used in their casting. (See page 602.) The unusual attitude of the arms is explained by the fact that General Garfield was left-handed.—His wife, Lucretia Rudolph, born in Hiram, Portage county, Ohio, 19 April 1832, was the daughter of a farmer named Rudolph. She first met her husband when both were students at Hiram, Ohio, and was married 11 November, 1858, in Hudson, Ohio, soon after his accession to the presidency of the college. Seven children were born to them, of whom four sons and one daughter are living (1887). Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Volume II, pp. 599-605.

The Fortieth Congress of the United States: Historical and Biographical. Vol. 1., By William H. Barnes, 1869, p. 295

JAMES A. GARFIELD.

THE triumph of energy and talent over poverty and adversity is illustrated in the lives of nearly all whose names are conspicuous in the Congress of the United States. In no case has this triumph been more signally achieved than in that of James Abraham Garfield, of Ohio. He was born in the township of Orange, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, November 19, 1831. Abraham Garfield, the father, who had emigrated from New York, died in 1833, leaving a family of four children, of whom James was the youngest, dependent upon the exertions of a widowed mother.

James was permitted to attend the district school a few months of each year, and at intervals aided in supporting the family by working at the carpenter's trade. This not proving very remunerative, in his seventeenth year he secured employment as driver on the tow-path of the Ohio Canal, and soon rose to be a boatman. The dream of his ambition was to become a sailor on the lakes. The hardship and exposure incident to his life on the Canal brought on the fever and ague in the fall of 1848. When the young boatman had recovered from a three months' illness, it was too late to carry out his purpose of shipping on the lakes. He was persuaded to defer this step until the following fall, and meanwhile to spend a few months in attending a high-school in an adjoining county.

Early in March, 1849, young Garfield entered “Geauga Academy." Being too poor to pay the ordinary bills for board, he carried with him a few cooking utensils, rented a room in an old unpainted farm-house near the academy, and boarded himself. His mother had saved a small sum of money, which she gave him with her blessing at his departure. After that he never had a dollar which he did not earn. He soon found employment with the carpenters of the village; and working mornings, evenings, and Saturdays, earned enough to pay his way. The summer vacation gave him a longer interval for work, and when the fall term opened he had money enough laid up to pay his tuition and give him a start again. The close of this fall term found him competent to teach a district school for the winter, the avails of which were sufficient to pay his expenses for the spring and fall terms at the academy. He continued for several years, teaching a term each winter, and attending the academy through spring and fall, keeping up with his class during his absence by private study.

By the summer of 1854, young Garfield, now twenty-three years old, prosecuted his studies as far as the academies of his native region could carry him. He resolved to go to college, calculating that he could complete the ordinary course of study in two years. From his school-teaching and carpenter work he had saved about half enough to pay his expenses. To obtain the rest of the money, he procured a life insurance policy, which he assigned to a gentleman who loaned him what funds he needed, knowing that if he lived he would pay it, and if he died the policy would secure it.

In the fall of 1854, young Garfield was admitted to the junior class of Williams College, in Massachusetts. He at once took high rank as a student, and at the end of his two years' course bore off the metaphysical honor of his class.

On his return to his Western home, Mr. Garfield was made teacher of Latin and Greek in the Hiram Eclectic Institute. So high a position did he take, and so popular did he become, that the next year he was made President of the Institute. His position at the head of a popular seminary, together with his talents as a speaker, caused him to be called upon for frequent public addresses, both from platform and pulpit. The Christian denomination to which he belonged had no superstitious regard for the prerogatives of the clergy, to prevent them from receiving moral and religious instruction on the Sabbath from a layman of such unblemished character and glowing eloquence as Mr. Garfield. It was not Mr. Garfield's purpose, however, to enter the ministry; and while President of Hiram Institute he studied law, and took some public part in political affairs.

In 1859 he was elected to represent Portage and Summit Counties in the Senate of Ohio. Being well informed on the subjects of legislation, and effective in debate, he at once took high rank in the Legislature. His genial temper and cordial address made him popular with political friends and opponents.

The legislature of Ohio took a bold and patriotic stand in support of the General Government against the Rebellion which was just beginning to show its front. Under the leadership of Mr. Garfield a bill was passed declaring any resident of the State who gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States guilty of treason against the State, to be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.

