Robert Todd Lincoln and the Curse of the Presidential Assassination

Robert Todd Lincoln (1843-1926) was the son of Abraham Lincoln and an influential figure in his time. He was also near the scene at the time of three US presidential assassinations spanning over 35 years. Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

A young Robert Todd Lincoln.

There are some figures in history that transcend their time, even if we are sometimes largely ignorant of why it is that we remember them. Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Abraham Lincoln, Einstein and Hitler are all names that echo down the ages, for good or ill, and who even the most history-phobic of us will recognize.

To be the child of one of these would not have been an easy place to occupy, and Robert Todd Lincoln bore the weight of that position for most of his life. He is remembered as an ‘unsympathetic bore[i]’, tainted by his relationship with his successful father and his mentally ill mother[ii]. Yet Robert carried another burden: if such a thing as a curse exists, then Robert was encumbered by one of the worst – the curse of the presidential assassination.

Abraham Lincoln: April 15, 1865

Robert’s first encounter with a presidential assassination was that of his own father, Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States. It was an event touched by coincidence and regret, and one which had a profound effect on his eldest son.

Robert’s relationship with his father is considered by many historians to have been strained[iii]. As the son of an aspiring politician, Robert rarely saw his father during his childhood and their bond was undoubtedly weaker than the one Abraham had with his other sons. Yet it would be overstating their difficulties to say that Robert was estranged from his father; on the day of the assassination they had spent several hours alone together before the President went to a cabinet meeting.[iv] That evening he and his parents had dined together at the White House and he remembered some years later how his father had asked him to come to the Ford Theatre with them. Not attending was one of his greatest regrets[v]. In a 1921 article based on the recollections of Robert to a friend, he believed that:

“My seat must have been placed in the door alcove…which was covered with a curtain…He [Booth] would have encountered a psychological obstacle.…To open the door and fire at an unsuspecting man is one thing, but to fire after he had found his way blocked is another. I do not believe that he would have attempted it if I had been there.”[vi]

Despite being shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth, the President was not killed instantly and was carried to a house belonging to William Petersen where he died at 7:22am the next morning with Robert at his bedside. Despite his previous stoic behavior, The Secretary to the Navy noted that he ‘gave way on two occasions to overpowering grief and sobbed aloud…’[vii].

The event affected Robert not only as a son but also as a future government official, and one letter in particular shows how he was still conscious of the danger to the incumbent president 24 years later:

‘I have no doubt that President Arthur will take care of himself; but he is undoubtedly liable to be killed by some crazy person or by a fanatic who would be willing to do the deed for the notoriety which might be gained thereby.’[viii]

In an ironic twist of fate, Abraham Lincoln had previously had a great deal to be grateful to the Booth family for. His killer’s elder brother, the celebrated actor Edwin Booth, had saved Robert from possible injury or even death at New Jersey train station in either 1863 or 1864. Horrified by his brother’s actions, it gave Edwin comfort to know that he had been of some benefit to the Lincoln family and Robert was able to talk about the incident without any bitterness, recalling in 1918 that ‘I never again met Mr. Booth personally, but I have always had most grateful recollection of his prompt action on my behalf’.[ix]

James Garfield: September 19, 1881

Four months into his presidency, James Garfield advertised his intended plan to move to New Jersey for the summer. He would take the train from Washington’s Baltimore and Potomac railroad station on July 2, 1881 and among the members of his cabinet there to see him off would be his Secretary of War, Robert Todd Lincoln.

Up until that point the only President to have been assassinated was Lincoln’s father, so an attempt on the President was considered both a rare and somewhat unlikely event. James Garfield believed that the President should be seen by the people and he therefore took few precautions when in public. He had once written:

‘The letter of Mr. Hudson of Detroit, with your endorsement came duly to hand. I do not think there is any serious danger in the direction to which he refers - though I am receiving, what I suppose to be the usual number of threatening letters on that subject. Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning; and it is not best to worry about either.’[x]

Unfortunately, Charles Guiteau had decided that the President’s death was a political necessity. His initial anger at being overlooked for a diplomatic position in Paris (which he had convinced himself was his right due to a speech he had written in support of Garfield during the election) gradually turned to paranoia. He was convinced that Garfield disliked him due to his allegiance to the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party and eventually that Garfield was a traitor and dictator.[xi] He wasn’t subtle in his intentions, going so far as to send the President letters and asking for a tour of the prison where he believed he would be incarcerated after the event.[xii] A letter taken from his pocket read:

‘The President’s tragic death was a sad necessity, but it will unite the Republican Party and save the Republic…I had no ill-will toward the President. His death was a political necessity.’[xiii]

Robert Lincoln had come to the station to let the President know that he was unable to join him on the trip as originally planned, but what he witnessed must have brought back terrible memories. Reportedly only 40 feet away from the President, he watched Guiteau step out of the shadows, walk up to the President and fire two shots, one to the arm and the other to the back. As with his father’s shooting, he showed some elements of calmness, attending the fallen President, calling for a gunshot wound specialist, Dry Bliss, and putting soldiers onto the streets to ensure calm.[xiv]

As with President Lincoln, Garfield did not die immediately; in fact, it took 80 days for him to succumb, not to the gunshot wound, but to the septicemia caused by his doctors. In September 1881, Robert Todd Lincoln attended a second funeral of an assassinated president.[xv]

William McKinley: September 14, 1901

The Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo was intended to showcase American achievement with the slogan ‘commercial wellbeing and good understanding among the American Republics’[xvi]. President William McKinley, six months into his second term as the 25th President, was attending as part of his American tour. He was a popular president and the speech he gave there on September 5 was attended by a vast audience[xvii]. The next day, he toured Niagara Falls before returning to the fair for a public reception at the Temple of Music. McKinley enjoyed meeting the public and despite Secretary Cortelyou’s reservations, he was determined to attend, putting the reception back onto his schedule every time it was removed. Cortelyourelented but ensured that there would be ample security at the venue: the President’s own protection officer, George Foster, plus two other Secret Service Agents, the Exposition police, four Buffalo detectives and a dozen artillerymen[xviii]. But the precautions were to no avail. The day was hot and the usual precaution that everyone in the line should approach the President empty handed was abandoned, along with the habit that Foster should stand beside the President. By the time Foster realized that the approaching man, with his hand covered by a handkerchief[xix], was a danger, it was too late and at 4:07pm unemployed factory worker turned political anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, shot McKinley twice in the abdomen.

