Publication information |
Source: Harper’s Weekly Source type: magazine Document type: article Document title: “The Shooting of the President” Author(s): anonymous Date of publication: 14 September 1901 Volume number: 45 Issue number: 2334 Pagination: 908 |
Citation |
“The Shooting of the President.” Harper’s Weekly 14 Sept. 1901 v45n2334: p. 908. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
McKinley assassination; William McKinley (personal character); McKinley assassination (personal response); anarchism (personal response). |
Named persons |
Emma Goldman; Humbert I; Ida McKinley; William McKinley; Montesquieu. |
Document |
The Shooting of the President
THE President is shot by an anarchist. This was the startling and sobering
announcement made to the country last Friday as the day was drawing to a close
and men and women were in happy anticipation of a peaceful and quiet evening.
As the sudden revelation of the stupendous events recurs, the picture of the
happy republic on the approach of the serene evening plunged into gloom by the
pistol-shot of an assassin is most impressive. The President was spending a
happy day at the great fair. He was surrounded by a group of charming and kindly
people. Throngs of sight-seers greeted his approach and cheered him as he walked
through the buildings. There seemed to be nothing to mar his enjoyment of a
beautiful scene, of welcoming friendship, of a great enterprise whose importance
he had himself advanced by his speech of the day before—a speech whose echoes
were even yet stimulating respectful and approving comment in two hemispheres.
Throughout the country there prevailed the carelessness of the hour following
the end of the business day. If the people thought at all of their President
it was to wish him enjoyment of his holiday. No dream of danger on his account
invaded their contentment, for was he not among his countrymen who loved him,
who had chosen him to be their Chief Magistrate, who loved peace also, and law
and order? Was he not the guest and comrade, at one of its best communities,
of the democracy whose law is supreme and the guardian of its liberty? But who
can foresee what a moment will bring forth? Who can reckon with chance? Who
can count on the vagaries of a mind overturned by long brooding upon criminal
visions and intentions?
In a moment, the anarchist, approaching the President
under the guise of friendship, has sped his treacherous bullet into the body
of the head of the republic. At once the personal equation of the victim occurs
to every sympathetic American. In the long line of Presidents who have held
this high office, no one of them was so popular as Mr. M K
is. There are Presidents in the list, some of whom we look back to with a feeling
of reverence for their greatness, or of admiration for their astuteness, or
of sincere regard for their courage and independence, but not one of them all,
especially during his term of office, has enjoyed so completely the affection
of his fellow-countrymen. Whether men believed with him or opposed his views,
they liked him personally. He was possessed of a singular power of winning affection.
His amiability was never ruffled. One who knew him well, and who was opposed
to one of the President’s policies, said one day, impatiently, “His amiability
is his strong point.” Not altogether true, because it was exaggerated, this
remark had the heart of the truth in it, for the graciousness of the President
won strong men to his way of thinking; it obtained for him and for the cause
which he advocated a considerate and a friendly hearing. It nearly always inspired
those who came in contact with him a desire to please him. Aiding his amiability,
the President has always been captivating and persuasive in argument, and thus
it is true that his amiability has been strength. But aside from the power of
it, his amiability has been the index of a lovable nature. There is no man who
ever had much intercourse with him who has not felt that Mr. M K
was tender and affectionate—a man to whom hatred and revenge were strangers,
in whose expansive heart there was room for all mankind. To parade domestic
affections and to display the virtues of the home is something from which a
sensitive man shrinks, but we must allude to the President’s devotion to his
wife, for the unhappy circumstances of her invalidism have necessarily made
the country familiar with a phase of his character, the special virtue of which
he would doubtless be the first to disclaim. For many years the invalid has
been the first in the husband’s thoughts, and after he was shot, it was of her
that his first thought and first words were. “Break it carefully to Mrs. M K ,”
is his first reported sentence.
The personal virtues of Mr. M K
are those dear to the American people. A kindly people themselves, they are
quick to respond warmly to an amiable and lovable man. In no country in the
world are the domestic virtues more highly esteemed and honored than here. The
man who lives up to the high standard of the American home is a knight of the
order of modern chivalry compared with whom the armored knights of old fade
out of poetry and sink into the social marshes of the Middle Ages. To say that
W M K
has enjoyed the love of men in a singular degree is to express mildly a truth
which cannot be fully appreciated except by a personal experience, or by observation
of the attitude towards him of those habitually nearest to him. But beyond and
even richer than the affection of men like the members of his cabinet were the
love and kindly feeling for him of the great masses of his countrymen, many
of whom had never seen him, while most of those who had seen him had merely
looked at him from a distance, or had listened to him as he spoke from a platform.
