(already subscribe? log in).

‘Destiny of the Republic’ by Candice Millard

THE BOOK BUZZ

THIS STORY APPEARED IN
Boston Articles
February 19, 2012|By Nancy Harris

Who would imagine that a book on an assassinated American president would read more like a riveting medical thriller than simply a work of well-researched history?

Yet, according to Arthur Healey, a soft-spoken CPA and resident of Dedham, Candice Millard’s “Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President,’’ is “really a dramatic story about the state of politics, medicine, and American life in the late 19th century.’’

The 68-year-old Healey, who said he has little time to read, particularly during tax season, has always preferred biographies and historical nonfiction as an escape from a demanding work life.

“I know it may sound dated, but I have always preferred reading to television,’’ Healey said, and it ranks high on his list of leisure activities, alongside golf and visiting with his grandchildren.

For Healey, the decision to read Millard’s book, which centers on the assassination of our 20th president, James Garfield, was initially stimulated by his curiosity about the America of the 1880s, which he had perceived as a relatively quiet period.

“What intrigued me most was the author’s early description of James Garfield, the man, and his rather meteoric rise from absolute poverty to the pinnacle of power,’’ Healey said. “Garfield was clearly an incredibly intelligent man, a scholar of literature and ancient languages, a compelling orator, and quite well versed in science, math, and politics.’’

Healey is quick to state, “However, this narrative is not a book for someone who is seeking a biography of Garfield in the strictest sense.’’

“Destiny of the Republic,’’ published in 2011, is based on primary and secondary sources, Garfield’s personal diary, and contemporary news articles. Millard’s narrative focuses rather briefly on his early years and personal life, quickly turning to the political divisions within the Republican Party, Garfield’s reluctance to pursue the nomination, his conflict with powerful New York Senator Roscoe Conkling, frustrations with presidential obligations, and his assassination less than four months after taking office.

According to Millard, it was not the bullet that Charles Guiteau shot into Garfield’s back on a hot day in July 1881 that was ultimately responsible for the president’s painful, lingering death.

Instead, the absence of a governmental system to protect a president and the numerous medical errors that ensued at the hands of Garfield’s physicians ultimately garner the bulk of Millard’s attention.

How an initially nonfatal wound that breaks two ribs and grazes an artery results in Garfield’s death is what turns this historical narrative into a page-turner.

Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
|
|