---

---

When the Netflix historical drama Death by Lightning premiered in 2025, it resurrected one of the most overlooked tragedies in American presidential history: the assassination of the twentieth president, James A. Garfield.

Unlike the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy — events embedded deeply in American cultural memory — Garfield’s death in 1881 has long lingered on the margins of public awareness. The story is almost surreal: a reform-minded president, elected after a dramatic political convention, shot by a delusional office seeker who believed he was acting on divine orders.

The series, starring Michael Shannon as Garfield and Matthew Macfadyen as assassin Charles J. Guiteau, is based primarily on Candice Millard’s acclaimed history Destiny of the Republic. Its central narrative explores the collision of two men whose lives intersected in a moment of political violence.

But as with any historical dramatization, the question remains: How closely does the series follow the historical record?

In many ways, Death by Lightning is one of the more historically attentive political dramas in recent years. It accurately portrays the psychology of the assassin, the chaotic public spectacle of the trial, and the national trauma surrounding the assassination. Yet it also compresses events, simplifies political dynamics, and occasionally invents scenes to heighten emotional drama.

This breakdown examines the series against historical evidence, focusing on four key areas: Guiteau’s psychology, the courtroom proceedings, the public response to the assassination, and the creative liberties taken by the show.

Accuracy of Guiteau’s Psychology

---

One of the most striking elements of Death by Lightning is its portrayal of Charles Guiteau as both absurd and terrifying. The show depicts him as an unstable drifter who oscillates between grandiose ambition and pathetic desperation. Historically, this portrayal is remarkably accurate.

Guiteau was not a typical political assassin. Unlike ideological extremists such as John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald, Guiteau’s motives were rooted in delusion, entitlement, and a bizarre interpretation of political patronage.

A Man Who Believed He Was Destined for Greatness

Born in 1841 in Illinois, Guiteau’s early life was marked by instability and religious extremism. His father, Luther Guiteau, was deeply influenced by apocalyptic religious ideas and imposed rigid expectations on his children. Guiteau’s mother suffered from mental illness and died when he was young, leaving a fractured household that shaped his worldview.  

As an adult, Guiteau drifted through a series of failed careers. He attempted to become a lawyer, a preacher, a newspaper writer, and even a utopian community member at the controversial Oneida commune in New York. None of these ventures succeeded. Members of the commune reportedly nicknamed him “Charles Get Out” due to his erratic behavior and refusal to work.  

Despite these failures, Guiteau maintained an inflated sense of his own importance. According to historian Candice Millard, he believed he was destined for greatness even as he repeatedly failed in nearly every profession he attempted.  

The series captures this contradiction perfectly: Guiteau is portrayed not merely as insane but as someone who constructed an entire alternate reality in which he was a political hero waiting to be recognized.

The Delusion of Political Entitlement

Guiteau’s obsession with politics began during the 1880 presidential campaign. He wrote a speech titled “Garfield Against Hancock,” supporting Republican candidate James Garfield. The speech was never widely delivered and had virtually no impact on the election.

But Guiteau interpreted events very differently.

In his mind, he had single-handedly secured Garfield’s victory and therefore deserved a diplomatic appointment — preferably as U.S. consul in Paris or Vienna.  

When Garfield’s administration ignored him, Guiteau spiraled into resentment. He began haunting government offices and pestering officials, particularly Secretary of State James G. Blaine, demanding recognition.

Eventually Blaine reportedly dismissed him bluntly: “Never speak to me again on the Paris consulship.”

The humiliation deepened Guiteau’s delusions.

He began to believe that assassinating Garfield would “save the Republican Party” by elevating Vice President Chester A. Arthur (played by Nick Offerman) , whom Guiteau believed would reward him.  

The show accurately portrays this psychological transformation — from entitled supporter to self-appointed divine instrument.

Was Guiteau Insane?

The question of Guiteau’s sanity was central to both history and the series.

During his trial, Guiteau claimed he was not responsible for the assassination because God had commanded him to act. He insisted repeatedly that he was merely the instrument of divine will.  

Psychiatrists disagreed sharply about whether he was legally insane. Some experts argued he suffered from severe delusions, while others believed he understood the consequences of his actions.