A few hours later Robert Todd Lincoln stepped off of a train at Buffalo station on his way to the Exposition to be greeted by a telegram reading:

“President McKinley was shot down by an anarchist in Buffalo this afternoon. He was hit twice in the abdomen. Condition serious.”[xx]

Lincoln missed the actual moment of the shooting, but he immediately went to see the President and spent some time with him that evening and again two days later. Lincoln believed that the President was remarkably well given what had happened to him, but eight days later on September 14, McKinley died of gangrene. 

The event could only have brought back more memories for Lincoln and he did not disguise his sadness when he wrote to the new President, Theodore Roosevelt:

“I do not congratulate you, for I have seen too much of the seamy side of the Presidential Robe to think of it as an enviable garment.”[xxi]

A Certain Fatality

When Robert Lincoln died in 1926, there had been three presidential assassinations and he had a connection to them all. As historian Todd Arrington has observed, that might not have been unusual for a man involved in politics as Lincoln was[xxii], but, on a personal level, it must have been a painful situation.  

‘There is a certain fatality about presidential functions when I am present,’ Lincoln is supposed to have quipped. Perhaps the more telling quote is the one he gave to the New York Times the day after the shooting of James Garfield in Washington: ‘How many hours of sorrow I have passed in this town.’[xxiii].

 

What do you think of Robert Todd Lincoln? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Samantha Arrowsmith’s article on 7 occasions Europe changed the time here.

[i] Lincoln: A Foreigner’s Quest, Jan Morris, 2001, p128 

[ii] Meet Robert Todd Lincoln, The Estranged Son of the 16th President who had his mother committed, Lauren Zmirich, 2019 

[iii] Lincoln’s Boys: The legacy of an American father and an American family, Robert P Watson and Dale Berger, 2010

[iv] Giant in the Shadows: The life of Robert T Lincoln, Jason Emerson, 2012, p99 

[v] Emerson, p107

[vi] The Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection

[vii] Emerson, p105

[viii] Letter from Robert Lincoln 28 September 1881

[ix] How Edwin Booth Saved Robert Todd Lincoln’s Life, Jason Emerson, 2005

[x] Letter from President Garfield to Sherman, November 1880

[xi] Killing the President: assassinations, attempts and rumored attempts on US Commanders-in-Chief, Willard M Oliver and Nancy E Marion, 2010, p44

[xii] Oliver and Marion, p44

[xiii] The New York Times 3 July 1881

[xiv] ‘A Certain Fatality’ Robert Todd Lincoln and the Presidential Assassinations, Todd Arrington, 2014

[xv] Funeral of President Garfield: Announcement to the Public

[xvi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Exposition

[xvii] You can view the President giving the speech at https://www.loc.gov/item/00694342/  

[xviii] JFK assassination records: Appendix 7: a brief history of presidential protection

[xix] The New York Times 7 September 1901

[xx] Arrington, 2014

[xxi] Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site

[xxii] Arrington, 2014

[xxiii] Arrington, 2014

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 4 – McKinley’s Character

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue. In part 4, we look in depth at McKinley’s character and domestic life.

If you missed it, in part 1 here Victor provides the background to the statue removal, in part 2 here he looks at McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans, and in part 3 here he considers McKinley’s relationship with African Americans.

A photo of William McKinley.

The word included in the accusations brought against the man: “rape, murder, genocide, savagery” would be a good description of a serial killer or monstrous dictator like Hitler. But they are wildly inconsistent with the known character of William McKinley. The testimony of those who knew the man are universal in their admiration of his personal habits. In 1896 when a McKinley run for president became likely, the opposition mudslinging kicked into high gear. The problem was, they could find nothing to attack him on. His life was free from scandal, he was a hard worker.  He had not used his office to enrich himself. The opposition then resorted to digging up falsehoods.

In fact, the general respect with which this man had garnered from public opinion is well illustrated from an incident occurring in 1893. In that year of financial panic, McKinley, through no fault of his own, faced bankruptcy. His debts far exceeded his ability to repay and so he considered quitting politics and returning to practice law. When his desperate straits became public knowledge, a great outpouring of public sympathy arose. As many as five thousand donations, many from Democrats, poured into the Governor's office. The reason? His reputation for kindness and as an honest public servant who never used his office for public gain. The Democrat Brooklyn Eagle described the entire affair, both the bankruptcy and the generosity of friends in coming to McKinley’s assistance as “a matter of hearthstone pleasure around the land.”

Honest politician

To those who say an honest politician doesn’t exist, I say, meet William McKinley. Even in that era when people took religion seriously, he stood out as an example of a complete Christian gentleman. He is, in fact, considered to be one of the most devout men to ever occupy the White House. He was a lifelong and pious member of the Methodist Church. As a holder of public office, he would often pray before making important political decisions. His soul-searching about what to do with the Philippines is not atypical. On that subject he said to a group of visitors: “I walked the floor of the White House night after night, until midnight. And I am not ashamed to tell you gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night.” He disapproved of off-color jokes or stories in his presence. As president of the local Y.M.C.A. he mentored young men to take their devotion to spiritual and moral standards seriously and led them in street-witnessing outings. McKinley characteristically proclaimed his spiritual convictions publicly, “Our faith teaches that there is no safer reliance than upon the God of our fathers, who has so singularly favored the American people in every national trial, and who will not forsake us so long as we obey His commandments and walk humbly in his footsteps.” I believe the record of his life, as witnessed partially in this article, provides abundant examples of the fact that his life and actions as a political leader were amply informed by his religious convictions. 

Broad-minded

Next, evidence is abundant of his basic broad-mindedness. In the words of one biographer, “McKinley was devoid of bigotry…” For instance, although a dedicated member of the Methodist Church all his life, his creed based itself on the love and kindness of God, not doctrinal bickering. In contrast to a rising tide of anti-Catholicism, he consistently embraced into his circle of friends and into his administration followers of all creeds, including Catholic. His choice as Commissioner-General of Immigration was an Irish Catholic labor leader named Terence Vincent Powderly, founder of the Knights of Labor. At the presentation of the sword to Admiral Dewey on October 3, 1899, McKinley took the unprecedented step of having a Roman Catholic prelate, Cardinal Gibbons, pronounce the benediction. Despite his strict Methodism, he made many friends among the Catholic community of Canton. 

