The project
I wanted to analyze the motives and reasoning for two of the most famous political assassins of all time, Johns Wilkes Booth and Marcus Junius Brutus. I also researched Abraham Lincoln and Julius Caesar to see if their assassinations were justified.
English
For english I created a dialogue between Marcus Junius Brutus, and John Wilkes Booth, the assassins of Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln respectively. I had them discuss their motives and reasons for killing their leaders.
John Wilkes Booth: You there! Sir, you must be Brutus, Marcus Junius Brutus, am I correct?
Brutus: Why yes, I so happen to be, how do you know me?
John: My name is John Wilkes Booth, I know you because you killed Julius Caesar to free your nation from tyranny, you are its savior. You are a hero in my book and the true hero of the Roman Empire.
Brutus: To save Rome from tyranny was my goal, unfortunately I was not aware that Julius had an immediate successor, unknowingly I had brought about a second civil war. Despite the fame I get I can’t help but wonder if I was wrong to kill him.
John: You did what needed to be done, you couldn’t have known the repercussions. In fact, I did the same for my country, I put and end to the wrath of a tyrant but I was hated for it even years later by my own allies.
Brutus: Who is this “tyrant” you mention, and what land did he rule over may I ask?
John: His name was Abraham Lincoln and he was the president of the United States of America.
Brutus: President? Would this be similar to a consul, meaning he would’ve been an elected official?
John: Ah, yes he was elected but nobody knew how he would tear the country apart. He abused his power and overstepped his boundaries as a leader.
Brutus: How so?
John: Well, you see, once he had taken office he started making movements to abolish slavery, and wanted the southern states to comply. You see the north were almost all against slavery and the south were for it, so when the southern states wanted to leave the nation to avoid his horrid laws, he wouldn’t let them and brought our country to a war within itself.
Brutus: Abolish slavery. Hmm, it seems outlandish, but if it would’ve been appropriate in your land I cannot say. And I also cannot say that he is a tyrant for wanting to keep his country whole. Did he make no efforts to stop the conflict? He said nothing to try and bring your north and south together? Even so I feel most leaders would go as far as war to retain a complete nation.
John: No, he made an attempt, but no one in the country truly wanted war, the tension simply grew too great and caused a conflict that crippled the nation.
Brutus: You speak as if both sides were guilty of causing the war, is this true?
John: Yes, the south did retaliate but never were we fighting to impose laws on people that didn’t want them, we were merely fighting for our freedom from the north's new ideas as well as their prosecution for not following them.
Brutus: Fighting large social change is akin to standing in front of a chariot, the chariot will pass and you will be the one injured.
John: Yes but half of the country disagreed and didn’t want the change but the north forced it upon us.
Brutus: A law was passed and so you rebelled and lost, there is nothing tyrannical about a man attempting to reunite his nation.
John: Him and the north overstepped their boundaries and we wanted to leave the union. We did not wish to reunite with a nation that would have fought to end the largest economic factor in the country.
Brutus: I do not care about the political stance of Lincoln. Though I may not find his views matching my own that does not mean that he was a dictator. When this war started his motivation was to bring the country together as a whole once again was it not?
John: Well… yes but-
Brutus: And though he may have had the abolition of slavery on his agenda, restoring your nation to its former strength was his main goal and war was the only way to get too it correct?
John: Yes this is true, but Caesar was trying to expand his territories and strengthen and unite the Roman Empire, similar yes? And yet we would both consider him a tyrant correct? You killed him because he was a tyrant and you do not find my motives for the killing of Lincoln near the same?
Brutus: When I killed Caesar it was to stop his lust for needless conquer and blood. Though cunning, and often merciful, he was delusional and saw himself as superior to all other beings. This man, Abraham Lincoln, was advocating against the war as you said, and only waged it because he didn’t want to have a fractured land. Though you might disagree with his views, this does not make him a tyrannical leader. You killed him because you didn’t like his viewpoint. It seems you have a crazed obsession with painting him as a horrible person. Though your southern allies may have have been just to defect, your reasons for murder are delusional and bring shame to you and your country. In time I can only hope you realize the effects of killing a political leader, tyrant or not. Good day.
