The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau: Psychiatry and the Law in the Gilded Age

by Charles E. Rosenberg

In this brilliant study, Charles Rosenberg uses the celebrated trial of Charles Guiteau, who assassinated President Garfield in 1881, to explore insanity and criminal responsibility in the Gilded Age. Rosenberg masterfully reconstructs the courtroom battle waged by twenty-four expert witnesses who represented the two major schools of psychiatric thought of the generation immediately preceding Freud.

Although the role of genetics in behavior was widely accepted, these psychiatrists fiercely debated whether heredity had predisposed Guiteau to assassinate Garfield. Rosenberg's account allows us to consider one of the opening rounds in the controversy over the criminal responsibility of the insane, a debate that still rages today.

Genres: History, Psychology, Law, Mental Health, American History, Nonfiction

308 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1968

Reviews

[Fred Kohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned of this book by reading The Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur, by Justus D. Doenecke. Previously I had read A Complete History of the Life and Trial of Charles Julius Guiteau, Assassin of President Garfield, by H.G. Hayes, C.J. Hayes, and Annie J. Dunmire. The two books deserve to be compared closely because they cover a lot of the same territory. Rosenberg's book is generally superior, probably in the main because it was published in 1968, whereas the Hayeses's book was published in 1882.

Although I have read a number of recountings of Guiteau's early life, Rosenberg's is no doubt the best that I have read. It is probably my favorite part of the book. On the other hand, I wasn’t thrilled with the meticulous attention paid to the state of psychiatry in the late 19th century. I get that this is a major focus of the book; it just happens that I am more interested in Guiteau's life in the Oneida community and his religious beliefs than in his psychological state, interesting though the latter may be. True to his aim in the book, Rosenberg devotes most of his notes on the sources to books and articles on psychiatry in the 19th and 20th centuries.

One reason I had for reading the Hayeses's book was to verify historian Susan Wels's claim that the defense tried to link Guiteau’s insanity to the Oneida Community. I was disappointed that there was no mention of this in that book. I was delighted to find confirmation of Wels's assertion in the Rosenberg book: "Scoville [lead defense attorney] documented Guiteau's Oneida years with particular care—for there could be no doubt of a jury's willingness to assume the Community’s influence upon the young man to have been a baleful one."

So was Guiteau insane? I think if he had been tried today he probably would have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Even at the time, many people were saying that if Guiteau had murdered a less prominent man, he would have been quietly confined in a mental institution.

One thing that makes the Rosenberg book superior to that of the Hayeses is the recounting of colorful details the Hayeses omit, such as how the ladies and attorneys dressed, how [John K.] Porter alone of the attorneys followed the traditional practice of bowing to the jurymen, or how ladies wept "while even stronger men trembled" when a five inch section of the late president’s spine, portions of ribs still attached, into evidence. These are the kinds of details, I suppose, that are more interesting to a 20th century audience than to a 19th century audience.

If you are going to read just one book on Guiteau's trial, I would recommend Rosenberg's book over the Hayeses’s. It is definitely five star material and I am sad to see the relatively low rating it has on Goodreads. The Hayeses’s book is also excellent, and Rosenberg mentions it prominently in his notes on sources. Ideally one should read both as the Hayeses’s book contains important material not present in Rosenberg's book, most notably the recollections of Guiteau’s ex-wife.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating look at the conception of insanity and what that term meant in regards to cause, detection, and societal perception.

[Craig Freyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Much more about the early psychiatry of the case than the history. Drawn out and repetitive at times. Seems to take forever to get through the psychiatric analysis sections. May be best coupled with Candice Millard's "Destiny of the republic" (read that first then this).

[Courtney · Rating 3 out of 5]

While the case of Charles Guiteau is interesting in terms of mental health, the author organizes the book so that you get his pre-trial life for much too long before finally getting to the assassination trial. Long enough to decide that he had some sort of manic-depressive cycle or schizophrenia.

The organization of the book wasn't the best.

Regarding the Insanity defense, this is a bizarre case because Guiteau planned to use it as an out but then when his lawyers plead "not guilty by reason of insanity," he couldn't deal with it. He seemed to have issues with being labeled insane by anyone in public (outside of himself?). Insane or not, he killed the President and he hung for it.

[Nina Lerner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rec’d to me by my medical historian dad. It’s a fascinating story of the first high-profile trial in America where insanity was used as a possible defense. And I never knew that Garfield died from medical negligence— not directly from the bullet wound. I am going to the Lordy.

[srevans]

(added to amazon.com "Curious About These" list, c. October 2006.)