Kindred to this, his attitude toward labor further underlined his humanity. Although a Republican and decidedly pro-business, he managed at the same time to be a friend of labor. This was no easy feat during the ‘Gilded Age’. Conflict between labor and the corporate interests was so intense at this time that some were afraid it would lead to a new civil war. Despite this, McKinley managed to win the support and respect of both sides. He understood the importance of a healthy business environment while at the same time sympathizing with the grievances of labor. His popularity with labor dates from an early court case in which he defended some miners who had been involved in a riot. He managed to get all but one acquitted. When the strikers scraped up money to reimburse him, McKinley refused to accept payment from the struggling miners. Numerous measures passed for the protection of workers during his tenure as governor of Ohio show his influence. He often took it upon himself to arbitrate labor disputes, attempting to win settlements favorable to both sides. When he did so, he insisted that his involvement be kept private.  

Dedicated public servant

By all accounts McKinley was a dedicated public servant. As president, he rarely took vacations. In 1898, a very taxing year involving major foreign policy crises, he took one holiday lasting one week. Part of it was spent visiting a military hospital to check on conditions and encourage the sick and wounded. Intense pressure brought on by the Spanish-American War and scandals over the War Department would have driven a lesser man to frequent vacations - not the sober McKinley. Contrast this with the frequent vacations taken by recent presidents. During that war, which McKinley had done everything he could to avoid, he was governed by the rule he articulated to his Secretary of War, Russell Alger. The Secretary was eager to deflect negative publicity and cater to growing demands from militiamen who feared the war would end before they had a chance to see action. To accomplish these ends he proposed to the president an immediate attack on Puerto Rico. McKinley answered with his usual terse practicality and high standards, “Mr Secretary what do you think the people will say if they believe we unnecessarily and at great expense send these boys out of the country? Is it either necessary or expedient?” 

Eyewitnesses also reported that the Major was devoid of pretense or self-importance no matter how high he rose in the public service. Both in speech and appearance he “showed no sign of self-importance or affectation” in Leech’s words, and was always accessible to the general public. He often insisted that his participation in certain accomplishments be kept out of the paper for he had “no desire to indulge in any pyrotechnics.” His attitude toward public service can be summed up in the following statements taken down by his secretary George Cortelyou, “when the time comes the question of my acquiescence (to re-nomination in 1900) will be based absolutely upon whether the call of duty appears to me clear and well defined.” Since McKinley was not known for empty platitudes, we can take these statements at face value.

Domestic life

In domestic virtues McKinley developed a reputation which approached the legendary. He married Ida Saxton on January 25, 1871. The marriage was sadly destined to have its share of tragedies. Two daughters were born to the couple, both of whom died in early childhood. The sad little graves of Katie and Ida McKinley can be seen in the McKinley Memorial in Canton, Ohio. McKinley’s wife never quite recovered from this double blow and was a semi-recluse for the rest of the couples’ marriage. As author Margaret Leech put it “The pretty, pleasure-seeking young woman McKinley had married had changed to a feeble, self-centered nervous invalid.” Much of the Major’s time was spent tending to his wife during her frequent bouts of illness and seeking respite by sending her to various cures. Ida could also be rather demanding. Many official meetings were interrupted by her insisting her husband leave the meeting immediately and tender his views on some domestic matter. Common themes were his opinion on which fabric to use in creation of some item of clothing or decor. The disgruntled participants of the meeting were surprised to see McKinley immediately leap up to go to his wife at these summonses. To many his wife’s solicitations seemed trivial, but McKinley invariably gave her his full and careful attention. Unlike many men in his circumstances, the Major never gave in to complaint or the seeking out of other female companionship. Instead, many observed him change to accommodate his wife. He was observed tirelessly ministering to her needs and attentive to her comfort. His tone of voice became soft and careful, he developed skill in diverting Ida, he endured close, stuffy environments because she avoided fresh air, he adjusted his gait to suit her hesitant pace. He became expert at diagnosing the degree of severity of her attacks and treating them. His example of domestic constancy was one factor in winning the support of women, who, although they lacked the suffrage at this time, were playing an increasingly important role in social and political issues. After decades of marriage he continued to sign his letters to her “your faithful husband and always your lover.” During the White House years, so devoted was the president to the First Lady that Senator Mark Hanna remarked that McKinley's dedication to her was “making it awfully hard on all the other husbands around here.”

Quotes on McKinley

But instead of relying on our distant voices alone, let us allow those who knew him to speak. The following are a series of quotes.

He was “a mediaeval knight in the dusty arena of Ohio politics” - Bellamy Storer.

“He never had a harsh word, but rather a kindly appeal: ‘Come now, let us put the personal element aside and consider the principle involved.’ “ - Robert La Follette.

“That never failing remedy of yours.” -- Mark Hanna on McKinley’s famous tact.

"In a few minutes word came from Mr. McKinley that he would see me. How any man can see so many people ... and still keep himself calm, patient, and fresh for each visitor in the way that President McKinley does, I cannot understand. - Booker T. Washington

McKinley Quotes:

“This seems to be right and fair and just. I think so don’t you?” (To Mark Hanna)

“There are some things … I would not do and cannot do, even to become President of the United States.”

“War should never be entered upon until every agency of peace has failed; peace is preferable to war in almost every contingency.” 

This brings us back to the accusations. Bearing in mind that this article is by no means an exhaustive description of the admirable character of our 25th president, ask yourself, does William McKinley sound like someone who would be guilty of “racism, murder and slaughter” or willing to tolerate the enslavement and abuse of anyone? Or has he been most grievously misrepresented? 

Having read the series, what do you think of William McKinley? Let us know below.

Now, if you want to learn about Tudor England, you can read Victor’s series on Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon here.

References

The Booker T. Washington Papers, Vol. 5: 1899-1900, University of Illinois Press, 1976.

