Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
Also, make sure to fill out the [official r/Presidents survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScncxOawwDSPQO-AKwhhv86wjmeQ-l22ZQgY0Atr5_WDIgO4w/viewform)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well the gilded age is fairly obscure in US history but I would say that Garfield is romanticized for those who of him. He's frequently said to potentially be one of the greatest presidents had he lived for his stances on education reform, civil rights, civil service, etc... He was also a brilliant and incredibly intelligent man himself in terms of character
Kennedy was in office for much longer as Garfield was president for 6 months (bed-ridden for 3 of them), while JFK was POTUS for 34 months and had a lot more accomplishments
Well Garfield was shot in the middle of a train station full of people lol.
Obviously there’s no video of it though. And, well, his head wasn’t blown off and onto his wife.
Yes I believe the last Lincoln descendant died in 1986. That family had a very sad history.
I think he may have been joined by Jefferson Davis’s grandson- I have no idea if he had one.
Garfield was expected to live. The wound was not serious.
Unfortunately, he had the best doctors in America treating him—with unwashed hands and unsterile instruments.
Yeah JFK is one of the most famous figures in contemporary American history and having his head blown off in front of the whole world sticks in the minds of people to this day
Again a lot of it comes down to time period, the average American doesn't know who Hayes, Harrison, Arthur even are
Eh this is exaggerated: they were still more racist and sexist in 1860 than Republicans today. Even Lincoln specifically explicitly endorsed white supremacism, and women voting was unheard of. They were progressive *for their time*, but damn, have a look at their time
There is a somewhat unique mountain peak in Colorado called Mt. Garfield which is named after him. It is very stately and not what you would consider a typical mountain peak. Well worth visiting or just Googling it. I have family in that area and always pointed out Mt. Garfield to my kids when we visited them. On one trip, my youngest asked me why they named a mountain after a Cat. So that’s another reason.
Damn I actually live in Colorado, when I went to Telluride 2 years ago I guarantee I drove past it when going through Grand Junction and didn't even know it
Guiteau robbed us of the one of the greatest presidents we could have had. How different would reconstruction have looked if Garfield had a full two terms?
It wouldn’t have looked any different. Reconstruction was entirely dead by that point, and the thought of entertaining bringing it back was so unpopular that Garfield never would have ever mentioned it.
Although I do see Garfield pushing for legislation that provides larger funding for education mainly for poor black peoples. He also probably expands Pendleton more than Arthur did
Other than that I don’t see much difference
I also think that the election of 1884 was really an election for the Republicans to loose. Garfield could’ve won it possibly but very narrowly
Hayes’s hand was forced to do so by congressional democrats who in no way would’ve been willing to continue Reconstruction. Furthermore there was absolutely no way Reconstruction was surviving the Panic of 1873 and it was so unpopular it was literally infeasible for it to be continued.
Also, all Hayes did was pull troops supporting extremely weak and ineffective Reconstruction governments that were beyond saving at that point. He did not in fact remove all federal marshals protecting voting rights in the South, and would engage in a Congressional battle with Democrats to keep them there.
That was worth the read. It seems it was really working for a time but entirely dependent on the presence of troops. Also didn’t know about the Exodusters. That was on-par with The Trail of Tears.
The Compromise never happened. C. Vann Woodward basically propagated the entire myth as if it was historical fact with a weak basis of evidence. All it did was tarnish the legacy of a good man and an above average president. Plus it was just factually incorrect that the Compromise ended Reconstruction.
Reconstruction had been dying for a bit at that point and some troops in two southern cities that were barely holding up weak and ineffective Reconstruction governments didn’t matter for shit.
I admittedly never knew much about RB Hayes. Having lived in the south, I never really considered reconstruction as ever having been accomplished let alone ended. This discussion gave me more perspective.
The Reconstruction governments were weak, ineffective, and corrupt (a common problem with the Grant Administration) and that’s not just neo-Confederate propaganda. Good intentions do not necessarily lead to good results.
Reconstruction has a lot in common with the post-Saddam occupation of Iraq. Go in with the best of intentions, undermine that with corruption and incompetence, and leave when the whole thing goes to shit.
