What do you think?
Rate this book
Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield
Capitol Hill veteran Kenneth Ackerman re-creates an American political landscape where fierce battles for power unfolded against a chivalrous code of honor in a country struggling to emerge from the long shadow of the Civil War. James Garfield's 1880 dark horse campaign after the longest-ever Republican nominating convention, his victory in the closest-ever popular vote for president, his struggle against bitterly feuding factions once elected, and the public's response to his assassination is the most dramatic presidential odyssey of the Gilded Age—and among the most momentous in our nation's history. This journey through political backrooms, dazzling convention floors, and intrigue-filled congressional and White House chambers, reveals the era's decency and humanity as well as the sharp partisanship that exploded in the pistol shots of assassin Charles Guiteau, the disgruntled patronage-seeker eager to replace the elected Commander-in-Chief with one of his own choosing.
552 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
78 people are currently reading
3873 people want to read
About the author
Kenneth D. Ackerman
13 books52 followersKen Ackerman, a writer and attorney in Washington, D.C., is a 25-year veteran of senior positions in Congress, the executive branch, and financial regulation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
January 31, 2009
I would hardly guess that 1 out of 100 Americans could even recognize the name James A Garfield as an American President, much less recall that he's notable for his assassination. But at the height of his popularity, it was widely believed that he would be known as one of the three greatest (or at least beloved) Presidents of all time, behind Lincoln and Washington.
What I liked about this book is the rich detail with which it chronicles the warring between political factions and figures (Half-Breeds and Stalwarts, Roscoe Conkling and James G Blaine, the New York Republican Party and Everyone Else). There are quotes and news reports and letters and balloting results and a lot more in the way of recorded dialogue than I would have imagined. I love the way that all of the primary sources make the events seem so much more significant than they now appear. These were not minor figures to be quickly forgotten. These were the men and the moments that consumed the pages of the newspapers and were on the tips of everyone's tongues for decades. It reminds me that we too are living in a significant time, but that every generation believes it is extraordinary, and in that sense, given enough time, no generation is really that extraordinary. In 100 years the Iraq War will be no more memorable than the Mexican-American War. In 100 years no one will care about the scandals of the Bush administration. In 100 years no one will remember Obama's flubbed Oath of Office and its do-over. It's a good perspective to have in the midst of our current political turmoil.
What I liked about this book is the rich detail with which it chronicles the warring between political factions and figures (Half-Breeds and Stalwarts, Roscoe Conkling and James G Blaine, the New York Republican Party and Everyone Else). There are quotes and news reports and letters and balloting results and a lot more in the way of recorded dialogue than I would have imagined. I love the way that all of the primary sources make the events seem so much more significant than they now appear. These were not minor figures to be quickly forgotten. These were the men and the moments that consumed the pages of the newspapers and were on the tips of everyone's tongues for decades. It reminds me that we too are living in a significant time, but that every generation believes it is extraordinary, and in that sense, given enough time, no generation is really that extraordinary. In 100 years the Iraq War will be no more memorable than the Mexican-American War. In 100 years no one will care about the scandals of the Bush administration. In 100 years no one will remember Obama's flubbed Oath of Office and its do-over. It's a good perspective to have in the midst of our current political turmoil.
July 26, 2025
4.25 Stars!
"The doctors did that. I just shot him."
If you've been here long enough you know I have a bit of an obsession with the 2 other assassinated presidents McKinley and Garfield. I just find it strange how nobody seems to give a fuck about 2 of the 4 assassinated presidents. You often hear people today say that politics has never been worse. Political violence has never been this bad....but that's just a ridiculous statement. From Lincoln's assassination in 1865 to McKinley's in 1901, which is 36 years 3 presidents were assassinated. 1989 was 36 years ago. And the political violence wasn't just in the states, globally 6 heads of states were assassinated from 1860 to 1881, and 7 others had attempts of their lives. Even Queen Victoria was attacked in public in 1850. Political violence isn't new and it often ticks up when the rich and powerful are putting their boots on the necks of the working class and poverty is on the rise( sound familiar?).
If you've heard anything about James Garfield's assassination its probably that he was killed by a deranged office seeker. That's only a little true. Guiteau was in my opinion severely mentally unwell but he was also heavily influenced by the political climate. Im not going to explain everything but basically there were 2 political factions the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds,this was an intraparty fight. Garfield was a Half-Breed and his vice president Chester A Arthur was a Stalwart as was Guiteau. The author points out that Guiteau was ultimately successful (though I also think Boothe was successful) because he got his man into the presidency. He also led to what became known as the Reform Era. Guiteau repeatedly expressed no ill will towards Garfield but he just felt Arthur would be a better president.
I started my review with a quote from Garfield's assassin Charles Guiteau and it's one hundred percent true. Garfield today would have 100% lived and probably continued as President. Even in his time its likely he would have lived but been paralyzed. Had his doctors done nothing but feed him he would have lived. Unfortunately for Garfield, his doctors starved and tortured him for 79 days.
I've been horrified at Garfield's treatment since I watched a PBS documentary about Garfield years ago. On the day he died he had lost half his bodyweight and was battling multiple infections because his doctors were ego driven and incompetent. Garfield's doctors lead by Dr. Willard Bliss dug their dirty fingers around in his wound searching for the bullet, bled him repeatedly and only allowed him to drink milk...nothing else. The autopsy showed that his gunshot would had healed but his body was being ravaged by infections caused by his doctors. Pus was leaking out of his body in different places including his mouth. He was literally rotting from the inside out. Germ Theory was known about and most top doctors understood antiseptic medicine by this time. Garfield's treatment led to everyday citizens questioning if doctors actually had their best interest at heart.
And do you know this incompetent motherfuckers had the nerve to demand the government pay $25,000 ($500,000 in 2003 dollars) after he died. They eventually would receive $35,000($100,000 in 2003).
To end this review on a more positive note I'll give you 2 fun facts about Garfield
1. He was the last president born in a log cabin
2. His wife put together what is now seen as the first modern Presidential Library
It took a while to read but i really enjoyed this book and I highly recommend it.