“Conflict Among the Tribes and Settlers.” Nebraska Studies.org

Gould, Lewis L. The Presidency of William McKinley, Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1980.

Gould, Lewis. “William McKinley Domestic Affairs.” 2019, miller center.org, accessed October, 2020.

Harpine, William D.  “African American Rhetoric of Greeting During McKinley’s 1896 Front Porch Campaign.” University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Communication Department 2010.

Leech, Margaret, In the Days of McKinley, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959

McKinley, William, First Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1897.

McKinley, William, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1897.

McKinley, William. “Veto Message to Congress.” May 03, 1900.

“William McKinley and Civil Rights” Presidential History Geeks, Oct. 13th, 2011, potus-geeks.livejournal.com, accessed October, 2020.

Marshall, Everett, Complete Life of William McKinley and Story of His Assassination An Authentic and Official Memorial Edition, Containing Every Incident in the Career of the Immortal Statesman, Soldier, Orator and Patriot, Originally published by Donahue, 1901

Morgan, H. Wayne,  “The View from the Front Porch: William McKinley and the Campaign of 1896" presented to the 12th Hayes Lecture on the Presidency, February 18, 2001, in the Hayes Museum auditorium.

“Patterns of White Settlement in Oklahoma” Region 3 Oklahoma Historic Preservation Survey, Oklahoma State University, 1986. 

Washington, Booker T. Up From Slavery, An Autobiography, New York: Doubleday, 1901.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 3 – McKinley and African Americans

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue. In part 3, we look in depth at McKinley’s relationship with African Americans.

If you missed it, in part 1 here Victor provides the background to the statue removal and in part 2 here he looks at McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans.

Booker T. Washington, an educator, orator, and advisor to US presidents. Washington met with William McKinley.

The protestors in Arcata, California accused the 25th president of supporting “racism and murder.” How does this charge stand up? From his youth McKinley shared the strong anti-slavery and pro-union views of his family. Not long after the fall of Fort Sumter, the young McKinley answered his country’s call and volunteered for service. He served bravely throughout the conflict, rising to the rank of major. He, in fact, liked to be referred to as “The Major” for the rest of his life. As such he played his part, along with millions of others, in re-uniting the nation and freeing the slaves. During his political life he remained steadfastly dedicated to the party of Lincoln and full civil rights for the ex-slaves. His first political speech took place in 1867. His theme? Give African Americans the vote. He spent a good amount of that year continuing to work for this cause. 

His campaign for African American suffrage and equal rights for African Americans did not end in 1867. After election to congress in 1876 he continued to advocate for disenfranchised African Americans. On April 28, 1880 at the Republican State Convention in Columbus, Ohio he attacked the Democratic suppression of African American voting rights. He described the Democratic effort to establish one-party rule in the South and the almost complete suppression of opposition political activity. Using the example of a largely African American district he denounced the fact that the population had “been disenfranchised by the use of the shotgun and the bludgeon.” He then challenged his audience with a burning question:

“Are free thought and free political action to be crushed out in one section of the country? I answer No, no! But that the whole power of the Federal Government must be exhausted in securing every citizen, black or white, rich or poor, everywhere within the limits of the Union, every right, civil and political, guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws.”

1880s and African American votes

McKinley continued hammering at this theme throughout the 1880s, referring to “Southern outrages” and reminding his fellow congressmen that the small number of African American representatives was proof that African Americans were being denied the vote in the South. He continued to uphold the Old Guard Republican ideal long after many had given up on Reconstruction. One such speech appealed to the desperate need to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments:

“...the consciences of the American people will not be permitted to slumber until the great constitutional right, the equality of the suffrage, equality of opportunity, freedom of political action and political thought, shall not be the mere cold formalities of constitutional enactment as now, but a living birthright which the poorest and humblest, white or black, native born or naturalized citizen, may confidently enjoy, and which the richest and most powerful dare not deny.”

McKinley and the 1896 election

Throughout his career McKinley sought African American support. While in Congress he supported Reconstruction and opposed the white-supremacist policies of the Democrats. He received African American delegations both in Georgia while staying with friend and supporter Mark Hanna, and at his home in Ohio during the run for the White House. During this stay in Georgia, which was essentially a campaign trip, he became the first presidential hopeful-nominee in American history to address an African American audience. On this occasion he spoke at an African American church. When it came time to officially run for the nation’s highest office, McKinley conducted his run entirely from his front porch. During the presidential election campaign of 1896, hundreds of delegations made their way to Canton, Ohio to show support or hear from the candidate. Included among these visitors were several African American delegations that made the journey to the candidate’s front porch to show their support. African Americans as a whole supported McKinley because, during this time of the rise Jim Crow, they knew he did not support increasing discrimination. Bishop B. W. Arnett, of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, stressed to McKinley that: “We come to assure you that we will never cease our efforts on your behalf until we have achieved such a victory in November as was won by our fathers in their early struggles for liberty… you represent the cardinal principles of the Republican Party which have so benefited our race—the principles for which you and your comrades struggled from 1861 to 1865.” Another African American delegation, this one from McKinley’s own Stark County, had first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s character and policies. On July 3, 1896 this local organization came to see their candidate. William Bell of Massillon, Ohio delivered a brief message of support as follows:

“You have always treated us, just as you do everybody else . . . with great consideration and kindness, and on every occasion have been our friend, champion and protector. We come to congratulate you and assure you of our earnest support until you are triumphantly elected next November.”

The front porch candidate’s own remarks to African American groups included the following statements: “It is a matchless civilization in which we live; a civilization that recognizes the common and universal brotherhood of man.”

McKinley as president

As governor and president McKinley condemned lynching - a quarter of a century before Congress finally found within itself the conviction to pass anti-lynching legislation. Let’s look at McKinley’s statement in context:

“These guarantees (basic freedoms such as speech) must be sacredly preserved and wisely strengthened. The constituted authorities must be cheerfully and vigorously upheld. Lynchings must not be tolerated in a great and civilized country like the United States; courts, not mobs, must execute the penalties of the law. The preservation of public order, the right of discussion, the integrity of courts, and the orderly administration of justice must continue forever the rock of safety upon which our Government securely rests.” 