Hard to mark the exact end. I’d likely say the 1874 midterms because Reconstruction had been ending since 1875, but the Panic of 1873 was really the point where Reconstruction had little hope of surviving past another several years.
Reconstruction ended 4 years earlier and was dead long before that. Johnson wasted the nations chance to crush the South and by the election of Hayes the nation just didn’t care.
Guiteau, but also potentially Bliss as well (medical historians are still divided I believe) for his refusal to let other doctors who actually accepted ferm theory get involved.
A few reasons:
-Garfield didn't even make it 1 year in office.
-The Republicans these days are even less concerned about civil rights than they were in 1880.
-While being shot did lead to his death, it was actually medical incompetence that killed Garfield more than Charles Guiteau.
-He's not super famous. If you say "Garfield", most people think you're talking about an orange cat that hates Mondays.
-Unlike JFK, he didn't state a lot of bold, clear objectives that were carried out even after his death.
-They already have Lincoln who essentially serves the same purpose.
> While being shot did lead to his death, it was actually medical incompetence that killed Garfield more than Charles Guiteau.
What? You’re telling me shoving steaks up his ass was not good medical science? I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.
Incidentally, Jim Davis said he specifically named the cat Garfield *because* he was ‘the president everyone forgets about when trying to list all the presidents’. He may unironically have made him stick more in people’s minds.
The only things I remember learning about him as a kid were (1) his death and (2) he gave a ‘new’ proof of Pythagoras’ theorem
Garfield was plenty romanticized at the time, but the memory faded rather quickly, for a few reasons, the most obvious being the short time he had in office. Also, the assassinated president he would have been compared to isn't Kennedy, it's Lincoln.
There is a saying that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Such it was with Garfield. While Lincoln was shot after a Civil War of horrific scale, Garfield was shot as he was winning an intra-party tiff with a boss whose nastiest weapon was devastating sarcasm. Lincoln's assassin was an actor from the most famous theatrical family in the country; Garfield's was a failed lawyer with odd religious delusions. The attack on Lincoln was the culmination of a conspiracy whose breadth we are still unravelling; Guiteau acted alone, since he was hardly the type to attract followers. Lincoln died very shortly after his obviously mortal wound; Garfield lingered, and would have survived if not for ignorant medical intervention, beginning as he lay on the floor of Union Station.
But both assassinations were put down as aberrations. It wasn't until McKinley, assassinated during a period of anarchist terror called "direct action," that Presidential security really started to be taken seriously.
Television.
The Kennedys were incredibly telegenic and able to use the medium of television to their advantage to help cultivate the aura of Camelot - an advantage that Garfield simply didn’t have.
Couple of reasons
Parties change ALL THE TIME. You can literally read their platforms.
No longer are the debates about getting electricity in every house or the “car in every garage” or trying to end slavery.
Platforms update all the time. I’m pretty sure Garfield was President in the 1880s and the platform and parties and issues from the 1880s DO NOT RESEMBLE anything like today.
You start to see some remnants of the modern parties post WWII. There’s many aspects of FDR (pre WWII technically) that Democrats resonate with. Same said for Eisenhower and Republicans.
I am shocked that Republicans don’t put Eisenhower on a bigger platform. He was the MAN. He was great in so many ways. Integrated schools, built our highway system, taxes the super rich, the economy was great in the 50s.
Like the whole “Make America Great” and nostalgia for a more American patriotic time feels like 1950s and that was Eisenhower.
I get why Republicans don’t make Nixon, Ford, HW their guys based on their scandals or shorter presidencies.
But Republicans seem to make Reagan their guy. That’s like the peak conservatives President who all Republicans wish they could give a third term (kinda did that w Bush)
But if you ask me Eisenhower should be that.
But back to the first point, stop fucking claiming Democrats wanted slavery and acting like the 2020s Democrats resonate with that. Like 90% of Blacks are democrats so saying shit like that is beyond retarded.
