Talk:James A. Garfield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

trivia

First Trivia entry: Of the 256 proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem in the "Pythagorean Proposition" by Elisha Scott Loomis, is attributed to Garfield.

what is attributed to Garfield?? i not a native english speaker and this sentence doesn't make any sense to me. could someone with knowledge about what is attributed to Garfield (a theorem, a book,.. ??) clear this sentence up. thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclador (talk • contribs) 10:56, June 22 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't resist adding the link to Mathworld. It is very incidental to history, but Garfield is, AFAIK, the only President of the United States to have a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem (or any theorem for that matter) to his name. Io 20:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

death by doctor

Should there be discussion in the article of the possibility that Garfield's doctors actually killed him? He apparently actually could have survived being shot but over-aggressive medical attention was the proximate cause of death. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:08 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Wrote with both hands...

The old book: Incredible But True states that Garfield could write with both hands at once. He would dazzle people by writing with both hands in Latin and Greek. That is too awesome to skip over. Things like that get people interested in history and it sure would dazzle a teacher if some young lad put that on his school paper. Garfield was an amazing man, and yes his theorem proof should be noted too! If someone can find a good source please help me out with this one! JoeHenzi 11:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. He could write simultaneously in two different languages, both of which are incredibly difficult for English-speakers to master. Sure. And his method was magic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.18.172 (talk) 06:44, November 16 2006 (UTC)

Handedness

Why does the fact that Garfield was the first left-handed President merit mention in the first sentence, and how does it square with the later claim that he was ambidextrous? Josh Cherry 03:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) I fixed that little error. --Kross 01:10, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking, it is possible to be simultaneously left handed ambidextrous.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.47.92 (talk) 23:54, July 16 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it is not, as the literal meaning of ambidextrous is "having two right hands."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.150.118 (talk) 18:46, July 29 2006 (UTC)

Did some fixing

I moved the picture of Garfield (when he was 16) to the left side. That seems to have gotten rid of that big empty space that used to be there. --Kross 22:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

POV issues

Consider removing the last sentence from the Assassination section as it lacks NPOV. See for yourself: "One of the most intelligent men ever to live in the White House, Garfield had great - but tragically unfulfilled - potential." I don't think a Wikipedia article on Garfield ought to speculate on his potential, unfulfilled or otherwise. As for the most intelligent portion, I think a reader would be better served by being furnished with information to this end (his Pythagorean Theorem proof, writing with both hands and the rest) and then concluding on their own that Garfield might be one of the most intelligent men ever to live in the White House, rather than being told by an encyclopedia that he was.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.20.133 (talk) 02:39, August 2 2005 (UTC)

Place where Garfield was shot.

President Garfield was shot in the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station on the Mall in Washington not in Union Station (which did not open until 1907). The B&P station was demolished after Union Station was built.Philabrown 12:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There was an erroneous description of the spatial relationship between the station where Garfield was shot and the Central Market, which was located where the National Archives building currently stands. The article previously claimed that the two were "next door" to one another. A map from 1873 shows, however, that the station was on the SW corner of 6th Street and Constitution Ave and the Market was located on the NW corner of 7th Street and Constitution. There was, therefore, a block (the 600 block of Constitution) and two streets (Constitution and 7th Street) separating the two. Since the reference to the Central Market added little value to the piece, and since it was too difficult to describe the relationship briefly, I deleted it, and added instead a description of how the site's current building (the National Gallery of Art) relates to the old station's site. This is somewhat confusing because the street on which the station stood has been blocked off and the gallery built on top of it.--Bvernia (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your updates and the thorough explanation. —ADavidB 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Arthur's Supporters"?

The entry notes that there was short-lived speculation that Guiteau may have been a supporter of Vice President Arthur. I don't dispute this, but, and please forgive my ignorance, was the nature of the relationship between the President and the Vice President different then than it is now? I know the process of the Vice President's election was once different than it is now; the Vice President entry, for example, mentions the differences between original Constitutional standard and the one defined in Twelfth Amendment and those between that Amendment and the currently-accepted standard; however, none of these but the first seem to me to correlate to an idea that a Vice President's supporter(s) may assassinate the President, and Garfield's assassination was, of course, long after the Amendment's ratification.

I would think it helpful if someone familiar with the relevant details of, generally, the relationship between the offices of the President and Vice President in the era of Garfield's assassination or, more specifically, the relationship between Garfield and Arthur to explain shortly in the article why it was that people at the time would think that the Vice President or his supporters might've assassinated the President; that suspicion seems to contrast with the current notion of the relationship between the President and Vice President. DTM 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Added a brief notation to this effect in the segment on the assassination. At the time, Vice-Presidential candidates were often chosen for partisan political advantage--to placate various factions of the party, either within the party apparatus or among the voters. To a limited degree, this is still true, but then it was often done without any regard for political compatibility or skills. As a Stalwart, Arthur might conceivably have been so opposed to Garfield's policies as to desire to seize power, although subsequent events showed clearly that he did not. Mabus101 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Doctor, Doctor

I found this passage in a July 25, 2006, New York Times article about the Garfield assassination. The information about Bliss is both bizarre and amusing and seems worthy of inclusion.