John Wilkes Booth: You there! Sir, you must be Brutus, Marcus Junius Brutus, am I correct?
Brutus: Why yes, I so happen to be, how do you know me?
John: My name is John Wilkes Booth, I know you because you killed Julius Caesar to free your nation from tyranny, you are its savior. You are a hero in my book and the true hero of the Roman Empire.
Brutus: To save Rome from tyranny was my goal, unfortunately I was not aware that Julius had an immediate successor, unknowingly I had brought about a second civil war. Despite the fame I get I can’t help but wonder if I was wrong to kill him.
John: You did what needed to be done, you couldn’t have known the repercussions. In fact, I did the same for my country, I put and end to the wrath of a tyrant but I was hated for it even years later by my own allies.
Brutus: Who is this “tyrant” you mention, and what land did he rule over may I ask?
John: His name was Abraham Lincoln and he was the president of the United States of America.
Brutus: President? Would this be similar to a consul, meaning he would’ve been an elected official?
John: Ah, yes he was elected but nobody knew how he would tear the country apart. He abused his power and overstepped his boundaries as a leader.
Brutus: How so?
John: Well, you see, once he had taken office he started making movements to abolish slavery, and wanted the southern states to comply. You see the north were almost all against slavery and the south were for it, so when the southern states wanted to leave the nation to avoid his horrid laws, he wouldn’t let them and brought our country to a war within itself.
Brutus: Abolish slavery. Hmm, it seems outlandish, but if it would’ve been appropriate in your land I cannot say. And I also cannot say that he is a tyrant for wanting to keep his country whole. Did he make no efforts to stop the conflict? He said nothing to try and bring your north and south together? Even so I feel most leaders would go as far as war to retain a complete nation.
John: No, he made an attempt, but no one in the country truly wanted war, the tension simply grew too great and caused a conflict that crippled the nation.
Brutus: You speak as if both sides were guilty of causing the war, is this true?
John: Yes, the south did retaliate but never were we fighting to impose laws on people that didn’t want them, we were merely fighting for our freedom from the north's new ideas as well as their prosecution for not following them.
Brutus: Fighting large social change is akin to standing in front of a chariot, the chariot will pass and you will be the one injured.
John: Yes but half of the country disagreed and didn’t want the change but the north forced it upon us.
Brutus: A law was passed and so you rebelled and lost, there is nothing tyrannical about a man attempting to reunite his nation.
John: Him and the north overstepped their boundaries and we wanted to leave the union. We did not wish to reunite with a nation that would have fought to end the largest economic factor in the country.
Brutus: I do not care about the political stance of Lincoln. Though I may not find his views matching my own that does not mean that he was a dictator. When this war started his motivation was to bring the country together as a whole once again was it not?
John: Well… yes but-
Brutus: And though he may have had the abolition of slavery on his agenda, restoring your nation to its former strength was his main goal and war was the only way to get too it correct?
John: Yes this is true, but Caesar was trying to expand his territories and strengthen and unite the Roman Empire, similar yes? And yet we would both consider him a tyrant correct? You killed him because he was a tyrant and you do not find my motives for the killing of Lincoln near the same?
Brutus: When I killed Caesar it was to stop his lust for needless conquer and blood. Though cunning, and often merciful, he was delusional and saw himself as superior to all other beings. This man, Abraham Lincoln, was advocating against the war as you said, and only waged it because he didn’t want to have a fractured land. Though you might disagree with his views, this does not make him a tyrannical leader. You killed him because you didn’t like his viewpoint. It seems you have a crazed obsession with painting him as a horrible person. Though your southern allies may have have been just to defect, your reasons for murder are delusional and bring shame to you and your country. In time I can only hope you realize the effects of killing a political leader, tyrant or not. Good day.
Art
For art I created a sculpture of the upper torso of Julius Caesar. I chose to make his head look juxtaposed onto a larger body to represent the way he forced himself into power that he did not have. I also made his face show symptoms of a stroke because he was rumored to have had a brain tumor and often experienced seizures, even during battle.