Lone Wolf Terrorism

by Jeffrey D. Simon

  However, the killing of a government leader, whether by a group, state, or individual, is never an “isolated” event, since it can have profound effects not just in the targeted country, but also around the world. “Among those who have fallen victim to the assassin's dagger, poison, bullet, or bomb are Roman tribunes, Arab caliphs, Ottoman sultans, European monarchs, US presidents, and scores of prime ministers and leading public figures,” writes terrorism scholar R. Hrair Dekmejian. “All such assassinations, even those without a political motive, constitute acts of political violence because they have political consequences that alter the course of history. Although assassinations represent a micro-level technique of violence against state power, their impact often transcends the state to affect the international order.”6 Historian Franklin L. Ford further notes that assassinations have “demonstrated the capacity for affecting, often in the most dramatic fashion, situations which, in the absence of lethal violence, might conceivably have developed very differently.”7

  The idea of assassinations changing the course of history, or at least allowing us to speculate whether things would have indeed been different had a particular assassination not taken place, is a fascinating one. It is the reason why assassinations are a special form of terrorism. Whereas some terrorist incidents, such as the 9/11 attacks, can affect world events for many years afterward, most terrorist attacks have a short shelf life. A car bombing or hijacking, for example, can be quickly forgotten just months or even weeks after it occurs. Not so for most assassinations, which, even if they do not alter the future course of history, can still have a major impact on governments and societies. The fact that lone wolves are as capable as states and terrorist groups of perpetrating a major assassination is yet another reason why the individual terrorist demands our attention.

  THE IMPACT OF LONE WOLF ASSASSINATIONS

  What, then, have been some of the more notable lone wolf assassinations in history, and what have been the motivations and characteristics of these assassins? Before we can discuss this we have to first acknowledge the always interesting and controversial tendency for many people to see a “conspiracy” whenever a major event occurs in the world of terrorism. The Internet has given fuel to skeptics everywhere who can post their blogs and offer “credible” evidence that things did not really happen the way most people were led to believe they occurred. These blogs then get circulated around the world via the Internet, with countless others adding new “information” to the conspiracy. Among the far-flung conspiracy theories are those that claim it was elements within the US government—and not al Qaeda—that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks in order to build support for its own agenda, including a war on terrorism and the invasion of Afghanistan. Another revolves around the notion that it was a controlled demolition that brought down the Twin Towers and not structural failure due to the fire from the jet fuel of the hijacked planes that had crashed into the buildings.8

  Assassinations, in particular, are favorite topics for conspiracy theorists. It is as though some people cannot accept the idea that a lone wolf, a virtual “nobody,” can all by himself or herself kill a powerful leader. Surely, the thinking goes, it had to take elaborate planning, resources, strategy, and other coconspirators to successfully assassinate a president, king, or other ruler. Accepting the fact that a lone individual could kill a nation's leader also somehow psychologically makes that leader's death seem meaningless for many people. William Manchester, author of the bestselling book The Death of a President, put it best in a 1992 letter to the New York Times concerning the conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: “If you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif [Lee Harvey] Oswald on the other side,” he wrote, “it doesn't balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President's death with some meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something. A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely.”9 Or as Jackie Kennedy said of her husband's death: “He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights…it had to be some silly little Communist.”10

  The lone wolf assassin has one major advantage over conspiratorial groups in committing an assassination—namely, the element of secrecy. The lone assassin “possesses his own secret which he will not consciously betray.”11 Groups or cells, on the other hand, have to worry about one of their members being arrested and revealing the plot before it can be carried out. “The critical facts are that very few lone assassins are apprehended before reaching the scene of the crime,” writes terrorism expert David C. Rapoport, “while most conspiracies fail long before that point.”12 There have, of course, been many successful conspiratorial assassinations, including the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by a member of the Serbian nationalist movement “Union or Death” (also known as “The Black Hand” to its enemies) in Sarajevo in 1914, which was a major factor in the outbreak of World War I. But, as Ford points out, “conspiracy is certainly not the more common…[type of assassination] despite the eagerness of many observers to find elaborate collusion even in cases where little or no evidence for it exists.”13

  Planning and implementing an assassination is among the least complicated of all existing terrorist tactics. Whereas a kidnapping, hijacking, or other type of hostage situation requires the terrorists to plan for the aftermath of the attack (such as how long to hold the hostages, what demands to make, and so forth), an assassination is over once the bullet leaves the assassin's gun or the knife is thrust into the victim. Unless the assassination involves using an explosive device to kill the target, there is no need for an assassin to prepare the weapon, such as mixing the right ingredients to make a bomb or determining how to transport it to the target area. All of this makes the task much simpler for the lone wolf who wants to eliminate a head of state or some other high-profile individual. The challenge for the lone wolf assassin is to find the right opportunity to gain proximity to the unfortunate target and not have his or her weapon detected by whatever security personnel or devices may be in place.

  Who, then, are these lone wolf assassins? A selective look at a few of the more notable ones in history reveals diversity in their backgrounds and motivations. What ties them together, though, is the ability to significantly impact events in a country, and sometimes in a region, by the single act of murder.