Ultimately, the jury ruled him sane enough to be held responsible.

Modern historians often describe Guiteau as suffering from narcissistic delusion or psychosis, but not necessarily the type of insanity that would legally absolve him.

The series captures this ambiguity well. It does not present Guiteau simply as a villain or a madman but as a disturbing figure whose delusions collided with a political system built on patronage and personal influence.

Courtroom Portrayal vs. Transcripts

---

If the assassination itself was shocking, the trial that followed became one of the most bizarre courtroom spectacles in American history.

Death by Lightning leaves out the entirety of Charles Guiteau’s trial and sentencing. The most notable omission is the trial of Charles Guiteau. Although 144 years have passed since the case, Guiteau’s trial is well documented in old newspapers and the 1882 book The Life of Guiteau and the Official History of the Most Exciting Case on Record: Being the Trial of Guiteau by H.H. Alexander.

A Trial That Became a National Spectacle

The trial began in November 1881 and immediately attracted enormous media attention. Newspapers covered every moment, turning the proceedings into what would now be described as a media circus. Guiteau seemed to revel in the attention. He frequently interrupted the proceedings, insulted lawyers, and delivered rambling speeches from the defendant’s chair.  

He also attempted to act as his own attorney, ignoring the advice of his defense team. At one point he recited poetry in court. At another he began singing the Civil War song “John Brown’s Body.” Guiteau was not merely disruptive — he was performative.

He seemed to believe the trial was a stage on which he could demonstrate his supposed historical importance.

The Insanity Defense

Guiteau’s defense hinged on the argument that he was temporarily insane when he assassinated Garfield. His brother-in-law, attorney George Scoville, led the defense and attempted to convince the jury that Guiteau’s delusions rendered him incapable of moral judgment.

But Guiteau repeatedly undermined this strategy.

During the trial, he insisted that he was not insane at all. Instead, he argued that God had commanded him to kill the president. In his words, the assassination was a divine act intended to restore political order.

This bizarre contradiction — denying insanity while claiming divine instruction — severely weakened the defense. The prosecution had little difficulty convincing the jury that Guiteau understood the consequences of his actions.

He was convicted in January 1882 and executed by hanging on June 30 of that year.

Before his execution, he recited a poem titled “I Am Going to the Lordy,” which he had written while awaiting death. The series includes references to this poem, one of the stranger historical details that underscores how surreal the entire episode was.

Public Reaction to the Assassination

---

In modern America, the assassination of a president would dominate global media coverage for months. In 1881, the communication landscape was very different, yet the public reaction to Garfield’s shooting was just as intense.

The series portrays a nation gripped by anxiety and grief, waiting anxiously for news of the president’s condition.

Historically, this depiction is accurate.

A Nation Waiting for News

On July 2, 1881, Garfield was shot at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington, D.C. He had been president for just four months. Guiteau fired two shots, one grazing Garfield’s arm and the other lodging deep in his abdomen.  

Contrary to what many assume, Garfield did not die immediately.

He survived for 79 days.

During those weeks, newspapers published daily medical bulletins about the president’s condition. Americans gathered outside newspaper offices to read updates posted in windows.

In many ways, Garfield’s illness became the first modern presidential health crisis followed in real time by the public.

The series captures this atmosphere well: the sense that the entire country was waiting helplessly for the outcome.

The Shock of Political Violence

Garfield’s assassination also revived fears of political violence that had lingered since Lincoln’s murder.

The country had experienced enormous upheaval in the decades following the Civil War, including economic instability and intense political factionalism.

Guiteau’s crime seemed to confirm that the presidency remained vulnerable.

At the time, presidents had almost no security protection. Garfield traveled freely, and his public schedule was often published in newspapers, making it easy for Guiteau to track his movements.

The series emphasizes this vulnerability, portraying Garfield as moving through public spaces without the protective apparatus that modern presidents take for granted.

In reality, this lack of security was typical for the era.

Sympathy for Garfield

Public sympathy for Garfield grew dramatically during the long weeks of his illness.