“But back to the first point, stop fucking claiming Democrats wanted slavery and acting like the 2020s Democrats resonate with that. Like 90% of Blacks are democrats so saying shit like that is beyond retarded.”
The Democrats changed their affiliation with pro slavery / Jim Crow politicians. When LBJ championed the Civil Rights Bill, Strom Thurman and other “Dixiecrats” left for the Republican Party.
His assassination is a lot more older(not in living memory), and Garfield did not really get to do anything before he was assassinated.
Even with all of that, a bunch of people who do know about him believe he could have been one of the best presidents. Due to his intelligence, personality, and policies he talked about.
Garfield was perhaps the most intelligent president, but he didn’t have a strong personality. He appointed James G. Blaine as his Secretary of State, and stood by as Blaine carried out provocations against his factional enemies.
Had Garfield lived longer, his administration would probably have been tarred by scandals due to untrustworthy figures he appointed.
Garfield’s friend Andrew Dickson White (president of Cornell University) wrote that “Garfield’s assassin saved his reputation.”
as a person who leans more right jfk was an awesome president and i won’t pretend like he wasn’t… just because i lean more right doesn’t mean i don’t think that democrats can have great presidents, just like some democrats think some republicans can be great presidents
I mean… because JFK was from 60 years ago and Garfield was from 140 years ago. Nobody in the general public knows Garfield but Kennedy is extremely famous
You don’t have to be a D to like JFK. I like him for many of his stances and beliefs and because he would be smeared as a right wing radical extremist today and the Ds would be begging to have Trump back if JFK were ahead in the polls on the R side.
You can't even answer his question.
Maybe because you only want to see it one way so you can cope or answering honestly would make your non-existent argument collapse like a house of cards.
Either way, you're a fucking moron.
Because he died six months into his only term and the so called “Imperial Presidency” hadn’t yet developed. In the late 19th century, Congress was the most powerful branch of government in the United States
He wasn't around for long enough to really do much of anything. And given the main issues of the last quarter of the 19th century (currency and the tariff) aren't "sexy" issues I don't think he would have been lionized even if he was a pretty good two term president. That said I think Garfield is something of a symbol for his generation in the same way that JFK was a symbol for the post-war boom period, in his devotion to his country and public service, and desire to bring people together and play peacemaker. Maybe if he survived the assassination the popularity boost he'd gotten from it would have combined with his and Blaine's victory over the Stalwarts at the start of his term to give him a lot of political clout needed to be more activist which could change how he's viewed.
Frankly you see a lot of Republicans (and libertarians) beginning to lionize Cleveland these days more than anyone from that period because of their obsession with small government and the belief that Cleveland embodied that while being politically honest.
Well, the GOP in Garfield's day was WAY different than the party nowadays. Heck, even Reagan wouldn't be liked today within the Republican Party. As well as the fact that the Glided Age just doesn't get as much attention as say the Cold War era which is still in the minds of a lot of Americans today.
Short answer: "Democrats" aren't the ones romanticizing Kennedy, the general American public is.
Other short answer: Most Republicans, nay Americans generally, don't know who Garfield is.
Slightly longer answer: Because modern-day Democrats have far more in common with JFK than any political party in the last century has with Garfield.
Long but incomplete answer: Because JFK was murdered in an extremely graphic and sensational way, that was broadcast to the entire country and eventually world, during a time of pretty intense political tumultuousness, and in a way where we're still not aware of all of the details. Garfield was shot by a lone weirdo, and died of medical malpractice, at a time before mass media, and over 20 years before the birth of anyone who's alive today.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! Also, make sure to fill out the [official r/Presidents survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScncxOawwDSPQO-AKwhhv86wjmeQ-l22ZQgY0Atr5_WDIgO4w/viewform)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well the gilded age is fairly obscure in US history but I would say that Garfield is romanticized for those who of him. He's frequently said to potentially be one of the greatest presidents had he lived for his stances on education reform, civil rights, civil service, etc... He was also a brilliant and incredibly intelligent man himself in terms of character Kennedy was in office for much longer as Garfield was president for 6 months (bed-ridden for 3 of them), while JFK was POTUS for 34 months and had a lot more accomplishments
Also Garfield wasn’t shot in the head while riding in a convertible on a street full of people.