  CHARLES GUITEAU AND THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JAMES A. GARFIELD (1881)

  In 1877, Leo Tolstoy penned one of the most famous opening lines in literature when he began his classic novel Anna Karenina by writing: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Little did he know that, at that time, a product of a very unhappy family in America was well on a path to madness and murder that would transfix a nation and lead to the passage by Congress of one of the most important pieces of legislation in US history.

  The usual explanation given in historical accounts for why Charles Guiteau assassinated President James A. Garfield on July 2, 1881, was that he was “a disappointed office-seeker.”14 The belief that denial of a request for a patronage job was a major factor in the assassination would play an important role in instituting civil-service reforms after Garfield's death. However, although Guiteau was obsessed with the idea that he should have been given a consular post in Paris for having supposedly once given a speech on behalf of Garfield when he was a presidential candidate, the real reason for the assassination was more complex. In Guiteau's twisted mind, he believed that something drastic had to be done to “remove” the president in order to save the nation from another civil war.15

  Charles Guiteau was born in Freeport, Illinois, in 1841 to a mentally ill mother and an abusive father. His mother, who barely ventured outside the house, died when he was just seven years old. Her death was attributed to “brain fever,” but she was probably insane. “I always felt I never had a mother,” Guiteau would later say.
His father, who one physician also believed was insane, would beat Charles in a vain effort to cure the youngster's speech impediment. The only positive force in his life was his older sister, Frances, who helped raise him and provided him with both moral and financial support throughout his life. However, she, too, would eventually be committed to an insane asylum. Many of Guiteau's other relatives were also mentally ill, including at least two uncles, one aunt, and two cousins.16

  The young man was finally able to escape his dysfunctional family when he left home to attend college. But after just a couple semesters at the University of Michigan, he quit and went to live at the utopian Oneida Community in upstate New York, which was a religious commune that also practiced free love. It wasn't long before Charles managed to alienate many people at the commune with his belief that only he was divinely ordained to lead the community and that one day he would become president of the United States and, after that, ruler of the world.17

  Guiteau left Oneida in 1865 for New York City, where he pursued a variety of failed endeavors, including trying to establish a daily religious newspaper. He also tried to extort money from the Oneida Community by threatening to make public some of the commune's sexual practices and alleged financial improprieties, but that also failed.18 For the next fifteen years, Guiteau roamed aimlessly between New York and Chicago, winding up with dead-end jobs, including work as a debt collector. That job didn't work out, as he pocketed for himself all the debts he collected. He next somehow managed to pass the Illinois bar and become a lawyer without ever attending law school, although the bar exam consisted of just three or four questions. Not surprisingly, he was a terrible lawyer. In one case, his client was a petty larcener, and Guiteau made an hour-long speech to the jury, screaming and rambling incoherently and shaking his fists at the startled jurors. The latter rendered a guilty verdict without ever leaving the jury box. Guiteau also tried his hand at evangelism, but that also ended without success. He eventually got married, but his wife soon divorced him after he emotionally and physically abused her.19

  By 1880, Guiteau had become immersed in politics, and he followed that year's presidential campaign closely. It was a tumultuous time for party politics in America, with the Republican Party split at its national convention in Chicago in June between two warring factions. On one side were “the Stalwarts,” known for being unapologetic advocates of the spoils system, where elected officials would use patronage to distribute jobs to their friends and supporters, regardless of their qualifications for the particular job. On the other side were the reformers, known as “the Half-Breeds.” The Stalwarts's candidate was former president Ulysses S. Grant, who would be serving a third term if elected, while the Half-Breeds had two contenders, John Sherman (brother of General William Sherman) and Senator James G. Blaine of Maine. When none of the leading candidates could win a majority of votes at the convention, the delegates turned to a dark-horse compromise candidate on the thirty-sixth ballot, James A. Garfield, who had been a general during the Civil War and was now a senator from Ohio.20

  The nomination of Garfield caught everyone by surprise, including Guiteau, who had expected Grant to be the nominee. Guiteau was an admirer of Grant and the Stalwart faction, believing that the spoils system was the best way for him to attain a high-level government job. He had prepared a speech titled “Grant against Hancock” (the latter being the expected nominee of the Democratic Party), but once Garfield got the nomination, he simply changed the title to “Garfield against Hancock” and left virtually everything else the same.21 It was this speech that Guiteau would later claim helped win Garfield the presidency. And Guiteau believed that he should be rewarded by the new administration. The speech, which may have once been delivered to a small audience in Troy, New York, asserted that if the Democrats won the presidency, it would lead to a resumption of the Civil War because the Democrats had only sectional, rather than national, loyalties.22 “I think I have a right to claim your help on the strength of this speech,” Guiteau wrote in a personal note to Blaine, the newly appointed secretary of state, shortly after the March 1881 inauguration of Garfield. “It was sent to our leading editors and orators in August. It was the first shot in the rebel war claim idea, and it was their idea that elected Garfield…. I will talk with you about this as soon as I can get a chance.”23

