Enjoy learning about less celebrated episodes from American history? I can guarantee Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine, and the Murder of a President (2011) will enthrall you, start to finish.
Before devouring Candice Millard's scrupulously researched and masterfully executed book, all I knew of James Garfield was that he was the second U.S. President to be assassinated. Millard persuaded me that Garfield had the potential to become one of our greatest chief executives, an early and ardent abolitionist, i.e., a man fully committed to preserving the Lincoln legacy.
Learning this about Garfield led me to reflect on a few counterfactuals, a term historians use when they speculate about "what if?" If Garfield had served his full term, would the ill-advised dismantling of Reconstruction initiated by his predecessor have been halted before it did its irreparable damage? Further, what if he were then re-elected in 1884? How I'd welcome hearing an historian like Stephen Ambrose or David McCullough or Candice Millard create a plausible counterfactual based on James Garfield having served eight years instead of just a few months.
And now some good news if reading is not a high priority for you right now. The recent four-part Netflix series Death by Lightning is a reasonably faithful adaptation of this excellent book starring the always reliable Michael Shannon as James Garfield. Several moving pieces in the script (e.g., "And I tell you now, in the closing days of this campaign, that I would rather be with you and defeated, than against you and victorious." - Garfield to a group of "freedmen") are taken verbatim from the primary sources used by Millard in her book. Kudos to creator/screenwriter Mike Markowsky for making those wise choices. I'll save my quibbles about Death by Lightning for anyone who has read or later reads the superior book and comments either here or offline. I suspect some of you will notice the same missteps in the series that I did. Quibbles about Destiny of the Republic? None.
I love when a writer can take a subject I had zero interest in and change my mind. Based on what you wrote, Pat, I think this book may be one of those mind changers.
ReplyDeleteRegina; Thanks for the comment. Millard didn't so much "change my mind" as she did open me up to a fresh perspective about a President that I knew frighteningly little about.
DeleteHey Pat. Sounds like an interesting read. And History is always one of my favorite subjects to read about. Especially early American History and the settling of this country. The Netflix show sounds like it will be pretty good. Thanks for the recommendation.
ReplyDeleteBe well,
Bob
Bob; Cannot recommend this book highly enough. If by some chance you read this response in time, and then finish the book by March 10, why not try to make it to my book club's discussion of it? I'd welcome seeing you there and you already did this once before with "Rocket Boys", remember? BTW, Millard's book is a very manageable length so finishing it in 4+ weeks is not a huge stretch. No pressure, of course.
DeleteAn impressively researched and engagingly written book indeed! As a reader with an interest in history, politics, and medicine I found it hit my sweet spots, but I agree with your statement that it will enthrall readers of all types. My only quibble with the book is that it fails to say how Garfield's executive duties were accomplished during his slow decline. Was he making presidential decisions up to the end? If not him, then who? Or were presidential duties so light that the country could trundle on with no bills signed, no vetoes, no military actions, no appointments, no proposals, etc.?
ReplyDeleteAlan; Thanks for the comment. And your quibble is a legitimate one, even if the thought never crossed my mind while reading Millard's first-rate book.
Delete