"The doctors did that. I just shot him."
If you've been here long enough you know I have a bit of an obsession with the 2 other assassinated presidents McKinley and Garfield. I just find it strange how nobody seems to give a fuck about 2 of the 4 assassinated presidents. You often hear people today say that politics has never been worse. Political violence has never been this bad....but that's just a ridiculous statement. From Lincoln's assassination in 1865 to McKinley's in 1901, which is 36 years 3 presidents were assassinated. 1989 was 36 years ago. And the political violence wasn't just in the states, globally 6 heads of states were assassinated from 1860 to 1881, and 7 others had attempts of their lives. Even Queen Victoria was attacked in public in 1850. Political violence isn't new and it often ticks up when the rich and powerful are putting their boots on the necks of the working class and poverty is on the rise( sound familiar?).
If you've heard anything about James Garfield's assassination its probably that he was killed by a deranged office seeker. That's only a little true. Guiteau was in my opinion severely mentally unwell but he was also heavily influenced by the political climate. Im not going to explain everything but basically there were 2 political factions the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds,this was an intraparty fight. Garfield was a Half-Breed and his vice president Chester A Arthur was a Stalwart as was Guiteau. The author points out that Guiteau was ultimately successful (though I also think Boothe was successful) because he got his man into the presidency. He also led to what became known as the Reform Era. Guiteau repeatedly expressed no ill will towards Garfield but he just felt Arthur would be a better president.
I started my review with a quote from Garfield's assassin Charles Guiteau and it's one hundred percent true. Garfield today would have 100% lived and probably continued as President. Even in his time its likely he would have lived but been paralyzed. Had his doctors done nothing but feed him he would have lived. Unfortunately for Garfield, his doctors starved and tortured him for 79 days.
I've been horrified at Garfield's treatment since I watched a PBS documentary about Garfield years ago. On the day he died he had lost half his bodyweight and was battling multiple infections because his doctors were ego driven and incompetent. Garfield's doctors lead by Dr. Willard Bliss dug their dirty fingers around in his wound searching for the bullet, bled him repeatedly and only allowed him to drink milk...nothing else. The autopsy showed that his gunshot would had healed but his body was being ravaged by infections caused by his doctors. Pus was leaking out of his body in different places including his mouth. He was literally rotting from the inside out. Germ Theory was known about and most top doctors understood antiseptic medicine by this time. Garfield's treatment led to everyday citizens questioning if doctors actually had their best interest at heart.
And do you know this incompetent motherfuckers had the nerve to demand the government pay $25,000 ($500,000 in 2003 dollars) after he died. They eventually would receive $35,000($100,000 in 2003).
To end this review on a more positive note I'll give you 2 fun facts about Garfield
1. He was the last president born in a log cabin
2. His wife put together what is now seen as the first modern Presidential Library
It took a while to read but i really enjoyed this book and I highly recommend it.
October 12, 2021
Unless you are a political junkie interested in every last detail of James A. Garfield's sudden and unexpected rise to the Presidency, this book is not for you. Painstakingly researched with every protagonist, every meeting, discussion, shopping trip, train trip, ballot count and luncheon that was ever recorded and some that weren't, this is as narrow as it gets to understand the times and mores of James A. Garfield. The narrative happens in a bubble and I was hoping for a wider view. The characters are purely political animals fleshed only as far as as it's useful to understand their ambitions, no more. Any larger issue like the state of the nation after the civil war, the temperance movement, the international ambitions of the U.S, the actual electoral issues like tariffs and unlimited silver coinage, etc...are dutiful listed but never expanded on while every cabinet nomination and everyone of Conkling's tantrum runs for pages on end.
So I add one star for the research involved. Some segments are readable,specially towards the end. After all, it is a murder. It is also a murder that forced some people to gain persceptive like it did for Chester A. Arthur who succeeded Garfield. many people remained the same without learning anything like Guiteau, who was a deeply troubled man, or Roscoe Conkling, who saw everything as a personal issue. Even Grant seemed likeable after the President fell. In coclusion, a lot of the text seems to be a narrated and expanded transcription of Garfield's diaries, party convention records and Guiteau's court proceedings. I wish I had just gotten a book on the "Guilded Age" and not have to plow through the barrage of dates and facts which can only please people with an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Congress or career politicos. even Garfield's death which seems to have been sheer agony is a play-by-play account with every probe, infection and bowel movement spelled out. Again, the author put a commnedable effort in accounting foer everything. It makes good history, not a great time for the casual reader. One thing that comes across quite clearly though: just like back then, money, power and ambition is the broth that feeds lawmaking.
So I add one star for the research involved. Some segments are readable,specially towards the end. After all, it is a murder. It is also a murder that forced some people to gain persceptive like it did for Chester A. Arthur who succeeded Garfield. many people remained the same without learning anything like Guiteau, who was a deeply troubled man, or Roscoe Conkling, who saw everything as a personal issue. Even Grant seemed likeable after the President fell. In coclusion, a lot of the text seems to be a narrated and expanded transcription of Garfield's diaries, party convention records and Guiteau's court proceedings. I wish I had just gotten a book on the "Guilded Age" and not have to plow through the barrage of dates and facts which can only please people with an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Congress or career politicos. even Garfield's death which seems to have been sheer agony is a play-by-play account with every probe, infection and bowel movement spelled out. Again, the author put a commnedable effort in accounting foer everything. It makes good history, not a great time for the casual reader. One thing that comes across quite clearly though: just like back then, money, power and ambition is the broth that feeds lawmaking.
April 18, 2021
For those who want every step of a political feud and assassination few even care about today, it is a good read. Not a deep one. The idea of Stalwart and Half-breed itself has been questioned and the analysis of the personalities never goes as deep as it promises to be. Grant, who is not depicted in the best light (pettiness and corruption abound), still comes in for praise at the book's end: "At his death in 1885, Ulysses Grant was widely considered the greatest American of the Nineteenth Century next to whom Abraham Lincoln was a shooting star. Since then, history has more than reversed those judgments and Grant has suffered more than his share of harping from historians with political agendas for belittling his enormous role. Today, Grant is experiencing a well-earned re-evaluation among scholars, with his reputation being considerably upgraded."
