Death by Lightning: Fact vs. Fiction

People may think the 2020s in America seem like strange times, but 1881 could give it a run for its money. A corrupt Vice President, Chester Arthur, ascended to the highest office in the land after a disgruntled madman shot President James Garfield. It’s a wild story that, nearly 150 years later, has slipped out of our collective memory.

Netflix has resurrected this drama and its aftermath with a limited series called Death by Lightning. Though as is common for any dramatization of real events, not everything shown on screen is true to history.

As a filmmaker who spent the past two years making a documentary on Chester Arthur’s story, I watched the series with particular attention to historical accuracy. Though the broad strokes are generally true, the series also employs a heavy dose of fiction. Here is the truth, particularly where it comes to the character of Chester Arthur.

(Spoilers below for Death by Lightning)

1. Did James Garfield and his wife Lucretia inspire Chester Arthur to reform himself?

No, this is fiction.

Death by Lightning erases one of the most compelling figures in the real-world history, perhaps the most tragic omission in the series. In episode four, after Garfield was shot and on his deathbed, First Lady Lucretia Garfield slaps a despairing Chester Arthur in the face and tells him, “Great emergencies can rouse, shall we say, generous and long-dormant traits in men. If there was even a shred of real nobility in you, I think now is the time to let it shine. So what will you do, Chester? Will you resign like a coward in disgrace, or will you step up and reform?”

Compelling words, but not those of Lucretia Garfield. In truth, the despondent Arthur remained in New York while Garfield was on his deathbed in order to avoid the impression that he was awaiting the presidency. He never had any such meeting with Lucretia Garfield. Instead, these words (the version in the series being a paraphrase) came in written form, from a young New York woman named Julia Sand. She would write a total of 23 letters to Arthur over the course of a couple years, inspiring him to reform his politics and himself. This matters because Sand’s is a true story that can inspire all of us today. Her story is told in my new award-winning documentary, Dear Mr. President: the Letters of Julia Sand.

2. Did Senator James Blaine choose Chester Arthur as the vice-presidential nominee?

No, this is fiction.

While the series is correct that Sen. James Blaine (R-Maine) became a close confidant of Garfield and served as his Secretary of State, overall, the show overplays his role throughout the story. What is accurate is Blaine’s interaction with Charles Guiteau and later presence at the assassination. But as to his role earlier in the story, at this time in history it was considered inappropriate for presidential hopefuls to attend the party’s nominating convention. Instead, the candidate assigned allies to campaign on his behalf. Because of this, James Blaine, Ulysses S. Grant, and John Sherman (for whom Garfield was advocating) were not present in Chicago - and because he wasn’t a candidate, it’s why Garfield was. 

But beyond his physical absence from the convention, James Blaine was also the arch enemy of New York machine boss Roscoe Conkling and, therefore, also an enemy of Conkling’s right-hand man, Chester Arthur. Not only did Blaine have no role in selecting Arthur for vice president, Blaine also lamented this decision made by other Garfield allies. In contrast to the portrayal in Death by Lightning, Blaine never trusted Arthur would reform his corrupt ways and even promptly resigned his position as Secretary of State under Arthur as a show of his lifelong distrust.

3. Was New York machine boss Roscoe Conkling opposed to Arthur’s nomination to Vice President?

Yes, this is true.

Foreshadowing a rift between the two men, as depicted in the series, Arthur accepted the vice-presidential nomination without Conkling’s approval - and then refused to rescind it when Conkling demanded he do so. The fact that the nomination was actually first offered by Garfield’s allies to another of Conkling’s men (Levi Morton, who declined at Conkling’s order) only enhanced the sense of betrayal.

But somewhat as depicted in the series, Roscoe Conkling eventually came around to support the Garfield/Arthur ticket, though only after Garfield visited New York City to meet with members of the party machine and came to an agreement. The terms of the agreement would later be disputed by the two sides during the brief Garfield administration.

4. Was Chester Arthur a drunk who cheated on his wife?

No, this is fiction.

Chester Arthur was a popular, wealthy socialite who was not averse to drinking socially. However, there is no evidence that he made a drunken spectacle of himself as depicted in the Netflix series. In addition, the series depicts a scene where a prostitute notes that Arthur had been a consistent client. Unlike several other historical figures portrayed in the series, the historical record does not contain evidence of Arthur cheating on his wife.

5. Was Arthur still Collector of the Port of New York during the campaign?

No, this is fiction.

The vice-presidential nominee had already been removed from the port collector job two years earlier by the sitting president, Rutherford B. Hayes, because of Arthur’s corruption. The series inaccurately depicts Arthur still in the job to illustrate the power and presence of the New York political machine and Arthur’s corruption, but in reality, he was no longer employed there. Arthur’s active role was as chairman of the New York Republican Party, facilitating the political machine’s operations during the presidential campaign.

6. Did Chester Arthur develop a previous friendship with assassin Charles Guiteau?

No, this is fiction.

Unlike the frequent run-ins depicted in the series, in reality, Arthur and Guiteau met only once. This took place in New York during the campaign, when Guiteau requested opportunities to deliver his prepared speech on behalf of Garfield. Lacking confidence in Guiteau’s abilities, Arthur and his allies arranged for Guiteau to give his speech only once to a very small crowd. A version of this occasion is portrayed in the series.

7. Did Arthur’s wife pass away before the 1880 campaign, and had she been a supporter of the Confederacy decades earlier?

Yes and no.

Ellen Herndon Arthur, nicknamed Nell, tragically passed away in 1880, just five months before her husband was nominated to the vice presidency. She was only 42 years old, succumbing to a sudden case of pneumonia.

The series also has Arthur comment that his wife had been a “vocal Confederate sympathizer.” The true story here is more nuanced. Nell Arthur was from Virginia, where her family still resided during the Civil War. While she had southern sympathies due to this, she understood her husband’s role as a general for the Union and did nothing publicly to endanger his position. “Vocal” would be too strong a word to describe the southern loyalties she held.

8. Were James Garfield and (later) Chester Arthur “progressives?”

No, this is fiction.

The series frequently refers to the political alignment of Garfield and Blaine as being “progressive,” but the events portrayed take place 15 years before the term was coined to describe a political ideology - and closer to 20 years before it entered common use. This would be akin to using the term MAGA to describe the political ideology of someone in the late 1990s. Not only is it anachronistic, but the political alignments that give it relevance were not yet in place. Perhaps the use of “progressive” indicates more about the ideology of the filmmakers than the historical figures represented.

Instead, the political factions within the Republican Party were called the Stalwarts (Arthur, Conkling) and the Half-Breeds (Garfield, Blaine). The Half-Breed term was coined by opponents (“half a Republican”) but then embraced by the people it labeled. The series refers to the Stalwart label but downplays the extent to which Guiteau had identified with the faction – and instead, somewhat overplays Guiteau’s obsession with Garfield.

9. Did Chester Arthur have any of James Garfield’s cabinet nominees kidnapped?

No, this is fiction.

Though it makes for high drama, this entire concept in the series is pure fiction. Conkling’s political machine could be relentless and was not averse to intimidation, but it was not a mafia. None of Garfield’s nominees were kidnapped, nor did Arthur even hold up their nominations in the U.S. Senate. He also never spoke ill of Garfield to the papers or tried to resign.

While Arthur was not a loyal vice president due to his allegiance to Conkling over Garfield and his opposition to Garfield’s policies, Arthur was no thug. He was a politician. His heavy-handed support of Conkling and Platt regaining their Senate seats, as portrayed in the series, stands as his most active opposition to the president.

10. Did U.S. Senators Roscoe Conkling and Thomas Platt fail to return to the Senate due to sex scandals?

No, this is fiction.

In Death by Lightning, in their attempts to be reappointed to the U.S. Senate, both Roscoe Conkling and Thomas Platt fall to sex scandals. Neither is quite accurate. Platt’s is especially false, as there is no record of the scandal described in the series, and Conkling did not drop him from consideration for the nomination. On the contrary, Thomas Platt would later be handed control of the political machine then run by Conkling.

Conkling’s story here has more of a grain of truth. He was indeed having a longstanding affair with the married Kate Chase Sprauge, the wife of a sitting governor, and it was indeed an open secret in Washington. However, this affair had nothing to do with his failure to be renominated. Conkling and Platt expressed disapproval of Garfield’s decisions by resigning from the Senate, with the expectation that the New York legislature would reappoint them and send them right back to the Senate, signifying a mandate from New York for Conkling’s politics. In truth, Conkling had simply overplayed his hand politically, embarrassing the political class in New York with his resignation theatrics, so there was not enough support in the New York legislature to reinstate him. But perhaps this truth wasn’t dramatic enough for the screen.