Bell's invention failed on two occasions to pinpoint the bullet's location. Historians say this may have been because the device picked up metal coils in the president’s mattress, or because Bell searched only on the right side of Garfield's body, where the lead physician, Dr. Doctor Willard Bliss — Doctor was his given name — had come to believe the bullet was lodged.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.150.118 (talk) 18:46, July 29 2006 (UTC)

Was the bullet found and removed post mortem or was he buried with it still inside? Drutt (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actions as President

At some point, we should note what he actually did in the four months between taking office and being shot. Biruitorul 08:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Things that need to be added to this artcile

This article is good for basic information, but needs to things added to it that are very important: Star Route Scandal and involvement with Roscoe Conkling —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.212.112 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

No lasagna trivia

While amusing, there is little relation between Garfield the fictional lasagna-loving cat and President Garfield. Cartoonist Jim Davis' middle name is Garfield, after his grandfather, who was named after the president. [1] The connection ends there. I'm removing the associated trivia item. --Adavidb 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an error

The very first line is wrong, I don't know the dates off hand but I know he served less than year not 50 years.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence includes the date range of Garfield's life, not his service as president. --Adavidb 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha. Hahahahahaha. Okay I am done laughing at myself. I don't know why I would think that. All the Wiki is like that. I am slow today. Sorry.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Garfield, KS

Garfield, KS is named after President Garfield after he visited there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.42.85.138 (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Little square between templates

When I view the templates at the bottom of the page, there is a little square between the "Presidents of the United States of America" and "United States Republican Party Presidential Nominees" templates. I can't work out where it is coming from. Any thoughts? Evil Monkey - Hello 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The small square was caused by the use of 'start box' and 'end box' templates surrounding the Presidents template — not a succession box, with which they're intended for use. I removed these start and end templates and the square is no longer displayed. —Adavidb 10:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Half-Breeds?

The Stalwarts strongly opposed Garfield's Half-Breeds

What are these Half-Breeds that are referred to but not explained? Please add something about that to the article. All I can think of is that old Cher song. —mjb 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the Half-Breeds; I added it as a wikilink within the Garfield article. —Adavidb 00:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Guiteau

This article perpetuates the common belief that assasin Guiteau was a "disgruntled office seeker." If you read Rosenberg's book, or read contemporary newspaper articles about the man, it is clear that Guiteau had a life-long battle with mental illness. Modern psychology would probably diagnose him as a paranoid schizophrenic. In any case, there is much evidence about his violent, sociopathic behavior since childhood. I'm not sure his condition rises to the level of psychopath, but in any case, by ascertaining that the man's problems had to do with his career choices is ludicrous. Not unlike Lee Harvey Oswald, Guiteau picked up and dropped various political causes in his life as an expression of his mental illness and extreme alienation from society, not the other way around. Are these people still held liable for their crimes? Yes; the insanity defense is rarely used or successful. But it would be far more accurate to say Garfield was assasinated by a mentally ill sociopath than a "disgruntled office seeker."Don 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with access to reliable sources, who can cite that information for verification, is welcome to use it to improve the article. —Adavidb 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sitting Senator

Garfield was not a Sitting Senator when he was elected president. He was a sitting member of the House of Representatives when he was elected President. He was in fact never a Sitting Senator in his entire life and never took his seat in the Senate. He was a Senator-elect when elected president, which is a different thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.48.3 (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He was elected to the Senate by the legislature, so he was technically one of the state's two Senators at that point. This whole deal has to do with the question of whether Harding was the first or second Senator elected to the Presidency. Facts About the Presidents stated that Harding was the second. That makes Garfield the first, although he was not yet a "sitting" Senator. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He was not a "sitting" Senator, but he was one of the two Senators from his state, as the one he replaced had left office. Senator-elect or otherwise, he was a Senator until he resigned the position to accept his election as President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Murdered in DC category