It is a weird passage all the same.
Yet, shallow as it is on the policy issues, wholly lacking anything about the Democrats of the period, and filled with odd errors, the book is very good. When he is not talking about things outside the scope of the work, Ackerman is accurate and fair. If not a tragedy or worse yet a tragicomedy with Guiteau as the buffoon, one is saddened to see Garfield die before he could do anything in the White House. Few men were as intelligent, or capable of balancing morality with solid political instincts.
It is a weird passage all the same.
Yet, shallow as it is on the policy issues, wholly lacking anything about the Democrats of the period, and filled with odd errors, the book is very good. When he is not talking about things outside the scope of the work, Ackerman is accurate and fair. If not a tragedy or worse yet a tragicomedy with Guiteau as the buffoon, one is saddened to see Garfield die before he could do anything in the White House. Few men were as intelligent, or capable of balancing morality with solid political instincts.
December 17, 2018
Having recently read both Destiny of the Republic by Candace Millard and Grant by Ron Chernow, I found this book to be a good companion as it fleshed out some things the other books touched on. The intrigues of the political world in 1880 and after were fascinating. At times it was hard for me to keep all the players straight in my mind but my interest never flagged. One major flaw in this book is the poor editing: misspelled words and incorrect grammar abound.
January 21, 2012
ackerman is a terrific historian with a skill for conveying the machinations of political intrigue. garfield, who was staunchly pro-civil rights, is an immensely compelling figure to consider, and the personalities and politics of america's "gilded age" make for rich historical reading.
April 16, 2020
The story is not a biography of any particular politician, but of the intrigues of the major political players of the early 1880's, with the different political climate of that era compared to more modern times, with the US Civil War and Reconstruction still fresh in the national mind, as well as the bungled presidency of Rutherford Hayes, with former President Grant encouraged to become President yet again, but with others with the eyes on the prize, how intrigues ended up making James Garfield the Republican candidate and how skilled he turned out to be as a politician.
There are a number of surprises in this story, such as Garfield's assassin being not so much a disappointed office seeker but as a maniac with a deluded idea of trying to reform the country, as well as powerful political figures who were famous then but forgotten today. There were a number of political changes which were an indirect result of Garfield's presidency, such as civil service finally being established to replace patronage hiring in government. A good ;look at a little-known era in American history.
There are a number of surprises in this story, such as Garfield's assassin being not so much a disappointed office seeker but as a maniac with a deluded idea of trying to reform the country, as well as powerful political figures who were famous then but forgotten today. There were a number of political changes which were an indirect result of Garfield's presidency, such as civil service finally being established to replace patronage hiring in government. A good ;look at a little-known era in American history.
December 21, 2013
Superb political history of America circa 1880. The book focuses mainly on the rivalry between Republican leaders Roscoe Conkling and James G. Blaine, whose personal feud came to represent larger cleavages in the Republican Party. Namely, the argument over civil service reform and attempts to curb the influence of crooked political machines. Into this vortex stepped James Garfield, an honest man who refused to be cowed by either side. Ackerman provides a richly detailed portrait of Garfield's brief presidency, contrasting this unlikely leader with other political figures and his assassin, Charles Guiteau, much more than a "disappointed office seeker." I'd put this alongside Team of Rivals as the best book I've read on 19th Century American politics.
Read
February 6, 2016Though review of the remarkable election and short presidency of a fine man James A. Garfield. Sometimes the account is almost an outline but mostly it is detailed and intriguing as well as heartbreaking.
February 25, 2013
I learned a lot about the 1880's.
September 13, 2022
Discovering Kenneth D. Ackerman’s Dark Horse : The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield was for me the equivalent of getting a Christmas gift from someone who doesn’t really know you, opening it up, and discovering you’ve never heard of the item but it may be the best thing you’ve ever been given. Ackerman made me fall in love with the Republican National Convention of 1880 – to the point I’m wondering if it could be held as a special Eventbrite event at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago. Forget Brigerton period balls, I want to come as Roscoe Conkling to a 1880 Republican National Convention re-enactment party.
Over the course of my savoring this book, I planned and executed a visit to the James A. Garfield National Historic Site in Mentor, Ohio. Yeah, that is how much this book consumed me. Heavily researched in archives and letters, Ackerman makes everyone’s conversations and actions seem like they were occurring right now. I literally cried when Lucretia was very sick (suspected Typhoid) and Garfield was desperate for her health and still under barrage from the appointments scandal.
The antics of Garfield, the parties, the Cabinet, the Senators, and the New York political machine during this one year (summer 1880-summer 1881) has so much to offer the student of history. The clash and inefficiency of the two party was clearly playing out. The problem with past presidents and how to get them off the political stage (sorry, Ulysses S. Grant fans) is obviously still pertinent today. The wariness of reading into early media reports ahead of elections is even here. I refer to a quote from James Blaine that Ackerman cites: “By that very confidence we may be lured into a dangerous inactivity of which our alert and desperate foes will not be short to take advantage.” Wow, Blaine, we need that reminder before each election now! And pioneering Garfield was “the first U.S. presidential candidate to campaign in a foreign language.” I really want to tell you what that language was, but I do not want to ruin the surprise.
On top of all the juicy history, we have a murder. We have a probably sane assassin. The clearly political motives of Guiteau are complicated to detangle because he actually interacted throughout the year, both in NYC and in DC, with many of the senators, congressional representatives, cabinet members, etc. With this second presidential assassination for the country, this one that clearly resulted in Guiteau’s express intent, to make Arthur president, turmoil and a little fear spread in the Stalwarts. This mood is clearly captured in the book: “If Guiteau were sane, then had murder become a normal feature of American political practice? Had we become Russia?”
