Everyone remembers the grainy Zapruder film or the haunting image of the Ford’s Theatre box, but when you actually dig into the stories of the assassins of US presidents, the reality is way weirder than the high-stakes political thrillers we see in movies. History tends to polish these men into ideological monsters or masterminds. They weren't. Most of them were desperate, drifting, and deeply unwell individuals who happened to find a gun at the worst possible moment.
It’s heavy stuff.
We’ve had four sitting presidents murdered in office: Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. If you count the "near misses"—like the attempt on Ronald Reagan or the terrifyingly close call for Gerald Ford—the list of people who tried to change history with a trigger pull gets a lot longer. But who were these people? Honestly, if you look at John Wilkes Booth versus someone like Charles Guiteau, you’re looking at two completely different brands of delusion.
The Four Men Who Changed Everything
Let’s start with the big one. John Wilkes Booth. He’s the "famous" one, a celebrity in his day, which is something people often forget. Imagine a modern-day A-list actor deciding to murder the leader of the free world. That was Booth. He wasn't some shadowy figure; he was a man who knew how to work a crowd. His motive was clear—vengeance for the South—but his execution was a chaotic mess of ego.
Then you’ve got Charles Guiteau.
Guiteau is probably the strangest of the assassins of US presidents because he basically killed James A. Garfield because he didn't get a job he wasn't qualified for. He thought he was responsible for Garfield’s election and deserved a consulship in Paris. When he was turned down, he decided God told him to "remove" the President. The trial was a circus. Guiteau recited poetry, insulted his lawyers, and truly believed he’d be freed and elected president himself afterward. It’s a stark reminder that sometimes history isn't moved by grand conspiracies, but by sheer, unadulterated madness.
💡 You might also like: JD Vance River Raised Controversy: What Really Happened in Ohio
Leon Czolgosz, the man who shot William McKinley in 1901, was a different breed. He was an anarchist, or at least he thought he was. He was so awkward and suspicious that other anarchists actually thought he was a government spy. He wrapped a gun in a handkerchief, waited in a receiving line at the Pan-American Exposition, and fired twice. It was a cold, lonely act by a man who felt the system had crushed him.
And then there’s Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mention Oswald and you’re in for a five-hour debate about the grassy knoll. But if you look at the man himself—a defector to the Soviet Union who came back disappointed, a man who couldn't keep a job, a man who tried to assassinate General Edwin Walker months before JFK—you see a pattern of a loser looking for a cause. Whether he acted alone or as part of a larger web, Oswald fits the profile of the "drifter" assassin perfectly.
Why the Assassins of US Presidents Often Targeted the "Wrong" People
Interestingly, the impact of these killings often flipped the script on what the killers wanted. Booth wanted to save the Confederacy; instead, he ensured a much harsher Reconstruction for the South than Lincoln likely would have overseen. Czolgosz wanted to end the presidency as an institution; instead, he paved the way for the "Imperial Presidency" of Theodore Roosevelt, who took the office to new heights of power.
- The Medical Tragedy of Garfield: It’s a well-documented fact among historians like Candice Millard (author of Destiny of the Republic) that Guiteau didn't really kill Garfield. The doctors did. They poked and prodded the wound with unwashed fingers and dirty tools, turning a survivable injury into a slow, agonizing death by sepsis.
- The Secret Service Shift: Before McKinley, the Secret Service was mostly focused on counterfeiters. After him, they became the permanent protective detail we know today.
- The "Copycat" Era: The 1970s saw a weird spike in attempts, notably by Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, both of whom tried to kill Gerald Ford within weeks of each other.
The Psychological Profile of a Presidential Assassin
If you look at the work of Dr. Robert Fein and Bryan Vossekuil, who conducted the "Exceptional Case Study Project" for the Secret Service, you find out some surprising stuff. Most of the assassins of US presidents weren't "crazy" in the way we think. They weren't usually hearing voices.
📖 Related: Who's the Next Pope: Why Most Predictions Are Basically Guesswork
Instead, they were people who felt their lives had reached a dead end.
They saw the President not as a person, but as a symbol they could attach their grievances to. It’s a process called "downward spiral" behavior. They lose a job. They lose a spouse. They become obsessed with a public grievance. They don't just wake up and decide to kill; they "target" through a slow process of research and planning.
Take John Hinckley Jr., the man who shot Reagan. He wasn't political at all. He was obsessed with the movie Taxi Driver and actress Jodie Foster. He thought killing the President was the ultimate "grand gesture" to get her attention. It’s pathetic, really. But it changed American history, nearly killing Reagan and permanently disabling Press Secretary James Brady.
What History Gets Wrong About the Conspiracy Theories
We love a good conspiracy. It’s easier to believe a cabal of powerful men killed JFK than to believe a lone nut with a $12 rifle did it. It gives the tragedy meaning.
But when you look at the assassins of US presidents as a group, the common thread is actually incompetence. Most of these guys were terrible at everything they did until the moment they pulled the trigger. Even Booth, who had a complex plan to kill the Vice President and Secretary of State simultaneously, saw his co-conspirators fail miserably. Lewis Powell managed to wound William Seward but didn't kill him, and George Atzerodt got cold feet and spent the night drinking instead of attacking Andrew Johnson.
👉 See also: Recent Obituaries in Charlottesville VA: What Most People Get Wrong
The "grand plot" usually falls apart. The lone actor is the one who succeeds.
Modern Security and the Changing Threat
Today, the landscape is different. You can't just walk up to a President like you could in McKinley's time. The "bubble" is real. However, the motivation for the assassins of US presidents remains a concern for intelligence agencies because the "lone wolf" is the hardest to track. They aren't on a grid. They aren't talking to foreign handlers. They are sitting in a basement, getting angry at the news, and planning something desperate.
Actionable Insights for History Buffs and Researchers
If you're looking to understand this dark corner of American history better, don't just read the Wikipedia summaries. Look at the primary sources.
- Read the Trial Transcripts: Specifically the Guiteau trial. It is a bizarre look into the 19th-century mind and the birth of the "insanity defense."
- Visit the Sites: Ford’s Theatre is still there. The Texas School Book Depository is a museum (The Sixth Floor Museum). Seeing the physical space—the distances, the sightlines—changes your perspective on how these events happened.
- Study the "Near Misses": Look up Giuseppe Zangara, who tried to kill FDR, or Richard Lawrence, the first man to try to kill a US President (Andrew Jackson). Jackson actually beat Lawrence with his cane after both of the assassin's pistols misfired. It’s a reminder that history is often decided by luck—or bad gunpowder.
- Analyze the Aftermath: Focus on how the law changed. The Presidential Succession Act and the 25th Amendment exist because of these tragedies.
Understanding the assassins of US presidents isn't about glorifying killers. It’s about recognizing the fragility of democracy. One person with a grievance and a weapon can change the trajectory of a superpower. That’s a sobering thought, but it’s one that explains why we are still so obsessed with these stories decades and centuries later.
The real story isn't the bullet; it's the vacuum left behind. When a President dies, the country has to decide what it's going to be next. Usually, it becomes something the assassin never intended.