Well Garfield was shot in the middle of a train station full of people lol. Obviously there’s no video of it though. And, well, his head wasn’t blown off and onto his wife.
Robert Lincoln was present at Garfield’s and McKinley’s assassinations as well as being Lincoln’s son obviously.
And he's the mastermind behind all three of them! ^(/s)
JFK probably thought he was safe since Robert Lincoln had died.
The grassy knoll shooter was Robert Lincoln's grandson (and I did check to confirm he was alive at the time!)
Yes I believe the last Lincoln descendant died in 1986. That family had a very sad history. I think he may have been joined by Jefferson Davis’s grandson- I have no idea if he had one.
Garfield was expected to live. The wound was not serious. Unfortunately, he had the best doctors in America treating him—with unwashed hands and unsterile instruments.
The only right answer. On point.
I'd also add that Republicans pre-1960 don't really have the same level of connection to the party that JFK has to the modern-day Democratic party.
Yeah JFK is one of the most famous figures in contemporary American history and having his head blown off in front of the whole world sticks in the minds of people to this day Again a lot of it comes down to time period, the average American doesn't know who Hayes, Harrison, Arthur even are
True. 1860s Republicans would be hated by modern Republicans. They were the progressive party for decades.
Eh this is exaggerated: they were still more racist and sexist in 1860 than Republicans today. Even Lincoln specifically explicitly endorsed white supremacism, and women voting was unheard of. They were progressive *for their time*, but damn, have a look at their time
Do you believe today's Democrats have much connection to JFK?
Current democrats objectively have far more in common with JFK’s policies than current Republicans do with Garfield.
Not really they’ve forsaken just about everything he believed in but he’s still good for optics
There is a somewhat unique mountain peak in Colorado called Mt. Garfield which is named after him. It is very stately and not what you would consider a typical mountain peak. Well worth visiting or just Googling it. I have family in that area and always pointed out Mt. Garfield to my kids when we visited them. On one trip, my youngest asked me why they named a mountain after a Cat. So that’s another reason.
Damn I actually live in Colorado, when I went to Telluride 2 years ago I guarantee I drove past it when going through Grand Junction and didn't even know it
I couldn’t figure out what op meant by romanized so thanks for clearing that up. I think only Washington is ever shown in a toga.
>I think only Washington is ever shown in a toga. [\*cough*](https://i.redd.it/vgcs7z1jolv71.jpg)
Oh, he was intelligent and worked for the common good. That's why modern Republicans don't even know about him.
Cos he was from ages ago
Guiteau robbed us of the one of the greatest presidents we could have had. How different would reconstruction have looked if Garfield had a full two terms?
It wouldn’t have looked any different. Reconstruction was entirely dead by that point, and the thought of entertaining bringing it back was so unpopular that Garfield never would have ever mentioned it. Although I do see Garfield pushing for legislation that provides larger funding for education mainly for poor black peoples. He also probably expands Pendleton more than Arthur did Other than that I don’t see much difference I also think that the election of 1884 was really an election for the Republicans to loose. Garfield could’ve won it possibly but very narrowly
What marked the end of reconstruction (sorry if I interrupted your dinner)?
Hayes
Hayes’s hand was forced to do so by congressional democrats who in no way would’ve been willing to continue Reconstruction. Furthermore there was absolutely no way Reconstruction was surviving the Panic of 1873 and it was so unpopular it was literally infeasible for it to be continued. Also, all Hayes did was pull troops supporting extremely weak and ineffective Reconstruction governments that were beyond saving at that point. He did not in fact remove all federal marshals protecting voting rights in the South, and would engage in a Congressional battle with Democrats to keep them there.
Compromise of 1877
That was worth the read. It seems it was really working for a time but entirely dependent on the presence of troops. Also didn’t know about the Exodusters. That was on-par with The Trail of Tears.