Despite the pressures of changing times, McKinley never wavered from adherence to the tenets of the party of Lincoln. He maintained and extended the traditional Republican inclusion of African Americans in government and expressed support for their cause. He spoke against having the nominating convention to be held in St. Louis for fear that African American delegates would not be able to get a hotel room. He once refused to stay at a hotel that would not serve African Americans. He included two African Americans on his inauguration committee. He appointed several African Americans to government positions. He was the first U.S. president to visit the Tuskegee Institute (established in 1881). He went 140 miles out of his way to do so. This act was of signal importance in bringing attention and support to this educational institution which was doing so much to help African Americans improve their conditions of life. When the Spanish-American War broke out, McKinley was diligent to make sure that African American soldiers served, even reversing orders attempting to prevent the recruitment of African American soldiers. Military service was an important part of the on-going process of African Americans gaining respect from white society as they performed valuable service and demonstrated their valor.

The Major also met with African American leaders such as Ida Wells and Booker T. Washington at the White House more than once. This event took place years before Theodore Roosevelt's famous White House meeting with Washington. The great educator recorded his impressions of McKinley and their meeting on his second visit to see McKinley. At this time a number of race riots had recently taken place in the south.  Washington noted that the president seemed “greatly burdened by reason of these disturbances.” Despite a long line of people waiting to see the president, McKinley detained Washington for some time to discuss the current condition of African Americans. He remarked repeatedly to Washington that he was “determined to show his interest and faith in the race, not merely in words, but by acts." The fruit of this meeting was the first visit to Tuskegee by a sitting president of the United States. 

Conclusion

Could he have done more? Certainly. Beyond the measures discussed here he was not notably pro-active in improving the situation regarding civil rights. What he did was to maintain the Republican tradition followed by his predecessors and sympathize with the plight of African Americans. However, in the words of a McKinley historian, “given the political climate in the South, there was little McKinley could have done to improve race relations, and he did better than later presidents. Theodore Roosevelt, who doubted racial equality and Wilson who supported segregation.” He did not share the radical Reconstructionist vengeful attitude toward the defeated South but rather all his life advocated reconciliation between the two sections. It must be understood that at the time the memories of the Civil War were still fresh and the need to strengthen the bonds of union still dominated the American consciousness. One of McKinley's key objectives was to continue healing the wounds of the old separation and to do everything he could to build unity between the sections. Pushing too hard on civil rights would have destroyed that effort. He may not have been a strong civil-rights advocate, but he did accomplish several ‘firsts’. In the last analysis, his actions and policies were certainly a far cry from “racism and murder.”

 

Now in part 4 here, the final part in the series, you can read about McKinley’s character.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 2 – McKinley and Native Americans

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue. In part 2, we look in depth at McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans and the accusations made against McKinley by the statue topplers.

If you missed it, in part 1 here Victor provides the background to the statue removal and starts to look at how McKinley treated Native Americans.

President William McKinley.

Arcata Council Member Susan Ornelas said: “It’s not just a lost thought. McKinley didn’t back Native Americans at all. He backed the Curtis Act, which took away Native rights on a lot of land.” As we have seen, to say McKinley “didn’t back Native Americans at all” is completely false. He firmly backed the Navajo against the attempted depredations of whites. The Curtis Act was an amendment to the Dawes Act of 1887. After the Civil War U.S. policy towards Native Americans changed to assimilation. Laws such as the Dawes Act basically sought to turn Native Americans away from their traditional tribal lifestyle and assimilate into the larger culture of modern America. Although settler greed certainly explains part of it, the Dawes Act and other measures reflected the prevailing view that the nomadic or tribal ways of the native peoples must inevitably give way to the sedentary, agricultural, and now industrializing, majority culture. It was thought that if Native Americans owned their own land and were responsible for it, dressed like white people and started living like them, they would cease being “Indian,” melt into the larger population, and the government would be free of having to oversee them. As such it abolished tribal government and gave individual Native Americans their own plots of land. The measure was also partly the result of building public pressure to treat the Native Americans with greater fairness.

Assimilation

Whether one agrees or disagrees, the fact was that the European pattern of civilization was simply overtaking tribal or nomadic cultures, which were seen as no longer feasible in the modern age. The then current philosophy was assimilation. Today this is unpopular, but then it was believed that the indigenous people needed to be helped in making the transition from the nomadic to the agricultural ways of the majority culture. The idea was to stop dealing with the Native Americans as a tribe, but instead as individuals, like non-indigenous people. As is often the case, intentions don’t always match reality and lofty motives were mixed with some selfish intent. In the wake of the Act, Native Americans lost an enormous amount of land. Additionally it also helped destroy the communal basis of indigenous culture. Ultimately the Act was recognized to be a failure, but at the time it was believed to be a needed reform. 

William McKinley became president after the point at which this had all been accomplished and was charged with administering policy within a framework that he did not create. To blame him for any negative effects of the Curtis Act is thus unfair. As we have seen, McKinley had a strong sense of justice and was determined to treat the Native Americans fairly. The Curtis Act was titled “An Act for the protection of the people of the Indian Territory.” With a title like that it is not surprising that McKinley believed it would do just what the title claimed. Moreover, the bill was not sponsored by unfeeling whites, but by Charles Curtis, a mixed-blood Kansas Native American and senator from Kansas. Curtis held the conviction that his people needed to embrace change if they were to move forward. He was an especially fervent believer in education. This conviction flowed out of his own experience. Born on a reservation in poor circumstances, he rose through hard work to eventually become majority leader in the Senate. Education played an important part in the process. With encouragement from both grandparents, he graduated from High School and then went on to study law. Because of his own success, he firmly believed that education and assimilation was the best way for his fellow Native Americans to prosper. The Dawes and Curtis Acts were partly designed to help indigenous people earn a living while making the transition by giving them land. Therefore we can see that the future negative effects of the Curtis Act were not widely foreseen at the time. The Act was well meaning and McKinley’s motives in backing it were out of a desire to help the tribes.