The Category:People murdered in Washington, D.C. was recently added and then removed in this edit, which noted that Garfield did not die for some time after he was shot. While he did not die in D.C., his murder certainly took place there. While his assassin could certainly make the same claim, he was found guilty of killing Garfield. I would agree if the category were "Deaths in Washington, D.C.]], but I am inclined to keep the category as it is titled in this article. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I contend that the name of the category is confusing when applied to someone who didn't die in the given location soon after the murder attempt. While it may be correct that Garfield was fatally wounded in Washington, D.C. – historians debate whether the president's doctors themselves contributed to his death – I don't believe it's correct to imply that Garfield was actually murdered (killed) in Washington. —ADavidB 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Being "murdered" somewhere doesn't mean you were "killed" there—you are confusing the meanings of the two words. You can be murdered in one locale and die in another, as Alansohn points out. If I am shot in Montana and then cross the border into Canada and die in Canada, I was "murdered" in Montana, but I died in Canada. The murderer would be charged under Montana law, not under Canadian law. The same principles apply here. Note that the shooter was convicted of murder in federal court, which has jurisdiction over D.C., so despite the prodding of Garfield's doctors, those no (legal) question that Garfield was murdered in Washington, D.C. A criminal takes his victim (and the victim's doctors) as he find him, and if the medical care sucks, it doesn't matter—it's still murder. In any case, if you disagreed with the category, you should have not deleted it outright, but at least included its parent, Category:People murdered in the United States. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What source are you using for your word definitions? A murder is an unlawful killing, based on every dictionary definition I've read. While legal actions may be based on the site of a crime's occurrence, wounding someone such that they die of complications months later somewhere else is not a killing at the place the incident first occurred. While I don't consider the term accurate in Garfield's case, I'd prefer a "murdered in the U.S." category over the DC-specific one, so will go ahead and change it as you suggested. —ADavidB 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing the words "murdered" and "killing", or more accurately, the ideas of being "murdered" somewhere and "dying" somewhere. They are not equivalents. Yes, murder is unlawful killing, but the murder takes place not where the person dies, but where the actions that precipitate death take place (that is, where the "murderer's" actions take place). The doctors were not convicted of murder, but the shooter was, whose actions took place in D.C. Thus, the murder took place in D.C., as the court determined. It's a fairly standard legal interpretation, used thousands of times in courts every year in U.S. courts as well as in other jurisdictions. I'm not sure why this is too difficult to understand. So far you seem to be the only confused person so I'm not sure if a change of category is really necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Weighing in to help with consensus: I'm in agreement with User:Good Olfactory. The terms have different meanings and took place in different locales. Garfield was murdered in DC and later died in New Jersey. The murder in DC didn't BECOME murder until Garfield died, but the murderous actions (and thus the murder itself) took place at the moment and locale of the shooting. This is a clear and imminently consistent legal distinction. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't state that I was confused, only that the "Murdered in DC" category name is confusing (in this unusual case of significant separation – in both time and distance – between Garfield's being shot and later dying). While my opinion on this hasn't changed, I will concede to use of the DC murder category.—ADavidB 05:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the concept of "the name is confusing" with the concept of "I am confused". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deaths by firearm category

Are there any objections to tightening the "Deaths by firearm in the United States" category to "Deaths by firearm in New Jersey"? —ADavidB 05:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon creating these, I wasn't sure where to place Garfield, so I left him in the parent category. I've no objection to him going in the NJ category if you think that makes sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean, there might be some confusion, since Garfield wasn't shot with a firearm in NJ? ;-) I'm kidding, though do see a parallel. Regardless, this and the other category should probably be consistent in their specificity. —ADavidB 05:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's because of the discussion above that I hesitated placing it in either the NJ or the DC category. I suppose that having him in the murdered in DC category and the firearm deaths in NJ would be a type of compromise situation, since he was legally murdered in DC but factually died in NJ. Then the article could be approached via the subcategories of Category:Washington, D.C. or the subcategories of Category:New Jersey. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivia - Direct Descendent?

In the Trivia section, we have:

"Garfield was a direct descendant of Mayflower passenger John Billington through his son Francis, another Mayflower passenger.[18]"

Would not a "direct descendent" be a continuous descent in the male line, making for a President Billington rather than Garfield?

76.199.66.245 (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)genie

As I understand it, the term "direct descendant" means related through a line of children, not necessarily all male children. In other words, there's a blood *parent/*child relationship between two individuals who are direct descendants, with the '*' allowing for potential 'grand-' or a number of 'great-grand-' prefixes. —ADavidB 05:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

House Resignation Date

It says in this article he was in Congress until March 3, 1881.

In Ohio's_19th_congressional_district, it says his last day was Nov. 8, 1880. Anyone know which is correct, and can we then fix to make the dates consistent? Simon12 (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely that he resigned right after the election. The last day of his term would be March 3 unless he resigned earlier. He had no need to resign before his term expired. It wasn't commonly done in those days. Do we have evidence he resigned early?  Randall Bart   Talk  20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

find a better reference

One of the citations is for SparkNotes. If anyone can find a better reference, it'd be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Kingturtle (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a perhaps more reliable reference source and put it in place of the SparkNotes one. —ADavidB 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks! Kingturtle (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion

It would probasbly be more accurate to say that Garfield was a member of the Disciples of Christ, not the Church of Christ. Garfield was from the North, definitely not a pacifist, and was one of the founders of the Christian Standard, which came down on the side of the Disciples. The split that produced the Churches of Christ was not formally recognized until 1906. Dwight911 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Before the separation, there was a united movement that used various names, including "Christian Church", "Disciples of Christ", and "Church of Christ". Based on research, I've found Garfield to have attended churches using all three names. What does pacifism have to do with the question of his membership? —ADavidB 04:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaugural Address

Why was Garfield's Inaugural Address deleted? He was President. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)}

I put in the quotes from the address. There are many important issues Garfield talked about and noteworthy statements. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)}

The Intro is Redundant

It repeats that Garfield was the second president to be assassinated. Ursus Lapideus (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is It the Doctors That May Have Killed Garfield?

After President James Abram Garfield was shot only six months into his administration, he was taken to the nearest hospital. There, the doctors tried to locate the bullet that struck Garfield. They did this disgustingly by poking Garfield in the back with unwashed hands hoping to feel the bullet. They also used unwashed tools to CUT out the bullet. Two days before his death, Garfield was moved from Washington, D.C. to his home in New Jersey. Also on that day, Garfield suffered a heart attack that may have been caused by the attempts to save him. The next day, Garfield died.

