Presidential Assassinations Have Always Aided the Democrats

Frontpagemagazine ^ | July 19, 2024 | Robert Spencer

[SJackson]

The greatest beneficiaries of violence.

There have been four assassinations of presidents in American history, and every one of them has aided the Democrats. This is not to say that the Democrat party engineered the assassinations for its own advantage, but nevertheless, it’s true: each time a president has been killed, the Democrats were the beneficiaries. If Donald Trump had been murdered last Saturday evening, it would not have been the killing of a sitting president, but once again, the left would have reaped the benefits.

When Abraham Lincoln became the first president to be murdered while in office, the Democrat party, which had supported slavery and split over secession, got a new lease on life. In 1864, Lincoln had run for reelection on a national unity ticket. The Republican party even renamed itself the National Union party, and chose as Lincoln’s running mate one of the few pro-union Democrats, Andrew Johnson of the border state of Tennessee.

When the Confederate sympathizer and staunch Democrat John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln on April 14, 1865, the party that was still in the midst of leading a massive and bloody insurrection against the federal authority in Washington was suddenly back in the White House. Lincoln had called for “malice toward none” and “charity for all,” but none of those who followed in his wake could figure out how to deliver that, and most weren’t even interested in trying. As Rating America’s Presidents explains, President Andrew Johnson opposed the enfranchisement and equality of rights of blacks. In this, Johnson departed from Lincoln’s course, as his martyred predecessor had favored civil rights for the freed slaves. In May 1865, Johnson granted amnesty to all ex-Confederates except those who owned property worth $20,000 ($300,000 today), that is, virtually the entire former ruling class, and soon they were back in power in what came to be known as “the Solid South,” a segregationist Democrat voting bloc that lasted a century.

The Democrats benefited again on July 2, 1881, when a deranged man named Charles Guiteau stepped up behind President James A. Garfield and fired his gun twice, hitting him in the back and arm (Garfield died on Sept. 19). Guiteau cried out, “I am a Stalwart and now Arthur is President!” Arthur was Chester A. Arthur, who had been awarded the Republicans’ vice presidential spot in order to balance the ticket. Garfield was a champion of civil service reform, while Arthur and Guiteau were Stalwarts, those who favored the “spoils system.” Under the “spoils system,” the president gave federal jobs to his supporters; proponents of civil service reform wanted such jobs to be given on the basis of merit.

Arthur surprised everyone by abandoning the Stalwarts and enacting Garfield’s program; he felt bound to do so since Garfield, not he, had been elected president. For this, Arthur has been justly praised, but civil service reform has not turned out to be the unalloyed benefit that many assumed it would be. In fact, it allowed for the formation of the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy that now largely runs things in Washington. Chester Arthur unwittingly paved the way for the creation of the deep state that did so much to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump (and will again if he is reelected). Garfield would have had a hard time getting civil service reform passed; Arthur did so on a wave of sympathy for the martyred president. The road from there leads straight to the far-left dictatorial bureaucrats of our own day.

Leon Czolgosz, the man who shot President William McKinley on Sept. 6, 1901 (McKinley died eight days later), was a man of the left, an anarchist and associate of the renowned activist Emma Goldman. After hearing Goldman (who actually advocated the assassination of rulers she thought unjust) speak about the injustices of American society, Czolgosz determined that “I would have to do something heroic for the cause I loved.” He traveled to Buffalo, where McKinley was appearing at the Pan-American Exposition, to kill the president.

Emma Goldman suggested that the assassination was justified: “Some people have hastily said that Czolgosz’s act was foolish and will check the growth of progress. Those worthy people are wrong in forming hasty conclusions. What results the act of September 6 will have no one can say; one thing, however, is certain: he has wounded government in its most vital spot.” This the-end-justifies-the-means rhetoric would become a staple of leftist discourse, particularly in the twenty-first century, when the left in America grew more violent than it ever had before.

Republican Party bosses, notably McKinley’s chief backer, Ohio Senator and Republican National Committee Chairman Mark Hanna, thought Vice President Theodore Roosevelt was a reckless radical. Hanna once exclaimed to a roomful of party leaders: “Don’t any of you realize there’s only one life between this madman and the presidency?” When Leon Czolgosz showed by killing McKinley how important such concerns really were, one prominent Republican is said to have exclaimed, “Now look, that damned cowboy is president of the United States.”