When the first regiments of Ohio troops were raised, the State was wholly unprepared to arm them, and Mr. Garfield was dispatched to Illinois to procure arms. He succeeded in procuring five thousand muskets, which were immediately shipped to Columbus.

On his return Mr. Garfield was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel of the Forty-Second Regiment of Ohio Volunteers. Soon after the organization of the regiment, he was, without his own solicitation, made its Colonel.

In December, 1861, Colonel Garfield, with his regiment, was ordered to Kentucky, where he reported to General Buell. He was immediately assigned to the command of the Eighteenth Brigade, and was ordered by General Buell to drive the Rebel forces under Humphrey Marshall out of the Sandy Valley in Eastern Kentucky. As Humphrey Marshall threatened the flank of General Buell's force, it was necessary that he should be dislodged before a movement could successfully be made by the main army upon the Rebel position at Bowling Green.

A citizen soldier, who had never been in battle, was thus placed in command of four regiments of infantry and eight companies of cavalry, charged with the duty of leading them against an officer who had led the famous charge of the Kentucky Volunteers at Buena Vista. Marshall had under his command nearly five thousand men stationed at Paintville, sixty miles up the Sandy Valley. He was expected to advance to Lexington, and establish the authority of the Provisional Government at the State Capital.

Colonel Garfield took command of his brigade at the mouth of the Big Sandy, and moved with it directly up the valley. Marshall heard of the advance, and fell back to Prestonburg, leaving a small force of cavalry near his old position to act as an outpost and to protect his trains. This cavalry fled before the advance of Colonel Garfield's force. He pushed the pursuit with his cavalry till Marshall's infantry outposts were reached, and then, drawing back, he encamped with his whole force at Paintville.

On the morning of the 9th of January, Garfield advanced with twenty-four hundred men, leaving about one thousand waiting for the arrival of supplies at Paintville. Before nightfall he had driven in the enemy's pickets. The men slept on their arms under a soaking rain, and by four o'clock in the morning were again in motion. Marshall's force occupied the heights of Middle Creek, two miles west of Prestonburg. Garfield advanced cautiously, and after some hours came suddenly in front of Marshall's position between the forks of the creek. Two columns were moved forward, one on either side of the creek, and the rebels immediately opened upon them with musketry and artillery. Garfield reinforced both his columns, but the action soon developed itself mainly on the left, where Marshall concentrated his whole force. Garfield's reserve was under fire from the enemy's artillery. He was entirely without artillery to reply, but from behind trees and rocks the men kept up a brisk fusilade.

About four o'clock in the afternoon reinforcements from Paintville arrived. Unwonted enthusiasm was aroused, and the approaching column was received with prolonged cheering. Garfield promptly formed his whole reserve for attacking the enemy's right and carrying his guns. Without awaiting the assault, Marshall hastily abandoned his position, fired his camp equipage, and began a retreat which was not ended till he reached Abingdon, Virginia.

Now occurred another trial of Garfield's energy. His troops were almost out of rations, in a rough mountainous country incapable of furnishing supplies. Excessive rains had swollen the Sandy to such a hight that steamboat men declared it impossible to ascend the river with supplies. Colonel Garfield went down the river in a skiff to its mouth, and ordered the Sandy Valley, a small steamer which had been in the quartermaster's service, to take a load of supplies and start up. The captain declared it impossible, but Colonel Garfield ordered the crew on board. He stationed a competent army officer on board to see that the captain did his duty, and himself took the wheel. The little vessel trembled in every fiber as she breasted the raging flood, which swept among the tree-tops along the banks. The perilous trip occupied two days and nights, during which time Colonel Garfield was only eight hours absent from the wheel. The men in camp greeted with tumultuous cheering the arrival of the boat, with their gallant commander as pilot.

At the pass across the mountain known as Pound Gap, Humphrey Marshall kept up a post of observation, held by a force of five hundred men. On the 14th of March, Garfield started with five hundred infantry and two hundred cavalry to dislodge this detachment. On the evening of the second day's march he reached the foot of the mountain two miles north of the Gap. Next morning he sent the cavalry along the main road leading to the enemy's position, while he led the infantry by an unfrequented route up the side of the mountain. While the enemy watched the cavalry, Garfield led the infantry undiscovered to the very border of their camp. The enemy were taken by surprise, and a few volleys dispersed them. They retreated in confusion down the eastern slope of the mountain, pursued for several miles into Virginia by the cavalry. The troops rested for the night in the comfortable huts which the enemy had built, and the next morning burnt them down, together with everything left by the enemy which they could not carry away.

