First, let’s acknowledge the initial issue in Ang Lee’s Ride with the Devil. The film invites us into the perspective of Southerners who are defending slavery, referred to as Bushwhackers, during the 1850s and the Civil War. Portrayed as ruggedly handsome, these longhaired men are fighting with guerilla warfare not only for their land, but also for women and children, for their families and their communities.
And these featured figures are facing opposition that is not afraid to use terror. The Union soldiers and radical abolitionists like John Brown are employing guerilla warfare tactics, raiding farms and burning down towns. In one scene today, we saw similar violence. Then, we saw that Union forces likely know a woman and child are in a house sheltering the Bushwhackers. They still open fire. They start firing again before the woman and child are clear. Moreover, antislavery forces have likely killed noncombatants (those not armed) by accident using such tactics and knowing the possibilities. Murdering men and razing property they’ve left women and children in extremely dangerous circumstances on the frontier.
Obviously it goes without saying that slavery is abhorrent. Yes, it certainly factors in and should be considered. It's in play, but it is not likely the main issue on the table here. Rather, the Bushwhackers deeply and authentically believe in their cause. To them, this cause is the world they know, built on long held views and virtues. It’s not only practical, but also moral and, in some cases, even grounded in the bible and Christianity.
The question at hand: What are the limits (razing towns? destroying property? killing men rather than disarming or capturing them?, etc.) to which the Bushwhackers should be able to go in defending their commitments, especially when their deepest and and most authentic personal, political, and religious beliefs as well as the lives of their families, communities and societies are directly threatened by Union figures who seem comfortable with razing towns, destroying property and killing indiscriminately? One goal for some of these Union forces is, after all, to drive Southerners from the land completely and even to murder them for reasons that these Northerners feel are justified.
It’s difficult to answer what the “limits” are on their tactics. While I can question whether, or not their cause is justified, that is not the question. The question at hand is whether, or not their cause justifies their methods, especially when similar methods are being used against them. Sadly, conflicts have are not usually solved with words, nor have they ever been. Conflicts and disagreements are usually solved with violence. The world would be a much better place if we could settle differences without killing each other, but that his not the world we live in, nor is it the world our ancestors lived in. That being said, I guess there are no limits to their actions. When faced with an opposition that is willing to do whatever they can to stop you, whether that be collateral damage, or loss of their own soldiers, I so no other way to prevail other than to employ very similar tactics. There is a famous phrase quoted from time to time that says, “Fight fire with fire.” The Bushwhackers are using the tactics that are being used on them in order to protect their beliefs while the Union figures are using questionable methods in order to enforce their beliefs. The situation is a mess, but regardless, both sides must employ any method they can to win, and the opposing side must be willing to meet them if they want to stand a chance.
ReplyDeleteIt’s difficult to commentate on the situation of the Bushwhackers because their beliefs are so different from my own, however I think that people can fight for what they think is right. The issue with the Bushwhackers is that they feel there’s nowhere else to turn for protection. Their own government fights against them so they take matters into their own hands. A group like the Bushwhackers who put their own lives on the line to fight a group who have also agreed to put their lives at risk by joining the army is one thing, but killing or endangering innocent civilians is going to far. What groups like the John Brown militia do goes to far because they hurt those who have no part in the conflict other than where they live. If the John Brown militia had gone through freeing slaves and leaving the people unhurt, they would be fighting for what they believe in, but by burning down houses and killing people they use terror and cross a line. I can understand someone wishing to fight for what they believe in, but to kill people who aren’t involved in the conflict is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is somewhat of a difficult question, because the Bushwhackers’ beliefs include the support of slavery. Regardless, they will fiercely defend their beliefs and will use deadly force to protect them. Of course, realistically the Bushwhackers shouldn’t be committing crimes, but a certain degree of criminality may be justified due to extenuating circumstances. The Bushwhackers live their lives in a fairly constant state of fear of an attack from Yankees. The film shows that the Yankees are every bit as lawless as the Bushwhackers: they shoot up a house with an innocent woman and her daughter in it. However, the Bushwhackers probably go too far in their actions. Destroying the recently widowed woman’s residence is unnecessary. Also, her husband’s killing is not needed as well. The Bushwhackers’ actions are generally rationalized when they involve Union soldiers, but when they transfer the same brutality they show to their enemies to poor folks who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, they cross the line. I do believe the Bushwhackers can kill their enemy, but their enemy only: as someone mentioned in class, killing in a war is not murder when the enemy has voluntarily enlisted. A soldier must acknowledge the possible risk of death.