The “damned cowboy” was a “progressive,” equating progress with the steady expansion of government control over ever more aspects of citizens’ lives. As charming and ebullient as he was, Theodore Roosevelt was also one of the founding figures of today’s gargantuan and out-of-control federal state. Democrat party leader and thrice-failed presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan charged Roosevelt and the “progressives” with stealing ideas from the Democrat program. Roosevelt responded cheerfully: “So I have. That is quite true. I have taken every one of them except those suited for the inmates of lunatic asylums.” And some of those as well.

On November 22, 1963, the Democrats were grim about their prospects for 1964. Although the fact has been forgotten now, John F. Kennedy’s presidency had been rocky. He had faced down the Soviets over their missiles in Cuba, but they wouldn’t have put them there in the first place if they hadn’t perceived JFK as a callow, weak party boy. His disastrous Bay of Pigs effort to overthrow the Communist regime of Fidel Castro only reinforced this view. Kennedy faced a tough challenge from Republican Barry Goldwater, whom many pundits thought could win.

The assassination of Kennedy changed all that. Lyndon B. Johnson rode the revulsion and horror that followed the assassination to a landslide victory, and enacted the far left’s dream agenda for domestic policy. (In matters of foreign policy, the hard left was not as enamored of LBJ.)

Johnson’s War on Poverty was a huge exercise in applying the wrong solution to problems and only making them worse rather than solving them. Yet the Democrat party to this day is full of leaders who refuse to admit that it has been a defeat and a disaster, and keep pushing to repeat its mistakes on an even larger scale. The War on Poverty has cost over $22 trillion since 1964, over three times the cost of all the actual wars that the U.S. has ever fought. All that has resulted from it, however, is urban blight, nagging minority unemployment, and above all, more poverty. Poverty levels were falling sharply before Johnson declared war on poverty; in 1950, 32 percent of Americans were considered to be living below the poverty line. By 1965, when the War on Poverty was just getting started, the poverty level had been cut nearly in half and was down to 17 percent. But by 2014, after trillions had been spent in the War on Poverty, it was at 14 percent, nearly the same as it had been when the War on Poverty began.

The War on Poverty failed because it ignored a basic law of economics: if you pay for something, you’ll get more of it, not less. As the government expanded welfare programs that subsidized food, housing, and health care for the poor, it got more poor people, not fewer: the Johnson administration had created an economic incentive to remain poor. Johnson’s “Great Society” took away incentives to work and created a permanent unemployed underclass in which an ever-larger group of people were essentially wards of the state.

We’re still paying the price, but the advocates of statism and socialism love it. If Donald Trump had been killed last Saturday night, those forces would have virtually assured of getting even more of what they want.

[LS]

Didn’t even read cuz the title alone is stupid. McKinley was killed and TR won. Garfield (a reformer) was killed and an R who was thought NOT to be a reformer, Arthur, came in and was every bit as gung ho as Garfield.

And in this case, Trump benefits mightily. Spencer is historically wrong.

[adorno]

Violence is intrinsic to politics

People say politics is a contact sport.

But, it's not supposed to be a murder sport or a fight until there's only one last man standing.

In the U.s., the democratic party is the equivalent of the communist party in the USSR, where the motto was, 'whatever it takes', meaning that, murder and genocides were okay in order to achieve the end goal. "The ends justifies the means'>

[SecondAmendment]

> In the U.s., the democratic party is the equivalent of the communist party in the USSR, where the motto was, 'whatever it takes', meaning that, murder and genocides were okay in order to achieve the end goal. "The ends justifies the means'

Precisely !