These operations, though on a small scale compared with the magnificent movements of a later period in the war, yet had a very considerable importance. They were the first of a brilliant series of successes which re-assured the despondent in the spring of 1862.

They displayed a military capacity in the civilian Colonel, and a bravery in the raw recruits which augured well for the success of the volunteer army. Colonel Garfield received high praise from General Buell and the War Department. He was promoted to the rank of Brigadier-General, his commission bearing the date of the battle of Middle Creek.

Six days after the capture of Pound Gap, General Garfield received orders to transfer the larger part of his command to Louisville. On his arrival there, he found that the Army of the Ohio was already beyond Nashville on its march to the aid of Grant at Pittsburg Landing. He made haste to join General Buell, who placed him in command of the Twentieth Brigade. He reached the field of Pittsburg Landing at one o'clock on the second day of the battle, and bore a part in its closing scenes. His brigade bore its full share in the tedious siege operations before Corinth, and was among the foremost to enter the abandoned town after its evacuation by the enemy. He soon after marched eastward with his brigade, and rebuilt all the bridges on the Memphis and Charleston Railroad between Corinth and Decatur, and took post at Huntsville, Alabama.

General Garfield was soon after put at the head of the court-martial for the trial of General Turchin. He manifested a capacity for such work which led to his subsequent detail for similar service.

About the 1st of August, his health having been seriously impaired, he went home on sick leave. As soon as he recovered, he was ordered to report in person at Washington. He was made a member of the court-martial for the trial of Fitz-John Porter. Most of the autumn was occupied with the duties of this detail.

In January, 1863, General Garfield was appointed Chief of Staff of the Army of the Cumberland, which was commanded by General Rosecrans. He became the intimate friend and confidential advisor of his chief, and bore a prominent part in all the military operations in Middle Tennessee during the spring and summer of 1863.

The final military service of General Garfield was in the battle of Chickamauga. Every order issued that day, with one exception, was written by him. He wrote the orders on the suggestion of his own judgment, afterwards submitting them to General Rosecrans for approval or change. The only order not written by him was that fatal one to General Wood, which lost the battle. The words did not correctly convey the meaning of the commanding general. General Wood, the division commander, so interpreted them as to destroy the right wing.

The services of General Garfield were appropriately recognized by the War Department in his promotion to the rank of Major-General of Volunteers, “for gallant and meritorious conduct in the battle of Chickamauga."

About a year before, while absent in the field, General Garfield had been elected a Representative to the Thirty-eighth Congress from the old Giddings district of Ohio. He accordingly resigned his commission on the 5th of December, 1863, after a service of nearly three years.

General Garfield immediately took high rank in Congress. He was made a member of the Committee on Military Affairs, of which in the Fortieth Congress he became chairman. In this committee his industry and his familiarity with the wants of the army enabled him to do signal service for the country. He soon became known as a powerful speaker, remarkably ready and effective in debate.

General Garfield was re-nominated for the Thirty-ninth Congress by acclamation, and was re-elected by a majority of nearly twelve thousand. He was made a member of the Committee of Ways and Means, in which he soon acquired great influence. He studied financial questions with untiring assiduity, and was spoken of by the Secretary of the Treasury as one of the best informed men on such subjects then in public life.

In 1866, General Garfield was re-elected to the Fortieth Congress, in which he was made chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs. At a time when everything seemed drifting towards greenbacks and repudiation, he took a bold financial position. As his views were opposed to those of many leading men of his party, and to the declarations of the Republican State Convention of Ohio, he seemed to hazard his re-nomination, but he did not hesitate firmly and fully to avow his convictions. His financial doctrines were at length adopted by the entire party, and fully indorsed in the Chicago Republican Platform. On the 24th of June, 1868, he was renominated and in October following was elected to the Forty-first Congress.

General Garfield is one of the most popular men now in public life. He is generous, warm-hearted, and genial. He is one of the most accomplished scholars in the country, and by laborious study of all subjects which require his attention, he is constantly adding to his breadth of intellect. In person he is about six feet in hight. He has a large head and a German cast of countenance, which a friend has aptly called a “mirror of good nature.”

Sources:
Dictionary of American Biography, Volumes I-X, Edited by Dumas Malone, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930.

Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Volumes I-VI, Edited by James Grant Wilson & John Fiske, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1888-1889.