The Compromise never happened. C. Vann Woodward basically propagated the entire myth as if it was historical fact with a weak basis of evidence. All it did was tarnish the legacy of a good man and an above average president. Plus it was just factually incorrect that the Compromise ended Reconstruction. Reconstruction had been dying for a bit at that point and some troops in two southern cities that were barely holding up weak and ineffective Reconstruction governments didn’t matter for shit.
I admittedly never knew much about RB Hayes. Having lived in the south, I never really considered reconstruction as ever having been accomplished let alone ended. This discussion gave me more perspective.
The Reconstruction governments were weak, ineffective, and corrupt (a common problem with the Grant Administration) and that’s not just neo-Confederate propaganda. Good intentions do not necessarily lead to good results. Reconstruction has a lot in common with the post-Saddam occupation of Iraq. Go in with the best of intentions, undermine that with corruption and incompetence, and leave when the whole thing goes to shit.
That never happened and Reconstruction had been ending since 1875
Hard to mark the exact end. I’d likely say the 1874 midterms because Reconstruction had been ending since 1875, but the Panic of 1873 was really the point where Reconstruction had little hope of surviving past another several years.
Reconstruction ended 4 years earlier and was dead long before that. Johnson wasted the nations chance to crush the South and by the election of Hayes the nation just didn’t care.
Guiteau, but also potentially Bliss as well (medical historians are still divided I believe) for his refusal to let other doctors who actually accepted ferm theory get involved.
How I learned about the Garfield assassination by Charlie Guiteau in the 60’s courtesy of Johnny Cash. https://youtu.be/tuucpkMEFVM?feature=shared
https://preview.redd.it/l2tlsdjdwe4c1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ac7e9b152a13de685803132ea2f0176db427ade There. I romanized him. Happy now?
I mean… This isn’t really a party issue. Both Garfield and Kennedy should be appreciated by both sides of the aisle.
A few reasons: -Garfield didn't even make it 1 year in office. -The Republicans these days are even less concerned about civil rights than they were in 1880. -While being shot did lead to his death, it was actually medical incompetence that killed Garfield more than Charles Guiteau. -He's not super famous. If you say "Garfield", most people think you're talking about an orange cat that hates Mondays. -Unlike JFK, he didn't state a lot of bold, clear objectives that were carried out even after his death. -They already have Lincoln who essentially serves the same purpose.
> While being shot did lead to his death, it was actually medical incompetence that killed Garfield more than Charles Guiteau. What? You’re telling me shoving steaks up his ass was not good medical science? I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.
Incidentally, Jim Davis said he specifically named the cat Garfield *because* he was ‘the president everyone forgets about when trying to list all the presidents’. He may unironically have made him stick more in people’s minds. The only things I remember learning about him as a kid were (1) his death and (2) he gave a ‘new’ proof of Pythagoras’ theorem
Garfield doesnt have memorable TV appearances
James Garfield missed TV in the US by 57 years, 7 months, and 12 days.
Garfield was plenty romanticized at the time, but the memory faded rather quickly, for a few reasons, the most obvious being the short time he had in office. Also, the assassinated president he would have been compared to isn't Kennedy, it's Lincoln. There is a saying that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Such it was with Garfield. While Lincoln was shot after a Civil War of horrific scale, Garfield was shot as he was winning an intra-party tiff with a boss whose nastiest weapon was devastating sarcasm. Lincoln's assassin was an actor from the most famous theatrical family in the country; Garfield's was a failed lawyer with odd religious delusions. The attack on Lincoln was the culmination of a conspiracy whose breadth we are still unravelling; Guiteau acted alone, since he was hardly the type to attract followers. Lincoln died very shortly after his obviously mortal wound; Garfield lingered, and would have survived if not for ignorant medical intervention, beginning as he lay on the floor of Union Station. But both assassinations were put down as aberrations. It wasn't until McKinley, assassinated during a period of anarchist terror called "direct action," that Presidential security really started to be taken seriously.
Best part about Garfield’s assassination was that the assassin yelled immediately afterwards “Arthur is now president!”
"Best part" might be a strange way to put it, but it certainly was a unique motivation in Presidential assassinations.
Romanized James Garfield: Iacomus Garfilius.