[wardaddy]

Not this time

[wardaddy]

JFK was hardly killed for being too right leaning

Hinckley was simply insane

Lincoln was basically a war casualty and his death cost the south dearly and baring Andrew Johnson and one senate vote the radical republicans would have totally subjugated the south into their spoils fiefdom and political dependency they had envisioned leading to the war itself

Lincoln opposed the radicals in his own party over this and offered very generous terms as did Sherman and Grant

Trump is the first one I can think of clearly shot by a leftist except Ford who wasn’t wounded

Squeaky Fromm I’m assuming was a lefty I’m not sure the other lady

Sirhan Sirhan was a Christian Palestinian I’m not certain his motive

MLK not a potus candidate was shot by a righty anti communist racist ostensibly a Dixiecrat of sorts I’d assume

Garfield was shot by a nutty Republican resentful over not getting what he thought he was due

McKinley was killed by a crazed anarchist

Andrew Jackson a democrat was shot by a nut and as was his custom survived

There have been others including maybe a Capone minion on FDR and possibly Zionist extremists on Truman who were thwarted

It’s a mixed bag but the most common thread is nuts

[Deo volente]

If Reagan had died from his chest wound we would not have had his wonderful two terms with tax cuts, a booming economy, defense buildup which helped end the Soviet Union, etc, but rather the globalist champion of the New World Order, Poppy Bush.

[ProgressingAmerica]

The article is actually fairly accurate. He wrote:

"Theodore Roosevelt was also one of the founding figures of today’s gargantuan and out-of-control federal state"

It is simply a fact that Theodore Roosevelt 26 led the largest peacetime expansion of government in U.S. history.(up until that time) Every time King Teddy the First had the chance, he increased the size and scope of the federal government. If congress wouldn't play ball, he used his royal scepter and decreed it.

It's about time we face this fact and stop hiding from it. We would NOT have a deep state at all except for Theodore Roosevelt. The FBI was blatantly unconstitutional, much less anything else he did.

As of now, the President who has arguably done the most to undo Theodore Roosevelt's disastrous record as President has been ............... (drum roll) ........ Donald Trump 45.

MAGA all the way baby!

[Biblebelter]

There was an attempt on George Wallace in the 1972 campaign.

This time he was a running as a Democrat not an independent.

What has been forgotten is that Wallace had accumulated more delegates at the time of the attempt than any other candidate.

That is not to say that he would have gotten the nomination but Wallace was running a populist campaign to what was still the base of the Democrat Party at the time which was the blue collar worker middle class.

[Pelham]

The only political party that John Wilkes Booth had ever belonged to was the Know Nothing aka the American party.

That party was one of the group that along with the Whigs joined the Republican party.

Lincoln’s own VP Andrew Johnson was a Democrat. His Secretary of War Stanton. Many of his generals. There were Democrats aligned with Lincoln. The Republicans had no support in the South since people won’t vote to wage war on themselves.

[Pelham]

Don’t spoil the story that it all began with Woodrow Wilson. Teddy running on the Progress Party ticket in 1912 doesn’t count either.

[lewislynn]

Presidential Assassinations Have Always Aided the Democrats

That's the kind of "historic" thinking that caused (history professor) Newt Gingrich to lose the house...Party in power Blah, Blah, Blah.

Taking that lunacy to the next level. The loss caused GW Bush to think the loss was a mandate (more like excuse) for him and Rove to (gleefully) go full liberal.

[Red Badger]

Yes, I left out Wallace because he really had no support outside of the Old South, so really wasn’t a ‘threat’ to anybody.

But it was interesting that when the election came he told Nixon he could have all his electoral votes if he needed them............

[Theodore R.]

JFK was unpopular in the Deep South but not disliked elsewhere.

[Theodore R.]

People like the “can do” spirit of TR, but they otherwise know little of his actions in office.

[ansel12]

He was running into race issues nationally, while it was more intense in the South.

[Pelham]

George Wallace won the Michigan and Maryland primaries on May 16th the day after he was shot.

Despite the shooting effectively ending his 1972 campaign Wallace received the 3rd highest number of Democrat votes in the primaries.

25.8% for Humphrey, 25.3% for McGovern, 23.5% for Wallace. And oddly enough Wallace won 0.3% of the votes in the 1972 Republican primaries.

[Pelham]

Spencer also refers to “staunch Democrat John Wilkes Booth”.

In fact the only political party that Booth was ever active in was the Native American Party, better known as the Know Nothing party. It ran from the 1840s to 1860 when it merged into the Republicans.