The above paragraph was an unsigned post. Lack of medical technology during the 1880's, in my opinion, contributed to Garfield's death. I am not a medical doctor or do not work in the medical field. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison

Opinions are needed on the Benjamin Harrison talk page. Two editors are in disagreement about whether or not the last section to the page is appropriate. One editor wants to included an image of the 1st Harrison stamp along with some history associated with it. An other editor feels the information is too tangential and does not belong on the Harrison page. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the stamps do tend to get overdone on the Presidents - tangential is my vote. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing years

The article looks good. Valuable information has been added to his political and military carreer. There may be a few missing years: 1870, 1874-1875, 1877-1879. In particular what did Garfield do during the Hayes Administration? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I just got him re-elected in 1866; I'll get there, slowly but surely. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. Good job Carmarg4. Article looks good. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Garfield's career in the House really looks good. I believe the importance is that Garfield had a long elected federal political career (18 years) before he became President, possibly longer then any other President. I believe that Garfield needs to be remembered for his career in the House. He seems to be remembered more for his tragic assassination rather then his congressional accomplishments. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rosecrans

Is there agreement that Garfield influenced the Lincoln Adminstration to remove Rosecrans? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Allan Peskin covers this in some detail (pp.196-214) and concludes that Garfield did not influence the decision, that Washington had reached the conclusion Rosecrans had to be replaced on its own. Peskin indicates that after his death, Garfield was accused of having done just this, but the evidence, when examined closely, is not supportive. Carmarg4 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if Bruce Catton relied on the Charles Dana source. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked Shelby Foote and he made no reference to Garfield being a player in the replacement. I think Grant may have actually pulled the switch when he took command?? Carmarg4 (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

On an interesting note, I am not sure if Grant and Garfield got along. Grant appointed Thomas rather then Garfield to replace Rosecrans. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(Per Peskin) There were instances where they agreed, but for the most part Garfield was not enamored of Grant, as President. The only reason he supported him for re-election was that the only alternative was Horace Greeley. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Panic of 1873

One catastrophic economic event that took place was the Panic of 1873. How did Garfield respond? Was he for or against adding more greenbacks to the economy to help western farmers pay their debts to the banks? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll double check, but everything I've read so far indicates Garfield was opposed to the greenback. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Carmarg4. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Postal reform

Garfield did do something notable as President! He reformed the Post Office in April, 1881. There were corrupt rings in charge of the "star routes" that had been around since the Grant and Hayes Administrations. Garfield forced James A. Brady, the ring leader, resignation and set in motion the star route cases. I believe this needs to be in the article. Garfield's postmaster James went after the rings. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So noted. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I plan to link the postal reform with the Hayes Administration. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rearranged presidential section

I have rearranged Garfield's presidential section for narration purposes. The photos have been rearranged for optimal context. I added two segments "Cabinet chosen" and "Defeated Senatorial courtesy". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Inaugural address

I propose changing the inaugural address to be put in summary form. Open for discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Presidency opening paragraph

Why was the Presidency opening paragraph removed from the article?

It just seemed to restate what comes later. Feel free to restore if you like. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I can look at the copy of the older one and possibly make into a new summary. I wanted to add about the Postal Service reform and tie in Garfield's presidency with Hayes. Garfield forced Thomas J. Brady, the alleged ringleader to the "star route" corrupt contractors, to retire as Second-Assistant Postmaster. Garfield wanted to root out corruption "to the bone". President Hayes did not force Brady to resign. Hayes, though, did not allow new "star route" contracts to be made. Garfield's Attorney General and Postmaster both wanted to reform the Postal Service. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Potential Long Branch segment, etc.

I believe President Garfield's Longbranch meeting can be a segment. Former President Grant was there, including President Garfield and his cabinet. Garfield seemed to have a real good time there, until, he was informed that his Uncle Mr. Thomas Garfield died tragically in a railroad accident. I have done several Google News searches and I can't really find anything else on Garfield as President signifigant enough for the article. I can keep looking. There may have been dissention on Garfield's cabinet, however, I am not sure that is worth mentioning. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

President Garfield met with John Muir and authorized the Corwin rescue party expedition to find the Jeanette Expedition in April 1881. That might be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the items you mentioned to see what Peskin says about them. I looked up the Panic of 1873 and I assume Garfield stuck with his anti-greenback stance then. Not anything mentioned about the Panic in Peskin – that was the year of the Credit Mobilier scandal etc. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The sad thing about Garfield's presidency is that he got started on what looked to be a strong presidency and then he got shot. The Longbranch meeting actually gives Garfield some character. He was whisked away in a private room for an hour where he was rumored to have had a drink. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That is fine about the Panic of 1873. Congress had passed an inflationary bill for Grant to sign, a bill that would have given farmers more greenbacks to pay their loans. Grant vetoed the bill. Grant's Secretary of State Hamilton Fish threatened to resign if Grant had signed the bill. I just thought Garfield may have made a speech on the subject for or against the bill's passage. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Added links:

• The Cabinet At Long Branch

• Long Branch All Alive

• Visitors At Long Branch

• The Death Of Thomas Garfield

• The President At Long Branch

Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Assassination

I believe that Garfield's plans need to be mentioned before he got shot. He was planning on going to Maine to visit his old college and stay at Sen. Hoar's house. I believe his wife was at Long Branch. Also, Vice President Chester A. Arthur was with Roscoe Conklin in New York, when Garfield was shot. This is interesting because Conklin and Garfield were political opponents. Arthur's reaction to the shooting needs to be noted as well as sympathies around the world for Garfield. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

