James Guiteau's Argumentative Essay

824 Words4 Pages

James A. Garfield, the 20th President was preparing to go to Williams College and while he was about to aboard the train in Washington D.C., he was shot twice. The first shot was on his arm and the second shot came in through his back near his spine. Charles Guiteau was the one responsible for Garfield’s murder that happened on July 2, 1881. Even before he killed the President, he was known to be emotionally disturbed all around Washington so that leads to thinking there was something wrong with this man. Guiteau killed Garfield because the President refused to appoint him to a European consulship. Everyone has a reason to why they do the things they do. Now Guiteau’s reason was to not think of the President’s death as a murder, but as an act …show more content…

Several of his actions triggered people to think there was some type of mental unease. The fact Guiteau stalked the President for weeks was already a hint that he was planning something out. Mclntyre says, “ He came close to carrying out the shooting on two separate occasions, but time he could not complete the task. The first time, he felt sorry for Garfield’s wife, who was with him, and the second time, was without a clear shot.” That clearly shows that he was definitely after him and was just waiting for the right moment to get rid of the President. In addition, the fact Guiteau was said to have bought a .44 British Bulldog specifically for the crime he was planning on committing. He know what he was doing was wrong, especially when he borrowed money to buy the gun. Last, Guiteau was found with two letters that he had on him, explaining his plan on the attack. In Guiteau’s letter it said, “I presume the President was a Christian, and that he will be happier in Paradise than here. It will be no worse for Mrs. Garfield, dear soul, to part with her husband this way than by natural death. He is liable to go at any time, anyway. I had no ill-will towards the President. His death was a political necessity.” By finding all this evidence, the opposing side can say he was guilty and not