Brutus
In William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar was a tragedy that is mainly based on the assassination of Julius Caesar. The character that was in charge of the assassination was Marcus Brutus. Brutus was the most complex character in the play. He was one of the men who assassinate Caesar in the Senate. Brutus was an honorable man. He was a servant and close friend to Julius Caesar. In Roman times, the only way for someone to get close to a person of high rank is if he/she is close to him/her. The reason of his complexity was because he did not kill Caesar for greed, envy, nor to preserve his social position like so many of the other conspirators. What would cause a person to kill a close friend? He joined the conspiracy in order to help the Romans get rid of Caesar. Brutus would not allow Caesar to rise to power and then turn his back onto the people of Rome. Brutus had a strong relationship with Caesar but a stronger relationship with Rome and its people. Brutus loved Caesar but feared his powers. Brutus advocates peace, freedom, and liberty, for all Romans, which shows that Brutus is an altruistic as well as an honorable man. Not that Brutus loved Caesar Less but he loved Rome more. Brutus had honored Caesar but Brutus felt that Caesar was too ambitious. He also felt that Caesar made the Romans as slaves. Brutus joined the conspiracy because he had the desire to help the commoners. He will obey to whatever the Romans convey to him. Brutus also understands that he is putting it all on the line for his Romans. Brutus said that if the conspirators do not join for a common cause, then there is no need for an oath because the conspirators are self-righteous, and they are serving the Romans. He was a follower of idealism, where the Romans would possess peace, liberty and freedom. Brutus was a good friend to Julius Caesar, but not good enough. He had moral values dealing with Rome and its people. Brutus’s values then made him join a conspiracy against Caesar put together by Cassius. Brutus is in fact a dear friend of Caesar’s but kills his beloved friend not for who he is, but what he could become as a King. It is for this reason that when Brutus dies by suicide Mark Anthony describes Brutus as the noblest Roman of them all.
Brutus killed his dear friend because of his ambition. If only today’s leaders had some ambition! He said that he loves Rome more than Caesar and that is why he committed one of the most dishonorable acts a human being can commit. After the act, Antony appropriately and sarcastically called Brutus an honorable man. Unlike Brutus, Antony knew what honor was.
"We are told by his biographers, and apologists, that he hated slavery with a passion. But since he participated fully in the plantation slavery system, buying and selling slaves on occasion, and because he could not bring himself to free his own slaves, who often numbered upward of 200-250 on his plantations, one has to either question the verity of this passion or speculate that it was merely the abstract idea of slavery that he hated." (Smedley 189) Thomas Jefferson was always aware of the fact that slavery would soon one day be abolished but he made no efforts during his lifetime to accelerate the process. Jefferson was a wealthy plantation owner and politician that would speak out about slavery on a regular basis but would still employ slaves for his own use.
Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder and the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence. Many will assume he was a racist and pro-slavery, but unless one were to look deeper into why Jefferson would even own slaves, this assumption is very believable. I would say Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite, but he was justified hypocrite. As I think about why would Jefferson would want the abolishing of slaves, but on the other hand own slaves, it seems a bit hypocritical, but we must take a moment and really think was his hypocrisy justifiable? During this era nearly every successful white man owned slaves, so why would Jefferson not own them himself? Slaves were not just considered property, but they had valuable characteristics about them. They
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner himself, originally wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all slaves should coexist with society, but he ended up revoking his opinions. Notes on the State of Virginia, written by Thomas Jefferson was a story that had conflicting ideas about African Americans and their role in society. During Jefferson’s time period, whites often regarded African Americans simply as slaves, or even a different species altogether. Slaves were regarded as culturally, physically, and mentally different from their white counterparts. Americans started to become dependent on their slaves, which made them want to keep their dominant relationship even more than before. Jefferson believed
His writings show how he truly views slavery. In the first document, found in the Declaration of Independence, he claims that King George III is violating the rights of Africans by taking them and selling them into slavery elsewhere in the world. In the last document, written to Holmes regarding the Missouri Compromise, he states how people would be happier having a greater surface for the slave trade. This is a perfect example of how Jefferson was hypocritical; he simply contradicted himself. Although these documents were written forty years or so apart, I believe that it is still important to note his hypocrisy. This is mainly because Jefferson owned slaves throughout this entire time
In the fifty years from 1776 until his death Jefferson did little to end slavery or dissociate himself from his role as the master Monticello. Notes on the State of Virginia Law as name by it self says is about the certain laws of Virginia during 1781-1784. During that time deep- rooted prejudices entertains by the whites (T. Jefferson). Thousand whites did not want slavery to be abolished and many other circumstances, would divide slaveries from whites, and produce convulsion. In Jefferson’s memory it looks like slavery are equal to the whites, but in reality much different. It looks like Jefferson had the theoretical interest about abolition. However, he thinks that once they free slaves, they can’t keep them no longer in America because slaves will hold grudges against whites and whites will have prejudice against blacks. “For if a slave can have a country in his world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor for another” (T. Jefferson). In addition, When I read this primary source for me it looks like Jefferson worries about international breading. For example, he mentions on primary source that “when freed, he (slave) is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture… and might mix”. Throughout his life Jefferson expressed his fears of white society through contact with
Thomas Jefferson also had some dark history. Thomas Jefferson owned many slaves. When Thomas was 14 his father died and left him a 3,000 acre slave plantation with about 30 slaves. At one point he owned up to 600 slaves. There are many people that say Mr. Jefferson may have had a long term relationship with one of his female slaves, Sally Hemmings. It seems that most people agree that they had several children together. It is hard now to imagine what it would have been like to grow up on a slave plantation and to inherit ownership of slaves. Thomas Jefferson must have had many feelings of slavery through the years. Maybe some of the things that he saw on his own plantatio...