If you have seen movie The Gangs of New York, that’s the party of Bill the Butcher, the character played by Daniel Day Lewis.

[BroJoeK]

SecondAmendment: "Violence is intrinsic to politics, and anyone who says otherwise is an liar or unfamiliar with history."

Carl von Clausewitz told us in 1832 that "War is a mere continuation of policy with other means", often paraphrased as "war is politics by other means", and logically implying that politics is war by other means.

So, yes, you have a point.

However, violence is only "intrinsic" if you define law enforcement as intrinsically "violence".
Law enforcement is intended to force politics into legally and ethically acceptable channels and thus ideally eliminate all unlawful violence from the process.

SecondAmendment: "With that said, violence should reserved as measure of last resort, but for the Democrats its their daily driver."

Exactly right.

[Vigilanteman]

Good list, but misses the attempt on FDR when he was president elect and Truman while he was living in the Blair House while the white house was being renovated.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "It is simply a fact that Theodore Roosevelt 26 led the largest peacetime expansion of government in U.S. history.(up until that time)
Every time King Teddy the First had the chance, he increased the size and scope of the federal government.
If congress wouldn't play ball, he used his royal scepter and decreed it."

Yeah, right...
The trouble with such fact-free fantasizing is that it withers to nothing whenever we look at the reality behind it.
Your problem number one is the size and scope of Federal government, which did not change under Teddy Roosevelt --

Historical Federal spending as a % of US GDP:

1. 2% average from Pres. Washington (1789) through Buchanan (1860), except during wartime (i.e., War of 1812 and Mexican War) when it rose slightly over 3%.

2. 10% average during the Civil War (1861-1865)

3. 3% average from Republican Pres. Hayes through Democrat Cleveland (1877 - 1896), through which our Civil War debt was paid down from 30% to 10% of GDP.

4. 2.3% under Republican Pres. Teddy Roosevelt

5. 2.9% under Democrat Pres. Woodrow Wilson, pre-WWI
   14% under Wilson during WWI

6. 4% under Republican Pres. Harding & Coolidge (Roaring 20s!) while paying down the WWI national debt from 35% to 16% of GDP.

7. 10% under Democrat FDR's New Deal, pre-WWII
   50% maximum during WWII.

8. 18% average from Eisenhower to Nixon

9. 21% average from Carter through Bush II

10. 23% average since Bush II.

None of this can be reasonably blamed on Teddy Roosevelt, whose federal spending % of GDP was only slightly larger than that of Pres. Washington!

Another way to look at this is:
US Federal employees (non-military) as a percentage of US population:

1. 0.3% in 1900 under Republican Pres. McKinnley

2. ~0.35% average under Republican Pres. Teddy Roosevelt

3. 0.4% in 1910 under Republican Pres. Taft

4. 0.8% in 1920 under Democrat Pres. Wilson

5. 2.0% in 1944 at the peak of WWII

6. 1% today

Finally, there's the matter of all these alleged new Federal agencies:

• Under Republican Teddy Roosevelt there were exactly two:
  • The Forest Service
  • The Department of Commerce and Labor

  • TR is sometimes accused of starting the FBI, but in fact there was no Bureau of Investigation under Teddy Roosevelt, that happened under Pres. Taft, in 1909.
    Nor is there any evidence to suggest that TR had anything to do with collecting a handful of investigators in the Justice Department in July 1908.

• For comparisons, Democrat Pres. Wilson added:
  • The Federal Trade Commission
  • The Federal Reserve System
  • The National Park Service
  • Greatly expanded the IRS to administer the new Income Tax.
  • During WWI, enacted the Espionage and Sedition Acts to register half a million "enemy aliens" and send over 6,000 to internment camps.

Bottom line is that while Teddy Roosevelt was certainly a man of the Progressive Era, his actual "progressive" accomplishments were a mere drop in the bucket compared to everything which came after him, especially under Democrats like Wilson, FDR and LBJ.

What Teddy Roosevelt is absolutely guilty of is splitting the Republican party in 1912, and thus engineering the election of minority Southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Imho, TR was just as guilty of engineering Wilson's election as Fire Eater Democrats were in 1860, when they split their majority party, thus engineering the election of minority Republican Abraham Lincoln.