| Nov. 14th, 2009 @ 11:04 am Four Presidential Assassinations |
|---|
Current Mood:  contemplative
Introduction
In the 222 year long history of the American Presidency, we have had 43 Presidents (Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms). Of those Presidents, 4 have been assassinated in office -- a bit over 9 percent KIA, which makes the American Presidency a job at one is at a good risk of death through violence (it's also killed at least 2 Presidents, William Henry Harrison and Woodrow Wilson, through stress, bringing the on-the-job death toll to 6 and rate to 14 percent, not adjusted for terms).
Of these 4 known murders, only one has resulted in significant long-lasting paranoia and overarching conspiracy theories. Oddly enough, it is not the one which was verifiably committed by an enemy agent as part of a widespread conspiracy.
That one, of course, was the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.
( WHAT Conspiracy? )
Conclusion
There seems to be very little correlation between the degree of conspiracy likely involved in a Presidential assassination and the speculation thus generated. Abraham Lincoln was certainly slain by a conspiracy, yet only moderate speculation resulted as to that conspiracy's roots. Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy were probably all slain by lone nuts, yet there is an immense industry of speculation about the Kennedy assassination. Despite Guiteau's spoken claim to have shot Garfield at the behest of the Stalwarts, little interest exists in following this up (to be true, Guiteau almost certainly did act alone and for private motives); likewise, there is little interest today in the Anarchist assassination campaign which spanned at least three continents, and to whom McKinley fell as at least a peripheral victim.
It is possible, of course, that I am being fooled here by Time. Many still live who personally remember Kennedy's assassination: none live who remember Lincoln's, probably none who remember Garfield's, and very few who remember McKinley's. The Kennedy assassination may bulk disproportionately owing to this reason.
There's also the issue of the changing importance of the Presidency. Lincoln was a crucial man because he led us in our darkest hour; compared to him most 19th-century Presidents between Monroe and McKinley were rather shadowy figures. Garfield was denied his chance at a famous Administration by Guiteau; and McKinley's reputation, though great in his day, was eclipsed by that of his flamboyant successor, Teddy Roosevelt.
JFK, on the other hand, was President at a time when the Presidency had already assumed more imperial proportions, courtesy of Wilson and FDR. His death -- though it historically changed little -- could be seen as changing more. And he benefitted from being the idol of a large generation of teenagers, of both political parties, while Oswald's bizarre political journey offered the maximum fuel for paranoia.
So it is to some extent chance, rather than inherent importance, that determines how well we remember assassinations -- and what fantasies we spin around the assassins.
END. |
|  |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
pathia's Friends Page
blank
good
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
predatory
infuriated
surprised
amused