ReplyDeleteAs we have acknowledged in our discussions, there is something distinctly "American" about standing up against a government you believe to be unjust. When they succeeded from the Union, southerners very much believed their ideals echoed those of the American revolution from Great Britain. They believed the abolitionist movement was as detrimental to society as British taxation, etc. For argument's sake, let's say the confederates were right. Union aggression threatened their longstanding traditions and ways of life, however despicable that lifestyle may have been. They saw the North as the violent aggressor, which it was to a large extent. Did the South have any less of a reason to succeed than the colonies? The difference is, of course, morality, which obviously favored the Union. The Bushwhackers AND the Unionists sought to protect their families and community from what they viewed as infringements upon their freedom, and both sides contradicted their values of family and independence when they killed noncombatants, raided towns, etc. It's all pretty abominable. Of course, peaceful compromise would be the ideal solution, but it's important to recognize that it is not always a feasible option, especially with wild-haired Toby Maguires are eager to fight back for their communities.
ReplyDeleteThis question leaves me feeling rather conflicted. For one thing, the Bushwhackers are only defending their land, their beliefs, and their people. The union men clearly have no qualms about destroying houses and land and killing people. However, one of the main beliefs that the Bushwhackers are defending is slavery. The audience would likely otherwise sympathize with these people completely, but clearly, they are literally defending their 'right' to own other humans based on the color of those humans' skin. The main protagonist of the film, who is portrayed as a young and caring figure, even openly displays racism against a black man who is working with the bushwhackers, using the n-word multiple times. This makes it a lot harder to decide what limits the Bushwhackers should be able to go to. Looking at it from the perspective of someone unbiased on the slavery aspect, the Bushwhackers are very clearly fighting for what they purely believe to be the right thing. If we weren't able to stand up against people who were burning down our houses and killing our friends, what kind of free country would this be? I think that the Bushwhackers have a legitimate reason to kill the Union men who would otherwise be terrorizing their land. They do not, however, have any reason to get civilians involved in it. For instance, when the store runner was shot and his shop was burnt down, that was not justified at all, from any perspective. The Bushwhackers overall have a rational reason to violently fight the Union, but not the general populace.
ReplyDeleteToday in our discussion, we established that killing people for your country, or in this case your region of the country, feels incredibly more justified than just murdering anyone that gets in your way. However, it is hard to say that what these Bushwhackers is justified. It's hard to put specifics on what the limits are for these men as to how much damage they can do to a town but they are certainly allowed to, and should, fight for what they believe in. Our country was founded on the belief that people have freedoms to believe what they want and the freedom to fight for those beliefs. It may get bloody at times, but to these men are fighting for their cause and trying to take out the people in their way. This is similar to what Michael does to the heads of the five families at the end of The Godfather. Moreover, it is difficult to put a finger on exactly how far the Bushwhackers should be allowed to go because I believe that a person really can't go "too far" when they are fighting for what they believe in no matter if I agree with that person or not.
ReplyDeleteI think the Bushwhackers should be able to go as far and the Union soldiers are willing to in terms of killing and destroying property. The bushwhackers strongly believe in their beliefs, so they should be justified in doing whatever necessary to fight all threatening opposition. It is in a war setting, so violence is inevitable. The Northerners believe they have the right to kill the bushwhackers, so the bushwhackers in turn should have the right to kill the Northerners. If the Northerners weren’t threatening to kill, then the bushwhackers would not have the right to kill. The bushwhackers can use the classic alibi used by every child ever “He started it” to justify their violence, but in this case it is true. The bushwhackers aren’t imposing their beliefs on others–the Northerners are. They have the right to do whatever necessary to protect their beliefs, unless their beliefs interfere with the law. America is the land of freedom, so the bushwhackers have the freedom to do what they please.