The real impact of this book for me might be that I feel I need to start a Lucretia Rudolph Garfield fan club. Just a few quoted tidbits from the book that turned me into a “Crete” Groupie:
-Still, Lucretia sometimes bristled at the wifely role she had to play, ‘the grinding misery of being a woman, between the upper and nether millstone of the household cares and training children,’ as she put it in the mid-1870s. ‘To be half civilized with some aspirations for enlightenment and obliged to spend the largest part of the time the victim of young barbarians keep on in perpetual ferment.’
-Like her husband, Lucretia recognized the eyes of the world on her. As First Lady, her dignity and composure could bring courage to the country – her lack of it could bring despair. People needed her strength; she only hoped that she would be able to provide it and not crumble under the weight.
-Benjamin Harrison, visiting the White House that week, marveled at her calmness. ‘I do not believe there is another woman in the country who could have acquitted herself more magnificently.’ He called her’ the most heroic woman I ever knew.’
On top of all the impressive Lucretia stories from the book, the tour of the NHS site in Mentor, Ohio was filled with Lucretia’s innovate implementations on the farm – from architecture, to technology innovations, to the first presidential library. She is amazing, and I am now off to find a book about her.
Over the course of my savoring this book, I planned and executed a visit to the James A. Garfield National Historic Site in Mentor, Ohio. Yeah, that is how much this book consumed me. Heavily researched in archives and letters, Ackerman makes everyone’s conversations and actions seem like they were occurring right now. I literally cried when Lucretia was very sick (suspected Typhoid) and Garfield was desperate for her health and still under barrage from the appointments scandal.
The antics of Garfield, the parties, the Cabinet, the Senators, and the New York political machine during this one year (summer 1880-summer 1881) has so much to offer the student of history. The clash and inefficiency of the two party was clearly playing out. The problem with past presidents and how to get them off the political stage (sorry, Ulysses S. Grant fans) is obviously still pertinent today. The wariness of reading into early media reports ahead of elections is even here. I refer to a quote from James Blaine that Ackerman cites: “By that very confidence we may be lured into a dangerous inactivity of which our alert and desperate foes will not be short to take advantage.” Wow, Blaine, we need that reminder before each election now! And pioneering Garfield was “the first U.S. presidential candidate to campaign in a foreign language.” I really want to tell you what that language was, but I do not want to ruin the surprise.
On top of all the juicy history, we have a murder. We have a probably sane assassin. The clearly political motives of Guiteau are complicated to detangle because he actually interacted throughout the year, both in NYC and in DC, with many of the senators, congressional representatives, cabinet members, etc. With this second presidential assassination for the country, this one that clearly resulted in Guiteau’s express intent, to make Arthur president, turmoil and a little fear spread in the Stalwarts. This mood is clearly captured in the book: “If Guiteau were sane, then had murder become a normal feature of American political practice? Had we become Russia?”
The real impact of this book for me might be that I feel I need to start a Lucretia Rudolph Garfield fan club. Just a few quoted tidbits from the book that turned me into a “Crete” Groupie:
-Still, Lucretia sometimes bristled at the wifely role she had to play, ‘the grinding misery of being a woman, between the upper and nether millstone of the household cares and training children,’ as she put it in the mid-1870s. ‘To be half civilized with some aspirations for enlightenment and obliged to spend the largest part of the time the victim of young barbarians keep on in perpetual ferment.’
-Like her husband, Lucretia recognized the eyes of the world on her. As First Lady, her dignity and composure could bring courage to the country – her lack of it could bring despair. People needed her strength; she only hoped that she would be able to provide it and not crumble under the weight.
-Benjamin Harrison, visiting the White House that week, marveled at her calmness. ‘I do not believe there is another woman in the country who could have acquitted herself more magnificently.’ He called her’ the most heroic woman I ever knew.’
On top of all the impressive Lucretia stories from the book, the tour of the NHS site in Mentor, Ohio was filled with Lucretia’s innovate implementations on the farm – from architecture, to technology innovations, to the first presidential library. She is amazing, and I am now off to find a book about her.
February 3, 2020
“Dark Horse” is an engrossing account of the events leading up to the assassination of President James A. Garfield at the hands of Charles Guiteau, the stalwart of the stalwarts as he branded himself. Garfield was certainly a ‘dark horse’ when he emerged from the Republican party’s fractious convention as its nominee in the 1880 election. In that convention, former President Ulysses S. Grant was vying for an unprecedented third term against James G. Blaine, leader of the Half-Breed faction, and John Sherman, Hayes’s Treasury Secretary. How Garfield emerged as the consensus pick of the party is really interesting, itself involving a lot of backroom dealings between politicos. Garfield would go on to win a squeaker of an election against Democrat Winfield Scott Hancock and start his term as an erstwhile reformer, challenging the spoils system and its brazen champion, Senator Roscoe Conkling. Garfield would emerge victorious from his battle with Conkling, the Senator’s political career left in tatters, as much from his pride as from Garfield’s intractability regarding his nominations. The battle between the two men, though, certainly played a key role in the President’s shooting, which Ackerman chronicles in expert detail. I would highly recommend this book; it serves as a great companion piece to “Destiny of the Republic” and is a fascinating examination of the Gilded Age.
December 10, 2025
If you're someone who, like me, has spent an embarrassing amount of time wondering how the Garfield presidency might have changed history you'll thoroughly enjoy the ride Ackerman takes on us on.
I honestly can't remember if this is a re-read for me or if I picked this one for the first time but either way its must read for any history lover out there. Just be warned you might walk away with your own unexpected Garfield obsession...it happens.
I honestly can't remember if this is a re-read for me or if I picked this one for the first time but either way its must read for any history lover out there. Just be warned you might walk away with your own unexpected Garfield obsession...it happens.
October 5, 2020
*4.5 stars
December 7, 2025
This book is an incredible accomplishment: A thorough, thoughtful, and engaging book about American politics in the 1880s. It's unfair to summarize and hard to put down. Highly, highly recommended.
February 8, 2025
One of the best, page-turning American history books I've read recently. This era of the Gilded Age is fascinating and should have more written about it. It helps that Roscoe Conkling from my fair city of Utica is one of the main antagonists in the work, but even without that connection it's well written.