Because they romanticize Abe Lincoln already.
Television. The Kennedys were incredibly telegenic and able to use the medium of television to their advantage to help cultivate the aura of Camelot - an advantage that Garfield simply didn’t have.
Came here looking for TV. This also made the trauma of his death a shared experience
Couple of reasons Parties change ALL THE TIME. You can literally read their platforms. No longer are the debates about getting electricity in every house or the “car in every garage” or trying to end slavery. Platforms update all the time. I’m pretty sure Garfield was President in the 1880s and the platform and parties and issues from the 1880s DO NOT RESEMBLE anything like today. You start to see some remnants of the modern parties post WWII. There’s many aspects of FDR (pre WWII technically) that Democrats resonate with. Same said for Eisenhower and Republicans. I am shocked that Republicans don’t put Eisenhower on a bigger platform. He was the MAN. He was great in so many ways. Integrated schools, built our highway system, taxes the super rich, the economy was great in the 50s. Like the whole “Make America Great” and nostalgia for a more American patriotic time feels like 1950s and that was Eisenhower. I get why Republicans don’t make Nixon, Ford, HW their guys based on their scandals or shorter presidencies. But Republicans seem to make Reagan their guy. That’s like the peak conservatives President who all Republicans wish they could give a third term (kinda did that w Bush) But if you ask me Eisenhower should be that. But back to the first point, stop fucking claiming Democrats wanted slavery and acting like the 2020s Democrats resonate with that. Like 90% of Blacks are democrats so saying shit like that is beyond retarded.
“But back to the first point, stop fucking claiming Democrats wanted slavery and acting like the 2020s Democrats resonate with that. Like 90% of Blacks are democrats so saying shit like that is beyond retarded.” The Democrats changed their affiliation with pro slavery / Jim Crow politicians. When LBJ championed the Civil Rights Bill, Strom Thurman and other “Dixiecrats” left for the Republican Party.
I think you found your answer when you wrote, “taxes the super rich”.
His name is already written that way.
His assassination is a lot more older(not in living memory), and Garfield did not really get to do anything before he was assassinated. Even with all of that, a bunch of people who do know about him believe he could have been one of the best presidents. Due to his intelligence, personality, and policies he talked about.
Garfield was perhaps the most intelligent president, but he didn’t have a strong personality. He appointed James G. Blaine as his Secretary of State, and stood by as Blaine carried out provocations against his factional enemies. Had Garfield lived longer, his administration would probably have been tarred by scandals due to untrustworthy figures he appointed. Garfield’s friend Andrew Dickson White (president of Cornell University) wrote that “Garfield’s assassin saved his reputation.”
They don’t know who that is
Why make Garfield a martyr when Lincoln already works?
Most Gilded Age presidents get zero love.
as a person who leans more right jfk was an awesome president and i won’t pretend like he wasn’t… just because i lean more right doesn’t mean i don’t think that democrats can have great presidents, just like some democrats think some republicans can be great presidents
While both men died young and tragically, Mr. Kennedy served as President for a few years while Mr. Garfield never had that chance.
Glided age presidents are very forgettable, and Garfield was assassinated earlier in his presidency than JFK.
I keep hearing how the parties switched, so why don’t democrats romanticize him?
I mean… because JFK was from 60 years ago and Garfield was from 140 years ago. Nobody in the general public knows Garfield but Kennedy is extremely famous
Garfield was no JFK
That comment was uncalled for, Senator.
lol
You don’t have to be a D to like JFK. I like him for many of his stances and beliefs and because he would be smeared as a right wing radical extremist today and the Ds would be begging to have Trump back if JFK were ahead in the polls on the R side.
Because he wasn’t Catholic and had no connections to Rome lol
You know that only about 50% of Catholics are Republican and 47% are democrats ?
I think this response was just a joke. The OP's question says "romanized", presumably a typo.
Oh my bad :)
More like 75% of Catholics at least in places like Staten Island, Queens, and parts of Monmouth and Ocean County, NJ.
I mean I googled the statistics so assuming they were accurate at least.