  Guiteau was relentless in hounding Blaine and Garfield about being politically rewarded. These were the days when citizens had easy access to elected officials, and Guiteau took full advantage of it. He would walk the corridors of the State Department and White House, seeking to talk with Blaine and Garfield whenever he spotted them, or he would have personal notes delivered to them. His continual requests for a high-level appointment to Paris finally angered Blaine, who in May 1881 shouted at him: “Never speak to me again on the Paris consulship as long as you live!”24

  Around this time, two major figures in the Stalwart faction, Senators Roscoe Conkling and Thomas Platt, both resigned from the Senate to protest President Garfield's refusal to follow their recommendations for patronage appointments. This was the inspiration Guiteau needed to finalize his plans to assassinate Garfield. He could now consider himself part of the Stalwarts, a comrade-in-arms, and no longer feel alone in his frustrations with the new administration. “Now, for the first time in his oddly chaotic life,” political scientist James Clarke writes, “Guiteau found himself sharing his outsider status with men he admired: Conkling and Platt and the other Stalwarts. And it was in this realization—not the denial of the various appointments he had sought—that his assassination scheme germinated.”25 Guiteau believed that the “removal” of the president would unite the two factions of the Republican Party and save the government from “going into the hands of the ex-rebels and their northern allies,” causing another civil war. In Guiteau's mind, it would be patriotism, not personal revenge, which would lead him to kill the president.26

  He also found inspiration in a message he claimed came from God one night in May, telling him that “if the President was out of the way every thing would go better.”27 By June, Guiteau was well on his way to carrying out the assassination. He had purchased a .44-caliber, ivory-handled revolver for $10. He could have bought a wooden-handled model for $9, but he believed the more expensive one would look better in a museum or library, where he was sure it would be put on display after he killed Garfield. Guiteau had one small problem though. He was afraid of firearms and didn't know how to shoot a gun. So he went to the bank of a canal and practiced shooting at a small tree growing in the water. He also paid a visit to the jail he expected to be taken to after the assassination. He wanted to make sure it was both comfortable and secure. He was afraid that there might be lynch mobs after him, but he believed that would not last long, since the American people would ultimately understand why he killed the president and would eventually hail him as a hero.28

  Guiteau also prepared several letters and notes that he knew would be read by the public after the assassination. In one letter, which he titled “Address to the American People,” he wrote: “I had no ill-will to the President. This is not murder. It is a political necessity.”29 In another letter, he wrote: “The President's removal is an act of God. I am clear in my purpose to remove the President. Two objects will be accomplished: It will unite the Republican party and save the Republic, and it will create a great demand for my book, ‘The Truth.’ This book was written to save souls and not for money, and the Lord wants to save souls by circulating the book.”30

  Meanwhile, the thirty-nine-year-old Guiteau stalked the president, this time not seeking a job, but instead looking for the best opportunity to kill him. On one occasion, he attended Garfield's church with the loaded revolver in his pocket, but he decided against killing the president that day. On another occasion, after learning of the president's travel schedule from newspaper stories, Guiteau went to the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington, DC, with the intention of shooting Garfield. He changed his mind,
however, when he saw that Garfield was accompanied by his wife. “My heart would not allow me to remove him in the presence of Mrs. Garfield,” he would later testify at his trial. “She was a sick lady, and the shock might have killed her. That was my reason for not doing it. I only had authority to remove the President.”31 That “authority,” which Guiteau would continually describe in his trial and in the letters he wrote preceding the assassination, came from God.

  On yet another occasion, the evening of July 1, he sat on a park bench across from the White House and followed Garfield on foot as the president walked a few blocks to the home of Secretary of State Blaine. Again, Guiteau had his revolver with him but did not use it. He then followed both Blaine and Garfield as they walked together back to the White House, but, again, Guiteau chose not to kill either man that night. Guiteau was enraged at seeing Blaine, who had told him to never speak to him again, walking with Garfield. He believed that Garfield had “sold himself body and soul to Blaine.” Guiteau promised himself that he would not hesitate at the next opportunity to assassinate the president.32

  That would come the next morning, when he fired two shots at Garfield as the president was walking through the waiting room of the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station. Garfield was traveling from Washington to New Jersey, where he would pick up his wife, who was recovering from an illness at their summer home by the ocean, and then they planned to travel to Williams College in Massachusetts for Garfield's twenty-fifth class reunion. Guiteau had read about the president's travel plans and made sure that he would be in the waiting room when Garfield walked through, accompanied once again by Blaine. The first shot sliced through the president's right arm, while the second bullet went into his back. As Garfield crumpled to the floor, Guiteau attempted to escape, but he was promptly captured by a police officer and others who had witnessed the shooting. An angry crowd quickly formed after the shots rang out. As cries of “Lynch him!” echoed through the station, the police officer ushered Guiteau outside and transported him to police headquarters and then to jail. There had also been a mob gathering outside the station wanting to lynch the assassin.33