ReplyDelete"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
ReplyDelete-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
As much as I am a fan of this saying (not just because Gandhi is Indian), I would throw this out of the window. I think that this question shares very close simliarities with the issue that we had about whether the Corleone murders were justified. We said that the reason that they were (sort of) was because of the fact that the other families and dons killed their family members first, and it was a matter of vengeance and retribution. It was alright to "get back at them". It's the same with this predicament. I think that the Bushwhackers have every right to resort to burning barns and towns and killing people if the Jay-hawkers are allowed to do the same to them. They have the right to defend their stance. A few years ago, I would have disagreed with the point I am making right now, but I realized that when you have a belief that you consider to be true in every respect, something that you grew up with, something that you hold closely to your heart, you will go to any measure to preserve that belief. Its something that happens to everybody. Do the North Koreans believe that the Americans are evil and that capitalism is the bane of their existence? For most people, you bet. Why? For the young kids, I doubt that that is an inherent perception. It is obviously something that they grew up believing and knowing, those beliefs of animosity towards the US stemming from the Korean War. Something like that. Did Hitler believe that HE was doing the right thing? You bet. Obviously, it was an absolutely terrible thing to do, but did he fight to the death believing that what he did was the right thing to do? Sure! What I'm trying to say is that solely due to their beliefs, the Bushwhackers should be allowed to go to great measures to preserve that belief, and even more so because of the fact that the Jay-hawkers attack them and kill those Southerners as well. The morality of all this is debatable, but my thoughts are sort of like this.
This situation is similar to some that we've discussed in class, about a group of people disregarding or disobeying the law because they believe it to be unjust. No matter how vehemently against slavery one may be, it would be hypocritical to say that the union soldiers are allowed to fight for what they believe in while the bushwhackers are not. Therefore, ignoring the indisputable wrongs of slavery, each side should be able to defend themselves and go as far as the other goes. The same goes for civilians. If one side kills the other's civilians and children, I believe that they have invited the other to do the same onto them.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion would change, however, if this question wasn't as focused on the war aspect and solely about the limits that people have when standing up for what they believe in. We pretty much unanimously agreed on in class that ignoring or disobeying an unjust law is okay. But this conflict between the bushwhackers and Union soldiers brings up another question of who gets to decide whether a law or policy is unjust and therefore if it needs to be followed. In this case, I would think that the bushwhackers were very limited in what they could do against the Union soldiers.
In answering this question, one has to try to maneuver their argument in a way that avoids saying that support of slavery should be defended. The movie is presenting us with protagonists that embody sentiments that we as a society are ashamed were once believed by Americans. But in response to their means, the bushwhackers are in a wartime mode. However, this does not "justify" their means. Personally, I don't agree with the tactics of either side, because both show violence in excess. The Union army shoots Mr. Chiles in front of his wife in the middle of the night only because, we assume, he is a "Southerner." But the rebels burn down the shop of the woman they have just widowed. For them, not having a clear stand or acting to protect yourself seems almost as bad as having the opposite view. The punishment is the same, death. Interestingly, both sides seem to like to pretend that their morals and therefore means are just. Both sides are strictly against hurting women and children. But, we see in the shootout at the barn that perhaps this is solely a tactic. During the ceasefire that allows the wife and her daughter to cross to safety, the rebels are reloading their guns. The union army shoots before the people they are 'protecting' have clearly made it out from firing range. Although we have not seen much of the movie, what we have seen is gruesome and violent. I think this serves to try to place us in the shoes of the men who have experienced things that have made them turn to these excessively violent means.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both the Jayhawkers and Bushwhackers have taken things too far. While the Jayhawkers did indeed open fire on a house where they knew there was a woman and a child, The Bushwhackers, murdered a shop owner and left his wife to cry over his dead body, then they proceeded to burn down their shop, the only thing they had. I think that what the warfare that occurs between the two factions is a bloody one and it is unnecessarily violent. The Northerners have burned down houses and killed (innocent?) slave masters in order to free slaves. While I admit, this is a good cause, the Northerners went too far and their goal could have been achieved in a much less violent way. While I realize that the Southerners social system and way of life is at stake, the killing I believe is rationalized, not justified. They want to protect their way of life, but their way of life meant giving others no freedom to speak of. I believe that if they did the same stuff as the northerners then it would be unjustified, because the cause they are fighting for is wrong and they have to realize that.