Does killing for the sake of one’s country sound honorable? To Marcus Junis Brutus and John Wilkes Boothe is seemed like a perfect solution to tyranny of their leaders. Brutus, who had great love for Caesar and Rome, decided his love for one was greater than the other. In his speech, Brutus told how the killing of Caesar was best for Rome. He told the people he saved them from becoming slaves. Brutus claimed Caesar was ambitious, however, in viewing the way he took control of the conspirators it became obvious Brutus was the ambitious one and was seeking power and control. Some had the audacity to view Brutus as a hero for ridding Rome of Caesar. In a diary entry, John Wilkes Boothe explains that he was not a violent man. For six months, Boothe, as well as others who had common beliefs,…show more content… Both Brutus and Boothe wanted to stop a potential tyrant from harming their country; at least, that is what they claimed. Before the actual ending of the Rulers, in both cases, there was planning with others who believed in the same solution. Neither of the two saw their actions as wrong. In fact, they were proud of themselves. They used similar strategy: using the usual crowd around the Ruler to get close enough to kill. “Sic semper tyrannis,” is short for a phrase meaning, “Thus always I bring death to tyrants.” This was spoken by bother killers before giving the deadly blow. If Boothe was the leader of his conspirator, the two would also have that in