He was widely admired for his personal story: a self-made man who rose from poverty to become a Civil War general, congressman, and eventually president. Many Americans viewed him as a symbol of national progress after the trauma of the Civil War.

The series highlights Garfield’s reputation as an intellectual and reformer, and this portrayal is consistent with historical accounts.

Historians often note that Garfield’s presidency had the potential to reshape American politics — particularly in his efforts to challenge the corrupt patronage system that dominated the Gilded Age.

His death, therefore, felt like both a personal tragedy and a political turning point.

What the Show Dramatizes — and What It Softens

---

While Death by Lightning is generally faithful to historical events, it does take several creative liberties.

These choices are not unusual for historical dramas, but they shape how audiences understand the story.

Fictional Character Interactions

One of the most notable inventions involves a fictionalized meeting between Guiteau and Vice President Chester Arthur. Some versions of the story depict them sharing drinks or interacting directly.

Historians have found no evidence that such encounters occurred.  

The show likely includes these scenes to dramatize the political tension between Garfield’s administration and the faction of the Republican Party aligned with Arthur.

In reality, Arthur was horrified by the assassination and distanced himself completely from Guiteau.

Simplified Political Conflict

The series also compresses the political battles surrounding Garfield’s presidency.

In reality, Garfield was engaged in a complex struggle with powerful political machines, particularly those aligned with Senator Roscoe Conkling (played by Shea Whigham)

These conflicts revolved around control of federal patronage appointments — the spoils system that had dominated American politics for decades.

The show references these tensions but simplifies them to keep the narrative focused on the assassination itself.

The Medical Catastrophe

Perhaps the most important historical point the show gets right is Garfield’s medical treatment. Modern historians widely agree that the president might have survived the shooting if he had received competent medical care.

Instead, doctors repeatedly probed his wound with unsterilized instruments and fingers, introducing deadly infection.  

At the time, antiseptic medicine was still controversial in the United States. The result was catastrophic. Garfield ultimately died of sepsis, not the gunshot itself.

The series portrays this medical tragedy with remarkable accuracy, highlighting the arrogance and ignorance of the physicians responsible for his care.

In many ways, Garfield’s death became a turning point in American medical history, accelerating acceptance of antiseptic practices.

The Historical Legacy of Garfield’s Assassination

---

The assassination of James Garfield had consequences that extended far beyond the tragedy itself. Most importantly, it helped trigger major civil service reform. Public outrage over Guiteau’s claim that he deserved a government job fueled demands to dismantle the patronage system.

Two years later, Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, establishing a merit-based system for many federal jobs.

Ironically, the delusional assassin who believed he was entitled to political reward helped destroy the very system that had fueled his delusions.

Garfield’s death also reshaped the presidency.

Over time, presidential security increased dramatically, eventually leading to the modern role of the Secret Service as the primary protective force for the president.

But perhaps the most lasting legacy is historical memory. For decades, Garfield’s story remained overshadowed by other presidential assassinations. Death by Lightning represents an attempt to restore that history to public consciousness.

And in doing so, it reminds viewers that the past is often stranger — and more consequential — than fiction.

✅ Accuracy Meter (MoviesToHistory Style)

---

Category	Accuracy
Guiteau’s psychology	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Assassination events	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Trial portrayal	⭐⭐⭐⭐
Political context	⭐⭐⭐⭐
Dramatic inventions	⭐⭐⭐

Overall Historical Accuracy: 4.5 / 5

✅ Bottom Line

---

Death by Lightning succeeds where many historical dramas fail: it captures the strange, unsettling reality of the Garfield assassination without turning it into pure fiction.

The series accurately portrays the delusional psychology of Charles Guiteau, the chaotic spectacle of the trial, and the national shock that followed the attack. While it simplifies political dynamics and invents a few dramatic encounters, the core historical narrative remains intact.

More importantly, the show restores attention to a president whose potential legacy was cut tragically short. Garfield once described the presidency as a burden rather than a prize. He never had the chance to prove what kind of leader he might have become.

But the story of his death — and the strange man who caused it — continues to illuminate the fragile intersection of politics, mental illness, and history.

Death by Lightning is available now with a subscription to Netflix…