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has a different idea of a "perfect world." Naturally, we strive to achieve this goal of perfection by taking action. In the movie, some people view slavery as being a vital part of this "perfect world," while others see it as a serious problem in society. These two conflicting ideas cause dispute. One side views slavery as a positive institution and a valuable part of the economy. The other side sees slavery as immoral, unjust, and a contradiction to the Constitution. This raises the question of how far each side can go to impose their ideas. The first option is compromise, which is an easy method for dealing with smaller conflicts. However, the issue of slavery couldn't be solved through words. Each side stood firm on their respective beliefs. The only other option is action. The magnitude of acceptable action depends on the situation. In a time of peace, neither side could do anything that would directly harm the other. For example, a group of abolitionist legislatures wouldn't be able to pass a document barring slavery because the document would directly conflict with the ideas of the other party. In order to push toward achieving a "perfect world," one group would have to convince the other that their ideas are correct. This could be accomplished through delivering speeches, distributing documents supporting a particular view, or peacefully protesting against the other group's ideas. The limit of acceptable behavior changes dramatically in the presence of war. Wars erupt when two groups can't compromise on a particular issue, and attempts to convince the other group that a particular idea is correct have failed. In a war, each side tries to forcefully impose their ideas of a perfect world. Each side assembles an army of individuals to fight for a particular idea. These people act as representational bodies of each idea. If one side defeats the other, the winning side can establish their beliefs. In this case, the people in the army must be willing to stand for their beliefs. This means that they must be willing to do anything to impose their particular idea, even if it means dying for their cause. Attacking, apprehending, or killing representatives from the other army is acceptable behavior, as those people represent the opposite belief. However, people who are not part of this representational army shouldn't be subject to any violence, regardless of their beliefs. One side can not harm a person who is not part of the army, even if the person holds contrasting ideas. Entering the army is similar to signing a contract, agreeing to uphold and stand by your beliefs. People not involved in the army are not part of the contract. They should therefor remain involved in the war conflict.
ReplyDeleteThe Bushwhackers should have the same right as every individual. If they are being targeted and have family and prized possessions on the line, I believe that they can almost do anything to prevent death or other tragedies. But, I also think this this same thing applies to others in this situation, because what else can one do in this situation? It’s more traumatic to sit and watch your family die in front of one’s eyes or even have property taken away and everything one has worked hard for. Property also represents a home and a familiar and comfortable feeling for a human being. Having these things taken away leaves the targeted people literally homeless and that is not fair since they may have not done anything to be attacked. So in this situation, I think it’s perfectly fair to hurt and kill the others as much as needed, but with the killing part only if needed.
ReplyDeleteWar now is completely different than during the civil war. Currently, our governments use whatever means necessary to defend our country, but the Civil War was generally fought face to face. Personally, I believe that any way that will lose less men and women should be applied. If this means using guerilla warfare then so be it. As we discussed in class today, protection of family and land is blurred. To some you are protecting, while in others eyes you are committing a crime. Yes, slavery is wrong, but as Toby Maguire explained, slavery is just a part if their lives. Even though it is wrong, they have as much of a right to defend it as the union does to try to end it. Let’s not forget that the Union is also using guerilla tactics as well. If the opposing side is using it, then the Bushwhackers actions are justified.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though there's no straightforward way for me to answer this question, and, to be honest, it leaves me extremely uncomfortable because I like these long-haired, bearded guys. They're real people, who seem to have good souls. However, my entire positive opinion of them changes when I realize that they're pro-slavery. All of a sudden, I find myself rooting for their defeat (maybe even death?) because they believe in something so cruel, so immoral that I can't even begin to comprehend its rationalization. Slavery and those who condone it sicken me.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I also believe one has the right to defend their beliefs, however sick and twisted they are, for if that right was taken from them, what kind of country would America be? A country cannot monitor who gets to believe what, practice what, etc. One should be free to do what they please. That is, they should until their practices are deemed unfit by law. The Bushwhackers have every right to fight for their beliefs, but their beliefs' immorality condemns them to destruction.
Now, to the trickiest part: fighting. I hate, hate, hate war. I think its atrocities are unforgivable unjustifiable; a killing in war is no different from a killing in your neighborhood. However, I also know that war isn't going away any time soon. It's been part of human history for basically all of its existence since we organized into collections with capability to wage war. But why can't we go back to the good ol' days where those fighting the war only fought with the opposing side's soldiers and did NOT punish the innocent citizens in any way? I can never justify killing noncombatants, civilians, etc. no matter if the killers are fighting for something I believe in or something I don't.