February 29, 2020
Ken Ackerman brings to life not only the tragically short lived life of President James Garfield and the politics of his time; he also places the reader inside the head of his assassin, a truly crazy man Names Charles Giteau. Beautifully written, masterfully researched, and fun to read. Ken Ackerman gets it right. A great read.
November 4, 2014
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2014/...
“Dark Horse: the Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield” by Kenneth Ackerman was published in 2003. Ackerman practices law in the Washington D.C. area and has written four books including biographies of J. Edgar Hoover and New York political boss William Tweed. Ackerman is a graduate of my alma mater, Brown University.
Based on its title, no one should be surprised to learn that this book is far less a biography than it is a political thriller. Ackerman focuses almost exclusively on Garfield’s unexpected presidential nomination, his two-hundred-day presidency and his assassination (including his lingering death). This relatively narrow focus is the book’s key strength as well as its most notable weakness.
Although this book contains a relatively hefty 453 pages of text, it does not provide a comprehensive survey of Garfield’s life. The book begins at full pace during the 1880 Republican presidential nominating convention (when Garfield was already forty-eight years old) and follows him to his death just sixteen months later. The story Ackerman reveals is fast-paced and consistently engaging, but there is too much about Garfield’s life that remains untold.
In a manner reminiscent of Doris Goodwin’s later-published “Team of Rivals” Ackerman’s book is more a multiple biography of four politicians (and their relationships with each other) than it is a historical account focused principally on one person. In Ackerman’s case the attention is directed toward Garfield, Chester Arthur (Garfield’s vice president and successor), New York party boss Roscoe Conkling and presidential aspirant James Blaine. The intertwined stories of these four colorful characters are extremely well-told.
“Dark Horse” is occasionally faulted for providing too much detail- particularly relating to the Chicago nominating convention. But while Ackerman does provide a great deal of scene-setting throughout the book this is usually part of an effort to create context and to more fully animate the narrative. Rarely does his style involve tedious or extraneous detail. Instead, he draws in the reader and finds a way to never let go.
The author also excels at uncovering interesting facets of political life in the late nineteenth century (such as the origin of filibusters and the timing of modern-day presidential elections) and reveals interesting nuances of everyday life in the Gilded Age. At times it almost seems the author conducted more research on these lesser-known elements of the era’s daily grind than on Garfield himself.
Overall, Kenneth Ackerman’s “Dark Horse” is a fascinating narrative that follows James Garfield (and his key political contemporaries) for the most consequential year-and-a-half of his life. But as engrossing as it proves to be, it fails to cover the vast majority of Garfield’s life. And while it is long on captivating political drama, it is comparatively short on penetrating historical analysis. Nevertheless, this book is certain to delight most readers while frustrating only those who are hard-core historians.
Overall Rating: 4 stars
“Dark Horse: the Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield” by Kenneth Ackerman was published in 2003. Ackerman practices law in the Washington D.C. area and has written four books including biographies of J. Edgar Hoover and New York political boss William Tweed. Ackerman is a graduate of my alma mater, Brown University.
Based on its title, no one should be surprised to learn that this book is far less a biography than it is a political thriller. Ackerman focuses almost exclusively on Garfield’s unexpected presidential nomination, his two-hundred-day presidency and his assassination (including his lingering death). This relatively narrow focus is the book’s key strength as well as its most notable weakness.
Although this book contains a relatively hefty 453 pages of text, it does not provide a comprehensive survey of Garfield’s life. The book begins at full pace during the 1880 Republican presidential nominating convention (when Garfield was already forty-eight years old) and follows him to his death just sixteen months later. The story Ackerman reveals is fast-paced and consistently engaging, but there is too much about Garfield’s life that remains untold.
In a manner reminiscent of Doris Goodwin’s later-published “Team of Rivals” Ackerman’s book is more a multiple biography of four politicians (and their relationships with each other) than it is a historical account focused principally on one person. In Ackerman’s case the attention is directed toward Garfield, Chester Arthur (Garfield’s vice president and successor), New York party boss Roscoe Conkling and presidential aspirant James Blaine. The intertwined stories of these four colorful characters are extremely well-told.
“Dark Horse” is occasionally faulted for providing too much detail- particularly relating to the Chicago nominating convention. But while Ackerman does provide a great deal of scene-setting throughout the book this is usually part of an effort to create context and to more fully animate the narrative. Rarely does his style involve tedious or extraneous detail. Instead, he draws in the reader and finds a way to never let go.
The author also excels at uncovering interesting facets of political life in the late nineteenth century (such as the origin of filibusters and the timing of modern-day presidential elections) and reveals interesting nuances of everyday life in the Gilded Age. At times it almost seems the author conducted more research on these lesser-known elements of the era’s daily grind than on Garfield himself.
Overall, Kenneth Ackerman’s “Dark Horse” is a fascinating narrative that follows James Garfield (and his key political contemporaries) for the most consequential year-and-a-half of his life. But as engrossing as it proves to be, it fails to cover the vast majority of Garfield’s life. And while it is long on captivating political drama, it is comparatively short on penetrating historical analysis. Nevertheless, this book is certain to delight most readers while frustrating only those who are hard-core historians.
Overall Rating: 4 stars
October 28, 2014
To cut to the quick; this may be best book of U.S. political history I have read.
Mention President James A. Garfield, and the reaction from most is, "Oh yes. He's that post Civil War president that was assassinated." But his story is much more than just a sitting president who was shot by a half-crazed guy from Chicago who wanted a government job. The story gives us a quite complex picture of the shooter, Garfield and the party bosses.
As the title says, Garfield was really a dark horse, a man working to gain the presidency for another. But with the Republic Party split between the non-compromising "Stalwarts" and the "Half-Breeds", the convention in Chicago was stalemated -- divided among three men. U.S. Grant had just sat out four years after already serving two terms. He wanted a third term so bad he could taste it, and the "Stalwarts," led by the patronage boss of New York were determined to get it for him. But after a raucous convention, the three standing candidates fell short and the so-called 'Half-Breeds" put up Garfield as a unwilling candidate. After about 40 ballots, he had the nomination. This divided the party further and Grant's forces weren't about to go down without a fight.
