Source: Norfolk Landmark
Source type: newspaper
Document type: editorial
Document title: “The Red Hand of Anarchy!”
City of publication: Norfolk, Virginia
Date of publication: 7 September 1901
Volume number: 53
Issue number: 10
|“The Red Hand of Anarchy!” Norfolk Landmark 7 Sept. 1901 v53n10: p. 4.|
|McKinley assassination (personal response); anarchism (personal response).|
|Marie François Sadi Carnot; James A. Garfield; Abraham Lincoln; William McKinley.|
The Red Hand of Anarchy!
This whole country and all the civilized world
was shocked and infuriated yesterday afternoon at the news that President McKinley
had been shot by a Pole at Buffalo. Expressions of grief and wrath were universal.
As usual, the would-be assassin was an anarchist, having no particular motive except the desire to take the lives of those in authority. The case recalls those of the unfortunate King of Italy, the popular Empress of Austria, and President Carnot of France.
It is a cause for rejoicing that Mr. McKinley’s wounds are not necessarily fatal. There is not a sane man or woman in the United States who does not earnestly hope that the Chief Magistrate will speedily recover. We have had few more popular Presidents.
How to deal adequately with these enemies of the human race who follow the red flag of anarchy is a problem baffling to the mind of man. It seems that no punishment would be too severe for the wild beasts who go about seeking to slay any high officer whom they can reach, irrespective of his personal virtues or his public merits. This is the first time that anarchy has struck at the President of the United States. The assassins of Lincoln and of Garfield were not anarchists. There is absolutely no political or personal significance in the attempt on the life of Mr. McKinley.
Now Americans are confronted with the fact that in their free country the President cannot travel as a private citizen without being in peril of his life. With the appearance of the wolf of anarchy, old and cherished theories of conduct in the Presidential office are rudely shaken. Shall we have to guard our Presidents,—the men of the people, chosen by the people, and answerable to the people,—with a cordon of police and soldiers, as if our Presidents were Russian Czars? It is a black and startling development.