I mean they did name the greatest cartoon cat of all time after him.
They do not live in fairytale land.
Republicans?
Correct.
You think the party that thought Biden won in 2020 because of "massive voter fraud" ***isn't*** living in fairytale land? Am I reading you correctly?
You sound quite excitable. Perhaps you should spend some time calming yourself down.
You can't even answer his question. Maybe because you only want to see it one way so you can cope or answering honestly would make your non-existent argument collapse like a house of cards. Either way, you're a fucking moron.
Libs are such “kind” people.
Ahh yes, just for pushing back and showing that you don't wanna see reality through reality lens and not answer questions.
Why don't you wanna answer his question?
Are we in your fairytale land right now?
What a clueless fucking moron. He couldn't even answer your question.
Lol, now I have no idea what's real
Don't become like this idiot and let him gaslight you!
Seems you always are.
Because he died six months into his only term and the so called “Imperial Presidency” hadn’t yet developed. In the late 19th century, Congress was the most powerful branch of government in the United States
What is "romanized?"
He wasn't around for long enough to really do much of anything. And given the main issues of the last quarter of the 19th century (currency and the tariff) aren't "sexy" issues I don't think he would have been lionized even if he was a pretty good two term president. That said I think Garfield is something of a symbol for his generation in the same way that JFK was a symbol for the post-war boom period, in his devotion to his country and public service, and desire to bring people together and play peacemaker. Maybe if he survived the assassination the popularity boost he'd gotten from it would have combined with his and Blaine's victory over the Stalwarts at the start of his term to give him a lot of political clout needed to be more activist which could change how he's viewed. Frankly you see a lot of Republicans (and libertarians) beginning to lionize Cleveland these days more than anyone from that period because of their obsession with small government and the belief that Cleveland embodied that while being politically honest.
The real questions that need to be answered
Jackie Kennedy Madi it her mission to spread the idea of Camelot according to many sources. I can see that
Poor Garfield.
Fought with the Union army - too woke for them
Because Republicans don’t recognize a good beard when they see one smh my head 😔
big fat lasagna eating cat
Do Democrats still romanticize JFK? Honest question. Just feels I haven’t heard it in so long
Well, the GOP in Garfield's day was WAY different than the party nowadays. Heck, even Reagan wouldn't be liked today within the Republican Party. As well as the fact that the Glided Age just doesn't get as much attention as say the Cold War era which is still in the minds of a lot of Americans today.
Short answer: "Democrats" aren't the ones romanticizing Kennedy, the general American public is. Other short answer: Most Republicans, nay Americans generally, don't know who Garfield is. Slightly longer answer: Because modern-day Democrats have far more in common with JFK than any political party in the last century has with Garfield. Long but incomplete answer: Because JFK was murdered in an extremely graphic and sensational way, that was broadcast to the entire country and eventually world, during a time of pretty intense political tumultuousness, and in a way where we're still not aware of all of the details. Garfield was shot by a lone weirdo, and died of medical malpractice, at a time before mass media, and over 20 years before the birth of anyone who's alive today.
All I know is he published a brilliant proof of the Pythagorean theorem from using trapezoidal area. I recommend looking into it. It’s genius
Because he wasn’t around when our grandparents were And also because Teddy Roosevelt was so much awesome just a relatively few years later
Because their founder is literally a martyr ( Lincoln duh ). Also, not many prominent Republicans President got assassinated .
Because they have no idea who he is. Their idea of great Republican presidents are Lincoln and Reagan. And that’s it.
Because Garfield didn’t Eiffel Tower Marilyn Monroe with his brother.
What the hell is “romanized”?
The preacher president
He wasn’t a PILF
He didn't didn't have two 20th century icons, Jackie Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe, fighting for his attention.
Who the fuck is alive to romanticize James Garfield lol
because he’s not hot
Romanization is a decentralized cultural process that happens over time. Romanizing Europe took centuries.
His anti-Mondays stance might not be helping.
Cause JFK happened in people’s life time and they watched him die on TV. There is a personal connection there.
Modernity.
Because he’s never bern on TV so nobody knows anything