Support for the Curtis Act

In his first annual message to Congress on December 6, 1897, the president explained his reasons for supporting the Curtis Act. He remarked that conditions in the Indian Territory had drastically changed over the previous 30 years and that the old treaties were no longer functioning. He pointed out that the white population greatly exceeded that of the Native Americansand that the whites were deprived of certain privileges. He asserted that the whites had settled with the permission of the Native Americans. The worst one can say about McKinley’s message is that he was incorrect that all white settlement was by permission of the Native Americans. The truth is that many whites settled in Indian Territory without permission. Since the president was not known for fabrication, it is most likely that he was unaware of this. The Dawes Commission made the following recommendation to the president: “Individual ownership is, in their (the Commission’s) opinion, absolutely essential to any permanent improvement in present conditions, and the lack of it is the root of nearly all the evils which so grievously afflict these people.” According to the information McKinley was given, the Curtis act was “having a salutary effect upon the nations composing the five tribes” and that the Dawes Commission reported “the most gratifying results.” The president was acting on the recommendations of experts, so what else was he supposed to do?

As a part of assisting the tribes, McKinley was diligent in fulfilling the “The Historical Trust Relationship'' between the U.S. government and Native Americans. One of the key elements in fulfilling the government’s part of the relationship was to provide educational opportunities. In this capacity McKinley signed no less than four executive orders providing land for Native American schools.

Judging McKinley

To meet the standards set by the protestors, McKinley would have had to: A) Repudiate over 30 years of government and territorial policy which by then involved hundreds of thousands of people, B) Publicly reject the findings and recommendations of an expert commission sent to make judgments based on personal investigation - and on what basis would he have been able to do so?, and C) Somehow have the vision to understand what no one else seemed to regarding the future damage to tribal culture that would result. Additionally, the protestors do not seem to understand the nature of American government. McKinley was not a dictator who could simply order something to happen. He had to work within the democratic system and was beholden to Congress and the people who voted for him. Not only was their strong support in Congress and what would become Oklahoma for the measure, some tribes agreed to it as well.

In an effort to have the facts on their side, pro-statue-removal Arcata city interns Paul Hilton and Steven Munoz were tasked with gathering information on McKinley and his statue. They charged that he was complicit in the so-called “California Genocide.” Hilton stated: “He turned a blind eye when California paid off militia who killed and massacred natives,” adding, “Looking away is being complicit.” Mr. Hilton and his co-intern assembled a three-part report on the 25th president and his statue. A related accusation was, “Why do we have this man standing in this square where they used to sell our children?” The protest was referring to mistreatment of California Native Americans, which allegedly included the sale of Native American children as slaves.

Putting the claims to the test

Let’s test this accusation. It is, in a word, so impossible as to approach the bizarre. Simply look at the chronology. Historians consider the genocide to have taken place from 1848 to roughly the 1870s. As stated above, McKinley was a boy and young man who had not even held political office yet during the California Genocide. The Arcata accusation might make some sense if he were a resident of California, but he was a resident of Ohio, in which case he cannot be expected to even be aware of the genocide, let alone speak out against it. Blaming him for the California Genocide is like blaming the young Abraham Lincoln for slavery. 

But let’s allow Native Americans to speak for themselves. After expiring on September 14, 1901 from the gunshot wounds he received at the hands of his assassin, McKinley’s body lay in state at Buffalo, New York for two days. A Congress of Native Americans of the Pan-American Indian Congress had been a part of the great exposition in Buffalo. Led by several chiefs, including Geronimo, a procession of Native Americans, each holding a white carnation, paid their respects at the casket of the fallen chief executive. The chiefs composed a memorial card which read:

“The farewell of Chief Geronimo, Blue Horse, Flat Iron and Red Shirt and the 700 braves of the Indian congress. Like Lincoln and Garfield, President McKinley never abused authority except on the side of mercy. The martyred Great White Chief will stand in memory next to the Savior of mankind. We loved him living, we love him still.”

Geronimo’s eulogy continued the tribute:

“The rainbow of hope is out of the sky. Heavy clouds hang about us. Tears wet the ground of the tepees. The chief of the nation is dead. Farewell.” 

The reference to mercy may be to McKinley’s action after the Battle of Sugar Point. After that conflict, McKinley pardoned all Native Americans involved.

Now, in part 3 here you can read about McKinley’s relationship with African Americans.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 1 – Statue Toppled

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue.

In part 1 we provide the background to the statue removal and look at how McKinley treated Native Americans.

William McKinley is sworn in as US president by Chief Justice Melville Fuller. To the right is outgoing President Grover Cleveland.

Introduction

With media attention focused on statues of former slave-owners, very little media coverage has focused on the removal of a 111-year old statue that took place on the west coast of America. It was not Father Serra or Columbus. In fact, little information got to the general public about this statue to a figure not usually linked with California history: William McKinley, 25th president of the United States. In the small town of Arcata, California a diverse group of activists and city officials targeted the statue for removal beginning in 2017. The average American has not even heard of McKinley let alone that a statue of our 25th president graced the Golden State. He clearly is famous, or infamous, enough, though, to have stirred the wrath of the residents of this lovely seaside community. 

The illustrious career of William McKinley Jr. came to a sudden and untimely end at the hands of an assassin. This pointless act of violence took place on September 6, 1901 at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. McKinley was greeting a long line of visitors at the Temple of Music. He liked people and, to the consternation of his security service, insisted on shaking everyone’s hand. Among those who waited in line to meet the president was an anarchist named Leon Czolgosz. When his turn came McKinley reached out but instead of an open hand Czolgosz presented a revolver. The assassin fired at the president at point blank range twice. Taken to a nearby house for medical attention, McKinley, despite rallying briefly, succumbed on September 14 due to infections caused by the wound. The death of the popular McKinley was immediately met by a widespread and genuine outpouring of national grief. 

As if that terrible ending of his life were not bad enough, he has recently been condemned to a “second death” by character assassination. The questions the article seeks to consider are:

·       Was the decision to remove this statue appropriate?

·       What standards were used to justify the statue’s removal?

·       Did the standards have merit?

This article will attempt to answer these questions by examining the arguments of those that demanded the removal of the McKinley statue. The facts of the case will be submitted to the candid readers that they may decide if our 25th president deserved his “second death.” Let’s begin!

Copy-Cat Statue Topplers?

