Abstract

Was President Zachary Taylor poisoned? Sometimes an event in history wins our attention not solely because of its generalizable significance but because of its inviting singularity. In addition, the Taylor case is a perfect example of how “pack journalists” and “pack historians” can settle a controversy by fiat, manufacturing orthodox conclusions out of thin air, in this instance telling us to believe in the “cherries and milk” death of a president. The case demonstrates the sloppy and superficial investigative methods of both pathologists and mainstream historians. It also demonstrates how ideological gatekeepers rush to close ranks against any issue that challenges their expertise, or challenges the legitimacy and virtue of US political institutions by suggesting the possibility of conspiracy in high places.