The book does a great job of leading the reader through what led up to the convention, explaining the complexities of the convention fiasco, getting into the mind of the soon-to-be assassin and finally the shooting of Garfield and his lingering suffering and death after five months. U.S. Grant and his promoters then had to face the anger and disappointment of a grieving nation.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in history. I was going to give the book four stars due to some formatting and production problems. But they didn't affect the reading of the book and I firmly believe Kenneth Ackerman deserves five stars.
Mention President James A. Garfield, and the reaction from most is, "Oh yes. He's that post Civil War president that was assassinated." But his story is much more than just a sitting president who was shot by a half-crazed guy from Chicago who wanted a government job. The story gives us a quite complex picture of the shooter, Garfield and the party bosses.
As the title says, Garfield was really a dark horse, a man working to gain the presidency for another. But with the Republic Party split between the non-compromising "Stalwarts" and the "Half-Breeds", the convention in Chicago was stalemated -- divided among three men. U.S. Grant had just sat out four years after already serving two terms. He wanted a third term so bad he could taste it, and the "Stalwarts," led by the patronage boss of New York were determined to get it for him. But after a raucous convention, the three standing candidates fell short and the so-called 'Half-Breeds" put up Garfield as a unwilling candidate. After about 40 ballots, he had the nomination. This divided the party further and Grant's forces weren't about to go down without a fight.
The book does a great job of leading the reader through what led up to the convention, explaining the complexities of the convention fiasco, getting into the mind of the soon-to-be assassin and finally the shooting of Garfield and his lingering suffering and death after five months. U.S. Grant and his promoters then had to face the anger and disappointment of a grieving nation.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in history. I was going to give the book four stars due to some formatting and production problems. But they didn't affect the reading of the book and I firmly believe Kenneth Ackerman deserves five stars.
December 28, 2018
Trying to work my way through biographies of each president, I was dragging my feet a bit on getting to Garfield. It only makes sense, right? Garfield was shot after only 4 months in office and died a couple months later. I didn't think there could be much there. Wrong. Garfield was a major player among politicians of the Gilded Age. The first 134 pages of the book covered the fight among the three major factions of the Republican party, including shedding light on the weight of political bosses and the importance of patronage to the system. It was fascinating! In all the books I've read on American history, no others had covered those topics so well. Though a bit short on Garfield's personal life, with hardly anything on his military service during the Civil War, it was fairly comprehensive in its coverage of his political career and the election of 1880, which makes it a must-read for anyone interested in the Gilded Age or presidential history.
Parts of the book read like a thriller. The author did a great job of providing suspense to assassin Guiteau's stalking of the president. Much background was provided on Guiteau, including how he worked his way into the company of the major Republicans of the day, only to find himself ignored and considered an unusual, queer man.
Parts of the book read like a thriller. The author did a great job of providing suspense to assassin Guiteau's stalking of the president. Much background was provided on Guiteau, including how he worked his way into the company of the major Republicans of the day, only to find himself ignored and considered an unusual, queer man.
February 10, 2017
This is a very interesting book about an interesting and admirable man. The story of Garfield's election amid the power struggles of the Republican Party gives a good sense of the politics of the era Some of the struggles seem more like a pantomime than the process of politics in the country. In losing Garfield, the nation lost a man with integrity and good intentions. Unfortunately, we are unable to judge his presidency because of the assassin who cut his life short.
October 29, 2023
This book was lent to me by a friend after he found out I read “Destiny of the Republic”, the Candace Millard novel that focuses on the shooting and the failed medical care for President James A. Garfield. I was a little bit skeptical that I needed to read more about the Garfield presidency, but this book and the Millard book compliment each other quite well. Millard focuses largely on the shooting and the aftermath, including the efforts of Alexander Graham Bell to help save the president’s life. This book focuses on the politics surrounding Garfield’s election. The shooting gets a little bit of play; the story of the failure of Garfield’s lead doctor is not told here at all.
If you like to read about political process - not tabloid banter, not meaningless outrage of the day clickbait - actual political process - this book is probably the definitive discussion of the 1880 presidential election in the United States. Starting with introductions to the characters involved in the Republican convention and continuing through the battles of the initial months of the new presidency, the book provides a comprehensive view of everybody angling for office, the rigors of contested nominations and the challenges that are faced afterwards, the delicate nature of national elections, and how people respond to winning elections.
It is not clear if James Garfield went to Chicago in 1880 intending to seek the nomination. Long before primaries decided candidates, party delegates decided for themselves, and everybody convened at the convention to haggle, debate, vote, and then assemble the presidential team.
The 1880 convention was particularly contested. The third term issue has long been settled in America, but before the constitutional amendment, Ulysses Grant, a favorite of the New York powers, decided to try his turn at returning to office four years after ceding the office to Ohio man Rutherford B. Hayes. The Hayes administration - defined from the start by the contested 1876 election and the compromises that settled the process, itself a fascinating story - had lost many of its supporters and Hayes himself was eager to get out of the White House. Challenging Grant was Senator James Blaine, a fast rising senator from Maine with a more progressive bent. Neither had the necessary votes to win the nomination heading into Chicago thanks to other candidates, such as Ohio senator John Sherman, for whom Garfield was sent to represent.
How the convention settles on Garfield as the nominee is a fascinating story of speeches and convention policy. Then, the real work begins - bringing the party back together after a heated nomination process, especially when one group seems to openly seem willing to wait four years for another nomination. The issues are not unlike what Democrats faced - and couldn't resolve - in 2016. Garfield understood he needed New York men; New York men came to begrudgingly accept Garfield as the nominee. Loose promises and backroom deals get the major players pulling in one direction. Garfield wins the presidency because he wins the state of New York; he wins the state of New York by about 20,000 votes. Whether those votes were legitimate or not is a part of history we are not privy to.