His plan to travel to his almu mater has been mentioned. The first paragraph could be connected to the Long Branch section, or possibly mentioned in the Long Branch section that Garfield returned to the Capitol. Garfield returned to Washington D.C. from Long Branch possibly on June 27. Why did he have to go back to Washington? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede

In my opinion, the lede needs to be rewritten. I would only mention that Garfield was assassinated one time. The term assassination needs to be defined, since Garfield was shot, he had a lingering painful life that lasted 2 months. Does the term assassination imply death immediately after being shot. I know there is no clear cut definition. President Garfield lingered on for two weeks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to anticipate this debate by editing the subject. From a criminal law point of view, I think technically it's an attempted assassination until the death occurs, then it's an assassination. I might be wrong, but I think the way i worded it avoids the argument. I'm glad for someone else to further refine things if need be. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought possibly adding "Assassination and prolonged suffering". In his letter to Sherman, Guiteau stated he had killed the President. Guiteau's intent was murder. Prolonged suffering tells the reader he was not instantly killed. When he was first shot Garfield was completely aware of what went on and had his full strength. The NYT mentioned his decline began within the night, and really never stopped until he died. There was rumor he was recovering or at least people hoped he would recover. Or possibly more accurately Garfield was "fatally shot". However, if the concensus is that he was assassinated, then assassinated needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Guiteau's intent needs to be in the article. He intended to murder Garfield. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Another issue that can be mentioned is that Garfield was murdered during a time of peace when the U.S. was a "united" nation again. When Lincoln was assassinated, that was a time of war, although the Civil War was winding down. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Another view point is that Garfield was fatally shot by an assassin Guiteau. I would also not stress Guiteau's phychological or psychiatric status, at least in this article. Guiteau murdered President Garfield. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Lede

James Abram Garfield (November 19, 1831 – September 19, 1881) served as the 20th President of the United States, after completing nine successive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Garfield's presidency only lasted 200 days from March 4, 1881 until his death on September 19, 1881 after being shot by assassin Charles J. Guiteau on July 2, 1881 while entering a railroad station in Washington D.C. Only William Henry Harrison's presidency was briefer having just served 32 days in office. Garfield was the second United States President to be assassinated. President Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated in April, 1865. Garfield was the only incumbent of the U.S. House of Representatives to have been elected President.

Garfield, a son of Ohio, graduated from Williams College, Massachusetts in 1856. A year later Garfield entered politics and became a Republican, having strongly stumped for the party's antislavery platform in Ohio. He married Lucretia Rudolph in 1858, and in 1860 was admitted to the Bar while serving as an Ohio State Senator (1859–1861). Garfield served as a major general in the Union Army during the American Civil War and fought in two major battles, Shiloh and Chickamauga. Garfield had opposed Confederate succession and was elected to Congress in 1863, representing the 19th District of Ohio. Throughout his extended Congressional service, he fervently opposed the Greenback and gained the reputation of a skilled orator. During Reconstruction, Garfield favored a moderate approach for civil rights enforcement to Freedmen. In 1880 the Ohio legislature elected him to the U.S. Senate; in that same year, the leading GOP presidential contenders – Ulysses S. Grant, James G. Blaine and John Sherman – failed to garner the requisite support at their convention, and Garfield became the party's compromise nominee for the 1880 Presidential Election and successfully defeated Democrat Winfield Hancock.

Garfield's accomplishments as President included the establishment of independance from senatorial courtesy in making appointments; reform in the Postal Service; and having made several federal judicial appointments including a U.S. Supreme Court justice. In his inaugural address, President Garfield strongly endorsed civil rights for African Americans, an educated electorate, and proposed substantial civil service reform which was eventually passed by his successor, Chester A. Arthur, in 1883 as the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act.

Any suggestions? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I made changes to the lede section. Please feel free to modify or make any changes for better narration or context. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Older version lede

This lede was take from the article on March 29, 2011. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

James Abram Garfield (November 19, 1831 – September 19, 1881) served as the 20th President of the United States, after completing nine successive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. His Presidency lasted only 200 days – from March 4, 1881 until his death on September 19, 1881, from an assassin's bullet, fired the previous July 2. His was the second shortest presidency to that of William Henry Harrison, and he is the only incumbent of the U.S. House of Representatives to have been elected President.

James Garfield was born in Moreland Hills, Ohio and in 1856 graduated from Williams College, Massachusetts. He married Lucretia Rudolph in 1858, and in 1860 was admitted to the Bar while serving as an Ohio State Senator (1859–1861). Garfield served as a major general in the Union Army during the American Civil War and fought at the Battle of Shiloh. He was elected to Congress as a Republican in 1863, representing the 19th District of Ohio, and opposed slavery and secession. Throughout his extended Congressional service, he fervently opposed the Greenback and gained the reputation of a skilled orator. In 1880 the Ohio legislature elected him to the U.S. Senate; in that same year, the leading GOP presidential contenders – Ulysses S. Grant, James G. Blaine and John Sherman – failed to garner the requisite support at their convention, and Garfield became the party's compromise nominee for the 1880 Presidential Election and successfully defeated Democrat Winfield Hancock. In his inaugural address, Garfield proposed substantial civil service reform which was eventually passed by his successor, Chester A. Arthur, in 1883 as the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. His presidency was cut short when he died September 19, 1881 after being shot by assassin Charles J. Guiteau on July 2, 1881, while entering a railroad station in Washington D.C. Garfield was the second United States President to be assassinated; he was succeeded by Vice-President Chester A. Arthur.