Some slave owners argued that slaves would become equal and worthy of natural rights only when they became civilized. For Jefferson, a life-long owner of slaves, this was a much more complex issue (“Natural Rights”).” Jefferson thought that slavery was immoral, and to his credit he denounced the slave trade. Some believe that Jefferson agreed with the Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson that all men are born morally equal to one another. In principle, Jefferson opposed slavery, but he saw no way to end the practice once established. He feared that a war of extermination which the whites would win would result from white prejudice and black bitterness. He also feared that if slaves were freed they would have nowhere to go and no means to survive on their own, and also, he and other slave owners depended on slave labor for economic reasons. The best idea Jefferson came up with was to take slave children from their parents and educate them on things such as trade, and once they become adults, they would be transported to a colony where they can start a new life as a “free and independent people.” Nothing ever came of his plan, and slavery remained in America until the end of the Civil War. But even then, the
William Shakespeare's play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, was mainly based on the assassination of Julius Caesar. The character who was the mastermind behind the assassination was, ironically, Marcus Brutus, a senator and close friend to Julius Caesar. But what would cause a person to kill a close friend? After I examined Brutus' relationship towards Caesar, his involvement in the conspiracy and his importance to the plot it all became clear. Brutus had one particular reason for killing Caesar and that was for the good of the people and the republic. Brutus had no personal reason for killing Caesar. Some of his most admirable traits were his morality and leadership skills.
Throughout most of the play Brutus is constantly internally conflicted. Does he do what he believes is best for Rome or stay loyal to his friend and leader? Should he assist in the murder of one person to benefit many? Although killing Caesar was in the end a bad choice, Brutus always tries to do what is best for Rome and for the people. However even though all of Brutus’ motives are good he still has the tragic flaw of pride, which ultimately leads to his downfall. The reason that Brutus gets caught up in the conspiracy is because Cassias appeals to his pride and flatters him with forged letters from the Roman people saying he is a greater leader then Caesar.
...to the human rights and liberties stated in the Declaration of Independence and yet it still survived, this document was almost a precautionary measure in order to control slavery and ensure that the slave trade as a business continued as normal through the various clauses mentioned above. When analysing this incompatibility it was necessary to examine Thomas Jefferson as a founding father as it was the founding fathers prejudices and values that influenced the classes with social standing in America and therefore when antislavery laws were not implemented no one questioned this atrocity as slavery was a norm in this revolutionary era, with reference to Thomas Jefferson it is said in relation to slavery that ‘never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do’ which epitomises his hypocritical nature and the inconsistency of this so called revolutionary era.
Jefferson expressed his concerns and disagreements with the king in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson's main points focused on the lack of natural rights the colonists were granted. With the natural rights of the people removed the people and the government would not be able to function. When the king eliminated freedoms that colonists once had he stripped them of their grounds for life. Jefferson also focused on equality. He stated that all men were created equal and by equality he meant that all men (and women) rich or poor all had God given rights that no person should be able to restrict them from having.
Brutus was one of many Romans with noble bloodlines. Although Brutus was noble, he never used it to get ahead. There are many times when Brutus could have used the fact that he is truly noble but he didn’t. Many people argue that a noble man wouldn’t have killed Caesar. In some ways that is true, but Brutus’ case was different. A noble man would only for the good of others and that is what Brutus did. He killed Caesar because 7he was afraid of how powerful he could become. Even then he had a hard time doing it, and that is what separates Brutus from the other conspirators. Every other conspirator had little or no reason to kill Caesar. Brutus was willing to do anything for Rome. During his speech about Caesar’s murder Brutus stated “I have the same dagger for myself when it shall please my country to need my death” (III.ii.45-46). This shows how Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more” (III.ii.20-22). He was too passionate about his country to let Caesar turn it into a dictatorship. Mark Antony and Octavius recognized that Brutus was the one noble roman. In his final speech mark Antony said “This was the noblest roman of them all. / All the conspirators save only he/ Did that they did i...
Van Helsing is the most instrumental player in Dracula. If it weren 't for him, Dracula would have still been roaming around Europe. While the other characters might be important, they only helped in the planning and execution of finding and killing Dracula. He shows great bravery, selflessness, and inquisitiveness throughout the book, yet at the same time becoming a symbol of strength to the people he knew.
In the play Julius Caesar, written and preformed by William Shakespeare, there are many characters, but two, Brutus and Cassius, stood out. The play begins in Rome where a celebration of Julius Caesar's victory over the former ruler of Rome, Pompeii. The victory leads to Caesar's betrayal by his jealous companions. Senators and other high status figures are jealous of Caesar's new and growing power, while others, like Brutus, fear the tyrannical rule Caesar could enforce. The conspirators, Brutus and Cassius being the most important, assassinate Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius, better known as Antony, and Octavius Caesar, Caesar's heir to the thrown, revenge Caesar's death. Antony convinces the Roman populous to destroy the conspirators and eventually begins a war with Cassius and Brutus' armies. Both Cassius and Brutus commit suicide to save their honor and Antony and Octavius win the war. The characterizations of Brutus and Cassius show a distinct contrast in their character traits and motives for the assassination of Julius Caesar.