More work continues after the election. Nobody seems to understand that winning the election was a group effort; both the New York party loyalists and the “half breed” supporters originally behind Blaine want the power behind the presidency; compromises are few and hard fought. The book spends a good, long while discussing how the Garfield presidency was beginning to shape itself, and again, if you like political machinations, it’s fascinating! The toughest decisions result in the dramatic resignations of New York’s two senators from their posts, Garfield coming to understand that people largely want a president who makes decisions with confidence, even if they are terrible decisions. It’s a reality that makes the attack argument of “shadow government” rule so effective during campaigns.
In the middle of the blossoming presidency comes a sad little man named Charles Guiteau, a man of big dreams, enormous self importance, and little accomplishment. Claiming divine guidance, he first seeks money, then he begins to seek power, and finally, violence, when he is not rewarded as he believes he ought. Like so many before and after him, the belief that divine guidance supported violence turned into real violence. In a global era where world leaders are routinely felled by assassins, the United States loses its second of three presidents to gunshot in a 36 period after the Civil War.
There is one part of history that I appreciated from this book. Violent political rhetoric has always been a part of our country. When that rhetoric turns into actual violence, usually, nothing changes. The guilty parties shrug it off, even using the events to paint themselves as victims, and the rhetoric just gets worse. Cable news and now social media has made things enormously worse, but it’s always been a problem. It can feel Quixotic asking people to be nicer to each other about politics, to care about politically-charged violence. It often feels like nobody with a larger voice cares. I’m pretty discouraged by how awful people seem to be willing to treat each other anymore. It’s not new, I’m just aware of it now, and no longer willing to accept it as normal.
Chester Arthur, who becomes president from the role of vice president and represents the New York contingent in the race and in many matters - often vigorously disagreeing with Garfield - appears to be the rare exception in American history who genuinely weeps for whatever role he might have had when words turned into violence. He’s SORRY. He changes how he thinks and acts. He is kind to his bitter partisan enemies, in and outside of his own party.
The book ends on a bit of a strange note. The author mentions that we don’t really talk about the presidents between Lincoln and Teddy very much. That’s true. We don’t. Senator Blaine, not content with his party having the White House, hatches Arthur in the 1884 election, giving Democrats their only president between 1860 and 1912. Arthur only gets, effectively, half of a term, and so we never really know what he could have done. For the most part, though, money and frontier justice rule the country between the Civil War and FDR. Teddy tries to reign things in a bit, but his changes are short lived and do not survive his departure from the White House. An America defined by exorbitant wealth, expansion in land and industry, as well as a culture of ambivalence towards violence, leads pretty directly into the next book I read, “Killers of the Flower Moon.”
If you like to read about political process - not tabloid banter, not meaningless outrage of the day clickbait - actual political process - this book is probably the definitive discussion of the 1880 presidential election in the United States. Starting with introductions to the characters involved in the Republican convention and continuing through the battles of the initial months of the new presidency, the book provides a comprehensive view of everybody angling for office, the rigors of contested nominations and the challenges that are faced afterwards, the delicate nature of national elections, and how people respond to winning elections.
It is not clear if James Garfield went to Chicago in 1880 intending to seek the nomination. Long before primaries decided candidates, party delegates decided for themselves, and everybody convened at the convention to haggle, debate, vote, and then assemble the presidential team.
The 1880 convention was particularly contested. The third term issue has long been settled in America, but before the constitutional amendment, Ulysses Grant, a favorite of the New York powers, decided to try his turn at returning to office four years after ceding the office to Ohio man Rutherford B. Hayes. The Hayes administration - defined from the start by the contested 1876 election and the compromises that settled the process, itself a fascinating story - had lost many of its supporters and Hayes himself was eager to get out of the White House. Challenging Grant was Senator James Blaine, a fast rising senator from Maine with a more progressive bent. Neither had the necessary votes to win the nomination heading into Chicago thanks to other candidates, such as Ohio senator John Sherman, for whom Garfield was sent to represent.
How the convention settles on Garfield as the nominee is a fascinating story of speeches and convention policy. Then, the real work begins - bringing the party back together after a heated nomination process, especially when one group seems to openly seem willing to wait four years for another nomination. The issues are not unlike what Democrats faced - and couldn't resolve - in 2016. Garfield understood he needed New York men; New York men came to begrudgingly accept Garfield as the nominee. Loose promises and backroom deals get the major players pulling in one direction. Garfield wins the presidency because he wins the state of New York; he wins the state of New York by about 20,000 votes. Whether those votes were legitimate or not is a part of history we are not privy to.
More work continues after the election. Nobody seems to understand that winning the election was a group effort; both the New York party loyalists and the “half breed” supporters originally behind Blaine want the power behind the presidency; compromises are few and hard fought. The book spends a good, long while discussing how the Garfield presidency was beginning to shape itself, and again, if you like political machinations, it’s fascinating! The toughest decisions result in the dramatic resignations of New York’s two senators from their posts, Garfield coming to understand that people largely want a president who makes decisions with confidence, even if they are terrible decisions. It’s a reality that makes the attack argument of “shadow government” rule so effective during campaigns.
In the middle of the blossoming presidency comes a sad little man named Charles Guiteau, a man of big dreams, enormous self importance, and little accomplishment. Claiming divine guidance, he first seeks money, then he begins to seek power, and finally, violence, when he is not rewarded as he believes he ought. Like so many before and after him, the belief that divine guidance supported violence turned into real violence. In a global era where world leaders are routinely felled by assassins, the United States loses its second of three presidents to gunshot in a 36 period after the Civil War.
There is one part of history that I appreciated from this book. Violent political rhetoric has always been a part of our country. When that rhetoric turns into actual violence, usually, nothing changes. The guilty parties shrug it off, even using the events to paint themselves as victims, and the rhetoric just gets worse. Cable news and now social media has made things enormously worse, but it’s always been a problem. It can feel Quixotic asking people to be nicer to each other about politics, to care about politically-charged violence. It often feels like nobody with a larger voice cares. I’m pretty discouraged by how awful people seem to be willing to treat each other anymore. It’s not new, I’m just aware of it now, and no longer willing to accept it as normal.