Pendelton Civil Service Act

I believe there needs to be a section on the Pendleton Civil Service Act. President Grant first called for Civil Service Reform through a commission. President Hayes continued to ask Congress for legislation. None was given. President Garfield asks for Civil Service Reform legislation. After he is assassinated the law is passed under President Garfield. I believe just a brief section can add to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination

How ready is the James A. Garfield article ready for a good article nomination? I recommend putting JAG up for good article. The review process possibly can identify any needed fixes to make the JAG have a GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest first going to WP:GNGA and editing with all those guidelines at hand. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. After that, a peer review might help work out the kinks. --Coemgenus 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The images look good. There appear to be no edit wars. The section on Garfield's demise and death might need cleaning up. I can look through the article for "weasel" wording or words that are not neutral. The sources are sound. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I removed all the duplicate links. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In an attempt to improve the pertinence of the lede content, I have added his committee assignments and deleted reference to the Credit Mobilier scandal, which is covered later and did not notably influence his career. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Demise and death clean up

Removed unsupported material from article:

"and one doctor allegedly punctured Garfield's liver in doing so. This alone would not have caused death, as the liver is one of the few organs in the human body that can regenerate itself. However, this physician allegedly may have introduced Streptococcus bacteria into the President's body and may have caused blood poisoning for which there were then no antibiotics." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Are demise and death redundant? Carmarg4 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I put in "demise" since his disease progressively got worse. If the wording is redundant, then "demise" can be taken out of the title. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The assassin strikes

I believe the wording needs to be changed on the title. I understand the intent of the title. Maybe something like "Assassination and attempted recovery", or "Shot twice by assassin". The difficulty with Garfield's assassination is that he did not immediately die. There was an unsuccessful attempt at recovery, although the doctor's just did not have the technology or modern medical procedures to save Garfield. Garfield was unable to stop the infection, a two month agonizing process. I know there is no time limit on assassination. Garfield survived two months. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "Struck by Assassin"?

"Assassination" would get the point across. --Coemgenus 13:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a Saturday Morning Serial. It's an encyclopedia. Stating simply "Assassination" is neutral and to the point.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

National and world response

I believe there needs to be a National and world response section. This section would briefly describe responses from the American people over President Garfield having been shot. There was international sympathy expressed or assassinated. There was constant rumor also that Garfield was recuperating. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting. Conkling and Arthur were in New York together at the time of the shooting. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the point. Maybe in a separate article about the assassination that sort of thing would be relevant, but in the main article it would read like filler in an already lengthy biography. --Coemgenus 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe a few sentences are neccessary on national and world concern, possibly just one sentence. I agree that a new section would be unneccessary. I have cut out unneccessary sentences and cleaned up the assassination and death segments. I can put the paragraph on the Pendelton Act in the Legacy section, rather then a separate section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Combined sections

I believe the article would look better with sections combined. Possibly "Assassination, death, and state funeral" could be one section, then "Legacy and memorial". The Pendleton Act is a memorial to Garfield's legacy. Any suggestions? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I combined segments and moved photos, but did not alter the text. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Trimming the article

This may be controversial, but what areas in the James A. Garfield article could use trimming before being nominated for good article? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You and I have been working together on this since January and you are aware the size of the article has almost doubled since then. I am certainly open to the possibility that some of the stuff I've added may need to be abridged, so don't worry about any negative reaction on my part if you decide to trim some stuff out. If you think someone may disagree with omitting something, cut and paste it to a new section on the talk page and note that on the edit summary line - which you have been doing I see. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Garfield's U.S. Representative carreer is a good addition to the article. One possible suggestion would be to combine two terms together as was done on the 1876 and 1878 terms section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the "individual distinctions" section be deleted. A couple of the points in there are mentioned elsewhere in the article, others appear on the trivial side or could be added elsewhere. I don't recall seeing this in any other similar articles.Carmarg4 (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the "Individual destinctions" section deletion. I would cut and paste to the talk page. However, the information in the section is good and if appropriate can be incorporated into the article, if not already done so. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the previously unknown Garfield life insurance policy neccessary? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the James Garfield School District neccessary? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Bliss narration

Removed from article. Resummarized.

Dr. Doctor Willard Bliss, (who was a Doctor of Medicine but whose given name was also "Doctor") Garfield's chief doctor, recorded the following:

“ Only a moment elapsed before Mrs. Garfield was present. She exclaimed, 'Oh! what is the matter?' I said, 'Mrs. Garfield, the President is dying.' Leaning over her husband and fervently kissing his brow, she exclaimed, 'Oh! Why am I made to suffer this cruel wrong?'...Restoratives, which were always at hand, were instantly resorted to. In almost every conceivable way it was sought to revive the rapidly yielding vital forces. A faint, fluttering pulsation of the heart, gradually fading to indistinctness, alone rewarded my examinations. At last, only moments after the first alarm, at 10:35, I raised my head from the breast of my dead friend and said to the sorrowful group, 'It is over.'