In this small community of 17,000, overlooking the Pacific only two-hours’ drive from Oregon, debate over the statue can be traced to the 1970s. Discussion turned into a demand for action after the Charlottesville, Virginia riots over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in 2017. With a reputation for being one of the most left-wing cities in the country, any statue politically to the right of Ho Chi Minh would probably have not survived long in these extremist times. Inspired by Charlottesville, local Native American activists began a petition drive to remove the statue. Protests became a fixture on the plaza where the statue was located. Normally dull City Hall meetings came alive as both defenders and opponents of McKinley’s removal generated lively public debate. A common rationale amongst the protestors was that after seeing Confederate statues fall, they became convinced that their remote city needed to take care of its own “statue-problem.” Rapidly all the real and alleged grievances of Native American activists and other marginalized groups were projected onto the silent, long-suffering 8 ½’ image. Essentially, McKinley became a symbol of everything the protestors opposed or disliked. 

What holds Water?

Now let’s look at each accusation in turn and weigh their merits. As lovers of history I invite you to be deeply concerned that history is “done right.” The standard we use is not whether it is right or wrong to topple a statue or whether McKinley took actions that are deemed morally wrong by the protestors. Was McKinley actually guilty of the charges brought against him? Also, the issue is whether McKinley’s actions were justified in the context of the 19th century given the norms of the time and the information McKinley possessed. For example, a nineteenth-century factory owner whose employees contracted illness due to exposure to chemicals cannot be condemned if no one at the time was aware of the effects of those chemicals, and he otherwise treated them fairly. 

McKinley and Indigenous Americans

Now, on to the accusations: first, Chris Peters, head of the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People called McKinley a proponent of “settler colonialism” that “savaged, raped and killed.” He furthermore claimed that McKinley was responsible for "directing the slaughter of native peoples." 

How does this accusation hold up? First, clarity is needed on the terms “settler colonialism.” Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that results, often unintentionally, in the replacement of the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers. This phenomenon has been going on since Ancient Egypt. It also includes what amounts to “settler colonialism” among American indigenous tribes themselves. For instance, the Lakota Sioux undertook a migration to the south in the same century that McKinley lived, in which they pushed aside the Omaha tribe. In the words of one source “Attacks from the Sioux Tribe and disease often meant the relocation of the villages.” Following Peter's logic, every statue created since the days of the Pharaohs should be removed and the statue of Crazy Horse, near Mount Rushmore, as well. This is the first reason the accusation is unfair: one cannot apply different standards to different people for the same crime.

Second, McKinley is absolutely innocent of this charge for the following reasons. The Homestead Act was passed when McKinley was a 19-year-old sergeant in the Union Army and thus he had nothing to do with that measure. During the post-Civil War period he was busy establishing a career in Ohio as a lawyer and raising a family and had nothing to do with anything remotely akin to “settler colonialism.” Elected to congress in 1876, the up-and-coming politician ultimately gravitated toward the Ways and Means Committee and became an expert on the tariff. His focus was on policies that would encourage national prosperity, which he felt would benefit all people. Once again, he was not known for any overt statements or actions promoting “settler colonialism.” From 1892 to 1896 he was Governor of Ohio and continued to have nothing to do with policy towards indigenous peoples. On the other hand, since McKinley served as president for several years, he did ultimately direct policy affecting Native Americans. Is it here that McKinley committed the alleged misdeeds? Let’s look at the McKinley presidential record with regard to Native Americans.

President McKinley and Native Americans

Counted among his many friends were two men who were themselves great friends of Native Americans: Senator Matt Quay and Ethan Allan Hitchcock. Mr. Quay was part Native American, and an official member of the Delaware tribe. He was also a champion of both Native American and African-American rights. Hitchcock served as McKinley’s Secretary of the Interior from February 20, 1899. He has been called the most effective leader of the department in its first half century of existence. Among other things, the Department handled issues related to Native Americans. As Secretary, Hitchcock set a new standard for the department, vigorously prosecuting land fraud and assisting Native American peoples and protecting their rights. This represented a turning point in the Office of Indian Affairs, which had been notoriously inept. Additionally he fully embraced the conservation movement, influencing McKinley in taking many measures to expand and protect forests and other resources.

One example of McKinley’s attitude towards indigenous people regards the Navajo Tribe. A bill was sent to the chief executive’s desk which involved a group of white entrepreneurs scheming to open up what was left of the Navajo lands to exploitation. McKinley and Hitchcock saw through the scheme and flatly rejected it, ruling in favor of the tribe. In fact, this was the most important veto the 25th president ever issued. In a careful and strongly worded message, McKinley explained why he would not sign the bill. He began by describing the condition of the tribe and the land, that, under the treaty of June 1, 1863 and subsequent executive orders, was reserved for the Navajo people. He next declared that those boundaries were inadequate for the tribe. He had thus, by executive order on January 8, 1899, enlarged the tribe’s boundaries. The territory of the Navajo was therefore significantly extended so as to, in his own words, provide “sufficient grass and water for their flocks and herds, and avoiding the prior contention and friction between them and the whites.” The president’s opinion was that it would be neither “just nor possible” to confine them to the previous smaller reservation. McKinley next noted that the Navajo had accepted the new, revised boundaries. He then turned to the proposed bill, which desired to open a substantial amount of the Navajo land to mining operations. McKinley protested that no effort had been made to gain the permission of the Navajo people. He stated that the inevitable effect of the law would be to take the remaining land from the Navajo and asked why such a bill was being proposed that made no effort to negotiate with the tribe in question. He also praised the Navajo’s “habits of industry and husbandry.” More than once he mentioned his concern for the Navajo’s flocks of sheep, which are, by the way, an extremely important part of Navajo culture and economy.

This doesn’t really sound like “savagery, raping and killing” does it? In studying the career of McKinley one will find the same pattern of fairness, high standards and broadmindedness in most of his dealings. When McKinley had the facts, in this case given to him by the vigilant Hitchcock, he was eager to do what was just. His Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock was alert to prevent further injustices to Native Americans. He knew his boss McKinley shared his views and so the two worked as a team to do what they believed was right by the Native Americans.

Now you can read part 2 on McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans here.

