PEOPLE POWER
Garfield’s Death and the Turn Against Patronage
James A. Garfield’s assassination exposed the dangers of the spoils system and helped push Congress toward the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act.
After Charles Guiteau shot President James A. Garfield in 1881 while seeking a federal appointment, the nation faced the consequences of a system that treated public jobs as political rewards. The Pendleton Act that followed began a long shift toward merit-based federal employment.
Charles Guiteau came to Washington expecting a reward. He believed a campaign speech had helped elect James A. Garfield and wanted a diplomatic appointment, including a consulship in Paris. The claim had little basis, but it grew from a political culture that often treated federal offices as prizes for party work. [2][5]
On July 2, 1881, Guiteau shot Garfield at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad station in Washington, D.C. His crime was his own. Still, his fixation on an appointment made the country confront the spoils system—the practice of distributing government jobs through political loyalty—at its ugliest extreme. [2][5]
Garfield died 79 days later, on September 19. In January 1883, Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, and President Chester A. Arthur signed it into law. The measure did not abolish patronage overnight. It did, however, establish the principle that some federal jobs would be filled and protected under merit rules rather than party allegiance. [1][3]
A Government Job as Political Currency
Before the Pendleton Act, a change in administration could bring broad turnover in federal offices. Political organizations treated positions, salaries, and influence as rewards for supporters. Federal employees could be pressed to pay political assessments—often five percent of their salaries—to fund campaigns, and they could be expected to perform partisan work. [2]
The system gave party leaders a way to build and sustain political power. In New York, Senator Roscoe Conkling and the Stalwart Republican organization drew heavily on patronage networks, with the New York Custom House at the center of the struggle.
Garfield entered office in March 1881 amid that fight. Patronage was more than an administrative problem: it was a contest over who controlled the Republican Party and its access to federal employment. After elections, job seekers arrived in Washington with claims of service rendered and rewards owed.
An Office Seeker Turns Violent
Guiteau had circulated a campaign speech and convinced himself that it had been essential to Garfield’s election. When his requests for an appointment failed, he came to regard the president as an obstacle.
The assassination horrified the country and gave civil service reformers a concrete example of the political culture they had criticized. That connection deserves care. Patronage did not make disappointed applicants violent, and Guiteau alone bore responsibility for his crime. He was tried, convicted, and hanged on June 30, 1882. [5]
But Guiteau’s demand for office showed how distorted the language of political reward could become when public employment was routinely treated as payment for partisan effort.
Seventy-Nine Days of Public Crisis
Garfield did not die at the station. He endured months of treatment as infection and other complications followed the shooting. News of his condition kept the crisis before the public through the summer. He died at Elberon, near Long Branch, New Jersey, on September 19, 1881, and Vice President Chester A. Arthur succeeded him. [2]
Civil service reformers had been making their case well before the shooting. They objected to instability in public offices, the use of government employees in campaigns, and party machines’ control over jobs. Dorman B. Eaton was among those working toward a more durable remedy. Garfield’s death gave their cause greater urgency in Congress and with the public. [4]
Arthur and the Pendleton Act
Arthur was an unlikely president to sign a law limiting patronage. Before becoming vice president, he had been a leading Stalwart and held a powerful position at the New York Custom House. President Rutherford B. Hayes removed him in 1878 amid disputes over patronage practices. [2]
The political setting changed after Garfield’s death. Democrats won control of the House in the November 1882 midterm elections, creating an opening for the outgoing Congress to take up reform. Public outrage and partisan calculation both shaped the moment.
Senator George H. Pendleton of Ohio sponsored the legislation, and Eaton drafted much of it. The Senate passed the bill 39–5 on December 27, 1882. The House followed by a 155–46 vote on January 4, 1883. Arthur signed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act on January 16. [1][3][4]
Arthur need not be recast as a lifelong opponent of patronage. The revealing fact is that a president shaped by machine politics approved a law that began to limit the system’s reach.
What the Law Changed—and What It Did Not
The Pendleton Act created a three-member bipartisan Civil Service Commission and authorized competitive examinations for covered positions. It also barred compulsory political contributions from federal employees. Those provisions began to separate federal employment from campaign fundraising and party discipline. [1][3]
Its initial reach was narrow. About 10 percent of federal civilian positions fell within the classified service, while most jobs remained outside its protections. Patronage persisted. [1]
Over time, more positions entered the merit system. The classified service eventually expanded to cover more than 90 percent of federal workers, reducing political parties’ ability to distribute federal jobs as electoral rewards. [3]
The Pendleton Act had more than one cause. Reformers had worked for years, the 1882 election altered congressional incentives, and lawmakers faced sustained public pressure after Garfield’s death. Guiteau’s demand for office did not create the reform movement, but the assassination made it harder to defend leaving the spoils system untouched. [2][4]
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Charles Guiteau assassinate President Garfield?
Guiteau believed he deserved a diplomatic appointment because of his supposed contribution to Garfield’s campaign. After his requests were rejected, he shot Garfield on July 2, 1881. His motives reflected personal delusion, but his fixation on an appointment drew on a broader culture of patronage. [2][5]
What did the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act do?
The 1883 law created a bipartisan Civil Service Commission, introduced competitive examinations for covered federal jobs, and prohibited compulsory political assessments on federal workers. At first, it covered about 10 percent of federal civilian positions. [1][3]
Why was Chester A. Arthur’s role significant?
Arthur had risen through the Stalwart wing of the Republican Party and was associated with New York patronage politics. Yet he signed the Pendleton Act in January 1883, helping establish a system that curtailed practices central to the political world from which he had emerged. [1][2]
TIMELINE
Key moments
Sources
- Pendleton Act (1883) — National Archives and Records Administration
- The Federal Civil Service and the Death of President James A. Garfield — National Park Service
- Pendleton Civil Service Act — Encyclopaedia Britannica
- 1883 - 1983 Civil Service Act — Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library & Museums
- United States v. Guiteau: Assassination and Insanity in Gilded Age America — Federal Judicial Center
RELATED STORIES