Noiselessly, one by one, we passed out, leaving the broken-hearted wife alone with her dead husband. Thus she remained for more than an hour, gazing upon the lifeless features, when Colonel Rockwell, fearing the effect upon her health, touched her arm and begged her to retire, which she did."

”

Cmguy777 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Individual distinctions section removed

Although the information in this section is valuable and can be or already has been incorporated into the article, the weight of the information does not warrant a seperate section. As noted by Carmarg4, other presidential articles do not have "Individual distinctions" sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Garfield was a minister and an elder for the Church of Christ (Christian Church), making him the only member of the clergy to date to serve as President. He is also claimed as a member of the Disciples of Christ, as the different branches did not split until the 20th century. Garfield preached his first sermon in Poestenkill, New York.
• Garfield is the only person in U.S. history to be a Representative, Senator-elect, and President-elect at the same time. To date, he is the only Representative to be directly elected President of the United States.
• In 1876, while serving as a member of the House of Representatives, Garfield discovered a novel proof of the Pythagorean Theorem using a trapezoid. Tim Murphy of Mother Jones has argued that this may have been his greatest accomplishment.
• Garfield was the first ambidextrous president. It was said that one could ask him a question in English and he could simultaneously write the answer in Latin with one hand, and Ancient Greek with the other, two languages he knew.
• Garfield was a descendant of Mayflower passenger John Billington through his son Francis, another Mayflower passenger. John Billington was convicted of murder at Plymouth Mass. 1630.
• Garfield was related to Owen Tudor, and both were descendants of Rhys ap Tewdwr.
• Garfield juggled Indian clubs to build his muscles.
• Garfield was the first left-handed President.

Cleaning up references and sources

I recommend cleaning up the references and sources to get GA status. The structure of the article looks good. Separting the sources into books, internet, newspapers, etc. would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a GA review will require the following footnotes to be fixed: #2, 55, 58, 114, 117, 134, 135, 151, 173, 175, 178, 179, 213, 218. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I added Catton, McFeely, and Smith sources in the bibliography section.Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I have been putting the link pages in the "Works cited" section. The Peskin cites link to the "Works cited" section. How was that edit made? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Check the format second Peskin book listed. Also - check the WP page for citations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REF. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What I wanted to know how to do was to get the note link to jump to the Works cited section. For example, when I clicked on the Peskin note the article jumps to the Peskin source under the Works cited section Bibliographies. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed as source:

Political corruption in America: an encyclopedia of scandals, power, and greed By Mark Grossman Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed as source:

Garfield, James Abram. American National Biography, 2000, American Council of Learned Societies.

No page number given. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Became a Republican

When did Garfield officially become a Republican? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My view is that if he stumped for the Republican party in 1857, then he was a Republican. However, were there any paper sources that stated Garfield was a Republican? Would Garfield be considered a Republican in 1858 [1859] after being elected to office? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My own view is that he became a Republican when he was nominated by the Party convention for the state senate seat in 1859. I also think it's appropriate to consider how Garfield would answer your question. Peskin says in some instances Garfield prided himself on being his own man, and not primarily a party man. He demonstrated this in his early congressional votes a couple times by being the only member of the party to cross the aisle. His maverick style also saved him from defeat when he didn't strongly back Lincoln for re-election and when he didn't support Grant. So I think it's sufficient just to report the facts of his party nominations. If you're more comfortable with a definite statement of his becoming a Republican earlier, feel free to go with it. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was elected Ohio State Senator because of the strong speeches he made against slavery starting in 1857. The Republican Party was the anti-slavery party. I suppose one can say Garfield affiliated with the Republican Party in 1857, having sympathies with the anti-slavery movement. I believe Garfield's flare for party independance needs to be in the article. Rather then used the word "join" the word "affiliated" would be appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we have this right. Maybe a comment about the relationship with the party at the point of his party nomination for the Ohio state senate seat? Carmarg4 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Long Branch section

Did Garfield go to Long Branch because his wife was recovering from an illness? I believe the Long Branch section can be trimmed or possibly incorporated into another section. Was President Garfield on vacation at Long Branch? According to the New York Times he left Long Branch on June 27 and returned to Washington D.C.? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Captions

The captions do not need to have references. The article needs to cover what is in the photo and captions. Neccessary changes can be made to the Garfield assassination illustration and the Postage Stamp photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheney, Lynne V. source

Removed Cheney, Lynne V. source from article. Information covered in the article has been sourced. The information in the Cheney source mainly covers Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, and Garfield is only mentioned related to newspaper coverage. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheney, Lynne V. "Mrs. Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper". American Heritage Magazine. October 1975. Vol. 26-6. URL retrieved on January 24, 2007.