What would your last words be if you knew you were about to die? Last Words of the Executed

In the article, we tell you about a very interesting book, Last Words of the Executed. The book documents the final words of people killed in America following crimes they committed. We also pick up some last words and stories from the book.

“I killed the president because he was an enemy of the good people—of the working people. I am not sorry for my crime. I’m awfully sorry I could not see my father.”

Leon Frank Czolgosz (aka Leon Frans Czolgosz), convicted of murder, electrocution, New York, October 29, 1901.

Czolgosz assassinated President William McKinley after waiting in line to shake his hand in Buffalo. Czolgosz’s reasons for doing so were not entirely clear, though he did express grievances against the U.S. and claim that the American dream was a lie. Eight weeks after the murder, Czolgosz was electrocuted and his body was dissolved in acid as it was buried.

Leon Frank Czolgosz, the assassin of President William McKinley, behind bars

This book is a fascinating read that I stumbled upon recently. The Last Words of the Executed by Robert K Elder is a great historical document that pulls together the last words of those people who were killed by the state for their crimes in America from the 17th century onwards. It starts by discussing why we would want to know the last words of those who have committed the most heinous crimes possible in society, and briefly looks at the history of the death penalty. For example:

"The ritual recording of last words exists in a largely Christian framework. In early Christian history, the last words were taken as a show of spiritual mercy, a last chance to repent and save one’s soul. From the Fifteenth to the Nineteenth centuries, speeches from the scaffold were mass-produced in pamphlets and prayer books that served as guides to dignified religious dying. The ritual also performed a legal function. In many countries, a “dying declaration” enjoyed a legal precedent as evidence."

The Noose

The book then moves on to look at each major way that people have been killed in America, and records their final words. First up is the noose. Below are the words and the story of the last words of one person who was hung:

“No, I am ready at any time; but do not keep me needlessly waiting.”

John Brown, convicted of treason, hanging, Virginia, December 2, 1859.

Brown, a controversial figure in American history, has been called both a mass murderer and “the man who killed slavery.” Brown, a stalwart abolitionist, was brought to trial for his raid on Harper’s Ferry, a town in what is now West Virginia, then a federal arsenal. His attack resulted in the deaths of five pro-slavery men.

A popular marching tune of the time was set to lyrics, which included the line “John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave. His soul is marching on!” This song became “John Brown’s Body” and was later adapted into the “Glory, glory Hallelujah” of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

Though these are Brown’s last words (another variation is record as: “No, but don’t keep me waiting longer than necessary.”), he is better remembered for his final speech to the court which sentenced him. Though it contradicts Brown’s own tactics and his advocating of violent insurrection to bring an end to slavery, Ralph Waldo Emerson paired it with the Gettysburg Address and named them the two greatest American speeches. Brown said:

“I have, may it please the court, a few words to say.

In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted: of a design on my part to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter, when I went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moving through the country, and finally leaving them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.

I have another objection, and that it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved—for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case—had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, whether father, mother, brother, sister, wife or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right. Every man in this Court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This Court acknowledges, too, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed, which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament, which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even to them. It teaches me, further, to remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done, in behalf of his despised poor, I did no wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel and unjust enactments, I say, let it be done.”

The Firing Squad

The second method of execution considered is the firing squad. It has most recently been associated with the state of Utah, but that state too recently ended it. Here are a very few more last words:

“So long, fellows.”

Frank Rose, convicted of murder, firing squad, Utah, April 22, 1904

The bravado of Frank Rose was well documented in Utah publications during his trial. On the day of his execution Rose walked with “almost a swagger to the death chair.” Rose shot his wife on Christmas day and left his 2-year-old son in the room with the dead mother for two days without food or water. Rose refused to enter a plea to the court, and when a “not guilty” plea was entered for him, he refused to offer any evidence on his behalf. In a statement released the day before his death, Rose confessed to many murders and burglaries throughout the West. Officials doubted whether he was speaking truthfully.

Electrocution and the Gas Chamber

After the second method of execution is looked at, electrocution and the gas chamber are considered. There were hopes that both would result in more humane deaths, although neither method is used much anymore. One slightly more comical selection of last words comes from this prisoner:

“You can be a king or a street sweeper, but everyone dances with the Grim Reaper.”

Robert Alton Harris, convicted of murder, gas chamber, California, April 21, 1992.

Harris was the first person to receive the death penalty after the state of California reinstated it in 1976. Harris went to the gas chamber for two 1978 murders when he and his brother abducted two 16-year-old boys from a fast food establishment, drove them to a remote location, shot, and killed them. Harris’ brother testified against him, received a six-year sentence and was discharged in 1983. Harris’ last words are paraphrased from the comedic portrayal of the character Death in the 1991 film Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey.

Lethal Injection

The final method of execution considered is lethal injection, the dominant method of execution today. What is interesting is that over time there have been more calls for those on death row to end the death penalty. The book itself tries to steer away from the politics of the death penalty, but the quotes from prisoners inevitably mean that it is briefly discussed in the book. One notable example is this:

“I have news for you—there is not going to be an execution. This is premeditated murder by the state of Texas. I hope in my death I’m that little bitty snowball that starts to bury the death penalty.

 I have committed lots of sin in my life but I am not guilty of this crime. I would like to tell my son, daughter and wife that I love them—Eden, if they want proof, give it to them. Thanks for being my friend.”

Jesse DeWayne Jacobs, convicted of murder, lethal injection, Texas, January 4, 1995

Jacobs and his sister, Bobbie Jean Hogan, were convicted of the shooting death of Etta Ann Urdiales, ex-wife of Hogan’s boyfriend. Jacobs confessed that his sister offered him $500 and a room if he would kill Urdiales, who allegedly was pestering Hogan’s boyfriend about child support and custody. Jacobs later recanted and said Hogan actually pulled the trigger. Hogan was convicted of manslaughter then released.

In conclusion

Just knowing that you are going to die at an appointed hour, something that the vast majority of us are of course unaware of, must lead you to think about what your final words would be and really reflect on life. And that same logic seems to apply to some terrible criminals too. This book provides an insightful collection of such last words.

George Levrier-Jones

You can buy the Last Words of the Executed by Robert K Elder by clicking here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

If you enjoyed this article, why not take a look at our blog page? Click here.