So it was the common friend of all his countrymen that the anarchist struck
down, and the solemn silence of the land betrayed the personal character of
the grief which was felt by all. There is no blow more dastardly than that which
is struck at the kindly heart.
But awful and inexplicable as is the crime against
the individual, there is a sterner and a higher point of view from which to
regard this anarchist’s act. It was not only W
M K that was struck;
it was the President. It was not only the President; it was the Presidency.
It was not only the headship of the republic; it was the sacred majesty of the
law. The blow of the mad deed was aimed not only at the law, but at the liberty
which the law shelters and maintains. This makes the crime larger and blacker
than the crime against the man, or his office, or against the government, for
it becomes a crime against humanity. This government was established in order
that, under it, men might rule themselves and enjoy that more abundant liberty
which a hundred years ago, and now, has been held to be only possible under
a democracy. The essential purpose of the government is the establishment and
maintenance of liberty, and this purpose it seeks to accomplish by law—law under
which, as M said, no one can be constrained
by an individual’s will or whim; under which there can be no tyranny, on the
one hand, or license on the other. The attack upon the President was not directed
against W M K ,
not so much against him as was the murder of the King of Italy an assault upon
H , not nearly so much as the murder of the Russian
Czar was a hostile act against the house of R ,
for the Czar is the state itself, and the President is but the servant of the
state. The President stands not only for our government, not only for our social
system, not only for the law whose machinery is in daily operation before us,
but for liberty and the right of self-government, the right to prescribe the
rules which shall guarantee to every man dwelling in the land that complete
freedom of action which is consistent with his duty to his neighbor, and which
shall protect him against the passions and lawlessness of criminals, and the
irresponsible fury of the insane. At the head of the institutions which guard
these human rights is the President, and it was because he was President that
Mr. M K was shot, and
the end sought was confessedly the destruction of the Presidency and the republic.
There is no blow more treacherous than that which is aimed at the head of a
democratic state. This shot was fired against our chosen trustee, and, therefore,
against the country.
Anarchists are the common enemies of humanity.
Their theory is that laws must be overturned, and that government must cease
to exist. Astonishment is expressed that the Pole, coming from a country where
the people are oppressed, should extend the hostility which he has felt for
emperors to the President of a republic; but there is nothing wonderful in the
attitude of this anarchist, or of his fellows who, for several years, have been
plotting against the republic as if it were a despotism, a cruel and unjust
despotism. The anarchist is not only the vermin of the human race, but he is
guided, if it is proper to speak of guidance in respect of one so wholly unrestrained
as he, by the same moods, passions, whims, caprices, vanities, and poor ambitions
that govern despots and all absolute rulers who are not of the impossible good
kind of which modern political philosophers are wont to talk. The anarchist
thinks that he wants liberty; but he really wants what the tyrant wants—license
for his own passions and desires, a community where he and his kind may live
as they please, unhampered by any government, or by their fellows, even to the
offence of those fellows whom they would constrain to adopt and follow their
notions, and to obey their decrees. It is said that there is no place for anarchists
in a republic, but this is only true if we assume that there is a place for
anarchists anywhere. In such a republic as our own there is, it is true, no
place for revolutionists who want a larger liberty, for their is ample liberty
already, and laws for the protection of liberty. But anarchy is insanity. The
belief that liberty is possible without law is a delusion, and anarchists will
continue to be found here as elsewhere, as long as law reigns, and is therefore
an offence to their disordered minds. These minds breed their criminal delusions
in other minds. The man who shot the President, and whose name, at this writing,
is uncertain, confesses that his inspiration came from the works of E
G . This form of insane delusion can be inculcated,
and therefore the anarchist becomes a pest, a constant menace of danger, a standing
threat to the head of the state, and the state, consequently, owes it to itself,
as well as to its faithful servants, that the pest of anarchy be stamped out;
that anarchists be treated like dangerous insane persons, but not with that
leniency, when murder is committed by them, that is shown to ordinary insane
murderers; for, while an anarchist is insane enough to be confined, he is not
irresponsible for his criminal acts. According to the laws of this State, the
President’s assailant may be punished at the utmost by imprisonment for ten
years. It is not enough. He should be confined for life; and all who believe
with him, and whose beliefs are made public, should be confined with him. There
is no place for anarchists anywhere, but least of all should a republic tolerate
them. Disregard of them, neglect of them, lack of precaution against them, have
made W M K
the victim of a murderous assault, because he is our President, and so long
as anarchists are permitted their liberty, every President will be in danger
from them.