James A. Garfield School District

Removed from article. Nothing from the source stated that Garfield studied, taught, and was the president of the school district. The source is the front page of the James Garfield School District. The paragraph could have factual statements, however, the the source needs to support all of the facts. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

James A. Garfield School District is located in Garrettsville, Ohio, about 5 miles east of Hiram College, where Garfield studied, taught and later became president in 1857 at the age of 26. The district consists of 1,580 students in grades kindergarten through 12. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

James Garfield School District

Article Status 01

All the dead links have been eliminated. A few do not have any page references. I have organized the links so the reader can go online to view the sources. The narration is good. I have trimmed the article when the source link was dead or the information from the source did not support the information from the article. Some paragraphs may be unsourced. Any other suggestions before nominating the article for GA? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe sk the Guild of Copy Editors to check it. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Sounds good! The intro to the Presidency needs to include that the U.S. was at a time of peace and prosperity, in my opinion. The Panic of 1873 was over by Garfield's presidency. America was optimistic on having an intellectual Garfield in office. It was an era of Reconciliation between the north and south. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

KSHS Camp Riley

Removed from article. While Garfield may have visited the settlement at Camp Riley while on duty at Fort Larned, I can find nothing from the Kansas State Historical Society article source that states this conclusion. The KSHS article states that Rep. Garfield attempted two times to get the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the authority of the Department of War. This information could be used for Garfield's carreer in the House of Representatives section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Upon officially becoming a town, a Kansas settlement that went by the name Camp Riley renamed itself Garfield City to pay tribute to the politician, who once visited the settlement during military duty at the nearby Fort Larned." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Indian Question in Congress and in Kansas". Kansas State Historical Society. Retrieved October 31, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |<span style= ignored (help)

Long Branch section 02

Does the Long Branch section need to be incorporated into the Assassination and Death section? I believe the information in the section is important since this tells why Garfield had to go to Long Branch to be with his wife. Guiteau waited until Garfield had visited his wife before he shot the President. Any suggestions?

I think it can stand alone; Peskin indicates that, when the Garfields were at the train station en route to LB, and again when the Pres. returned to the station after the visit, Guiteau was at the station ready to fire on the President. In the first instance he was too alarmed by Mrs. G's appearance to fire, and in the second instance it was very hot and he was not in the mood to fire. ref to Peskin pp.581-594. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Sounds good. Possibly more Guiteau in the background can be mentioned in the Long Branch section. Mrs. Garfield prolonged Garfield's life possibly for a month. When was Mrs. Garfield taken to Long Branch to recover. This explains why Garfield took his whole cabinet to Long Branch.Cmguy777 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Party split

When Garfield nominated William H. Robertson collector of New York was there a Republican Party split? Garfield was not on speaking terms with Arthur and did not allow him into cabinet meetings. When Garfield was shot by Guiteau, Arthur was with Conkling in New York. Was Blaine responsible for this apparent party split? What was the exact relationship with Garfield and Arthur? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I believe the article is in good condition for GA review? Any comments or objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No objections! I should be done with my work in the next day or two. Question, though. I can't find anything about a Vice president Wade. They are talking about him as a potential successor to Johnson. Also, could you add a sentence as to why they wanted to impeach Johnson? For your readers in countries other than the US. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Dianna for your needed and valued edits to the article. I can look up VP Wade and add a sentence why they wanted to impeach President Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I added information on why President Andrew Johnson was impeached and that Senator Benjamin Wade would have been Johnson's successor at that time. Wade was a Radical. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured out later why they impeached him, but this wee addition means your reader will not have to go look it up. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on an FAN for Lincoln - here are suggestions from that: 1)If you haven't already, have someone who knows images to look at them for compliance; 2) Lincoln had 3 stamps when we started and we have kept one. I would keep your first issue and let the others go - put them on the talk page maybe; 3) check appointments etc. on other presidential FAs - I'm told we need to use prose and not lists. For the record I do support your nomination, and I'll try to help if Lincoln gets resolved. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Rutherford B. Hayes article has FA status and the Cabinet is currently listed. Possibly put that on hold for now in the Garfield biography article. I understand concern on multiple stamps in the article. Hayes only has one stamp in his biography article. I am not sure what compliance means in terms of pictures. I would have to do some investigation on that. Thanks for your support Diannaa and Carmarg4. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Stamp Section

Removed Garfield on U.S. postage section from article. First stamp kept in article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Issue of 1898

Issue of 1938

All deceased U.S. presidents are represented on American postage stamps, but James Garfield is one of only a few who have appeared more than twice. The first stamp issue to depict Garfield was a memorial issue, released in Garfield's memory on April 10, 1882, just seven months after his death. In contrast, the first Lincoln stamp was issued in 1866, a year after his death, while Grant would not receive his posthumous honors from the Post Office until 1890, five years after his death.

Garfield's assassination in September 1881 prompted the speedy release of this memorial stamp issue in the spring of 1882. The last U.S. postage issue to depict Garfield was released on May 22, 1986 when the US Post Office released a series of 36 postage stamps commonly referred to as the AMERIPEX issues of 1986, each issue with a portrait of a past US President inscribed upon its face. In all, there are nine different Garfield postage stamps that were issued over the last 128 and more years that bear President Garfield's engraved portrait.

Beware of "the Stamp brigade" - user philatelists who will add stamps to the article without even describing their edit (viz-a viz Lincoln). Carmarg4 (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Naval resurgence and reform

I believe there needs to be one more segment in the Presidency Foreign or Domestic Policy sections. Garfield's Sec. Hunt investigated the U.S. Navy and found that the navy was lagging behind other nations. After the Civil War the U.S. Navy was in a 15-year decline. Doenecke credits Garfield's Sec. Hunt for naval resurgence and reform. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the naval resurgence and reform needs to be a seperate segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)