Thinking Question

I still don't understand why Farquhar was trying to break the bridge.  I get he was tricked but wouldn't the soldiers want to hear him out? He was trying to do something for a good cause anyways.  Did he even get to talk and try to defend himself? Or did they just go straight to punishing? Was Ambrose Beirce trying to show how unjust the Union army was? What did Ambrose want us to take away from them doing that?


Comments

  1. I hadn't thought of that at all. Great question.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Have you thought about the difference between the way the law operates during war vs during times of peace? Are there different rules & policies during war?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure that during times of war the rules are changed because everyone is desperate for their side to win. It's survival.

      Delete
    2. I definitely think that in times of war, there are many things, typically seen as unlawful, which are practiced and even encouraged to a certain degree. In particular: murder/killing and destruction of private property (strategic and over enemy lines).

      Delete
  3. He was wanting to burn the bridge so that the other side couldn't cross because he needed to feel like he was doing something to help his side. The soldiers during war would have had no interest in listening to his plea, they were there only to win the war.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes. I don't think the soldiers cared about what he had to say. Killing was just a part of the job for them and if one more death meant a closer end to the war they wouldn't hesitate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a really good point, Justin. I feel like in the context of war it is very easy to forget that the people you are fighting against are real, honest-to-God people who are just as passionate about their cause as you are about yours. I am sure that such forgetfulness would make killing them much easier, but that doesn't mean it is good or helpful in the long term.

      Delete
  5. I think Farquhar was inspired to destroy the bridge out of loyalty to his fellow Confederates. He probably figured that if he couldn't/wouldn't help them out by enlisting, at least by taking out the bridge he would be able to aid them in a semi-significant way. I don't think Bierce was trying to highlight the unjust punishments inflicted by the Union as much as he was commenting on how warfare provides a very different context for crime and punishment, especially for those on the battlefield itself.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Line illuminator

Literature Connection