Chester Arthur, who becomes president from the role of vice president and represents the New York contingent in the race and in many matters - often vigorously disagreeing with Garfield - appears to be the rare exception in American history who genuinely weeps for whatever role he might have had when words turned into violence. He’s SORRY. He changes how he thinks and acts. He is kind to his bitter partisan enemies, in and outside of his own party.
The book ends on a bit of a strange note. The author mentions that we don’t really talk about the presidents between Lincoln and Teddy very much. That’s true. We don’t. Senator Blaine, not content with his party having the White House, hatches Arthur in the 1884 election, giving Democrats their only president between 1860 and 1912. Arthur only gets, effectively, half of a term, and so we never really know what he could have done. For the most part, though, money and frontier justice rule the country between the Civil War and FDR. Teddy tries to reign things in a bit, but his changes are short lived and do not survive his departure from the White House. An America defined by exorbitant wealth, expansion in land and industry, as well as a culture of ambivalence towards violence, leads pretty directly into the next book I read, “Killers of the Flower Moon.”
July 10, 2016
This book is intense. It provides loads of information within a short period of time. President James A. Garfield was the Dark Horse. He lasted sixteen months as president, elected in 1880.- Ulysses S Grant was trying for a third-term Presidency, Grover Cleveland (the first President to be guarded by the Secret Service) was in the race, James Blaine was in and also John Sherman. The campaigning leading up to the election is covered in immense detail. Through this read, I learned about Garfield's assasination; his connections to vice president, Chester Arthur, who became his successor, New York Republican party leader Roscoe Conkling and so much about James Blaine and his wife. The drama that existed among them, through letters pulled me in and distracted me from wanting to know about James Garfield, himself.
September 2, 2007
A well written history of the Garfield election and assassination. The author provides vivid images of the election, inauguration and presidency of Garfield and tells a good story as well. It's an interesting tale, Garfield going to the convention as a delegate and emerging as the surprise candidate, the wheeling-dealing to get him elected, and then his murder at the hands of of someone who had actually been in contact with most of the major politicians of the time. There are many things I discovered by reading this book concerning the election process of the time, some of which were rather surprising. It's an easy to read narrative and I greatly recommend it.
July 25, 2021
I love reading Presidential history books. This one was excellent. Although set in post Civil War 1800's historically it still relates very much to politics today. It made me realize how little has changed in politics. It is well researched. The election is told in depth. Garfield has faded into history but his story is well worth reading.
March 5, 2019
Interesting read about a period in American history I did nor know much about. Feeling grateful for modern (& competent) medicine!
June 26, 2022
Very detailed and tedious. Seems like every detail available was included, not often necessary in the scheme of the story.
September 22, 2020
Dark Horse is a treat for fans of post-civil war history and politics. It begins with a description of the leaders of two polar opposite Republican factions. Roscoe Conkling, a senator, led the Stalwarts- Republicans who favored nepotism and cronyism as means to put people in power. James Blaine, also a senator, led the Half-Breeds, who favored giving power based on an individual's merit.
After the introduction, Dark Horse details the Republican National Convention of 1880. Conkling aimed to nominate Ulysses Grant for President. Grant was a Stalwart. James Blaine himself was the Half-breed vying to be nominated. About 800 Republicans took vote after vote, but could not break a stalemate between Grant and Blaine. Out of nowhere, James A. Garfield's name was introduced as a candidate, and on the 36th vote Garfield was officially named the Republican candidate for President. Garfield was a moderate in the Stalwart-Half Breed spectrum, though he leaned slightly towards Half-Breed.
Garfield went on to win the Presidential election and was sworn in as the 20th President of the United States on March 4, 1881. Dark Horse gives many interesting tidbits about Garfield. I won't give them away except one. Though he was the 20th President, Garfield was the first left-handed president.
Just three months into his presidency, Garfield was shot by a disturbed man named Charles Guiteau. The wounds were not mortal, but the incompetence of the doctors taking care of Garfield caused his death in September 1881.
American politics of 1881 is either your thing or it isn't. If it is, definitely check out Dark Horse.
After the introduction, Dark Horse details the Republican National Convention of 1880. Conkling aimed to nominate Ulysses Grant for President. Grant was a Stalwart. James Blaine himself was the Half-breed vying to be nominated. About 800 Republicans took vote after vote, but could not break a stalemate between Grant and Blaine. Out of nowhere, James A. Garfield's name was introduced as a candidate, and on the 36th vote Garfield was officially named the Republican candidate for President. Garfield was a moderate in the Stalwart-Half Breed spectrum, though he leaned slightly towards Half-Breed.
Garfield went on to win the Presidential election and was sworn in as the 20th President of the United States on March 4, 1881. Dark Horse gives many interesting tidbits about Garfield. I won't give them away except one. Though he was the 20th President, Garfield was the first left-handed president.
Just three months into his presidency, Garfield was shot by a disturbed man named Charles Guiteau. The wounds were not mortal, but the incompetence of the doctors taking care of Garfield caused his death in September 1881.
American politics of 1881 is either your thing or it isn't. If it is, definitely check out Dark Horse.
February 4, 2018
Kenneth D. Ackerman’s “Dark Horse, The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield” attempts to reintroduce readers to the behind the scenes machinations and political intrigue of the election of 1880 and the subsequent Garfield administration. Although published in 2003, Ackerman’s research seems prescient given the current state of political affairs in today’s Trump-led America. Much like the strong chasm that would develop nearly 140 years later between Trump supporters and mainstream Republicans, Ackerman adroitly examines the rift between the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds that threatened to tear apart the Republican Party during the late 19th century. Reading more like a novel than a typical political history book, Ackerman turns what could have been a dense and difficult topic to get through into a page turner that I never wanted to put down.
August 11, 2018
This was an enjoyable book. You see so little written about Garfield and with cause, since he was assassinated so soon after his presidency began. He hardly had time to leave a legacy. His rise to the presidency was perhaps the biggest surprise of all, because, as the title suggests, he was a dark horse candidate who wasn't even on the ballot to begin with. Ackerman did lots of research on the topic and it shows in the final result. Highly recommended for anyone interested in reading about the presidents. I have made it my goal to read about all of them and this is one I have read very little about until now.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews