The President and the Assassin: McKinley, Terror, and the Dawn of the American Century
By: Scott Miller
Note: I don’t expect everyone to answer every question. Please feel free to respond to as many or as few as you wish. Thanks for taking the time to read this book!
1. What do you think about Miller’s decision to begin the book with an account of the day of the attack and then jump backwards in time and work up to and beyond this event? How about the way he alternated the focus of chapters, shifting from McKinley and the U.S. to Czolgosz and the anarchists and then back again?
2. Being as this is an election year, how do you feel about the way early 20th-century presidential campaigning was portrayed in this book, particularly compared to today?
3. Consider the growth of mass production, consumerism, and materialism in the United States during the beginning of the 20th century. Were the gains worth the cost?
4. During this period, imperialism was considered critical for American growth and trusts continued to gain power, despite how this contradicted the United State’s core principles of freedom and equality for all people and free competition in the market. At what point does the pursuit of economic success go too far?
5. Do you feel the anarchists were justified in some of their beliefs? What about their actions, particularly the “propaganda of the deed”?
6. How do you feel about the way the police and American judicial system dealt with the anarchists? Did they get what they deserved, or did emotional outrage get in the way of justice and the implementation of due process?
7. Do you see any parallels between the events of the early 20th century and the world today? What are some lessons our country can learn from its past?
8. [Add your own questions or comments!]
