Job #2 Thinking Question
Chapter I
"The preparations being complete, the two private soldiers stepped aside and each drew away the plank upon which he had been standing. The sergeant turned to the captain, saluted and placed himself immediately behind that officer, who in turn moved apart one pace. These movements left the condemned man and the sergeant standing on the two ends of the same plank, which spanned three of the cross-ties of the bridge. The end upon which the civilian stood almost, but not quite, reached a fourth. This plank had been held in place by the weight of the captain; it was now held by that of the sergeant. At a signal from the former the latter would step aside, the plank would tilt and the condemned man go down between two ties. "
Here I find it really interesting as to why the captain was not the one to step off the plank therefore killing Fahrquhar. I wonder if he was just too dignified or proud or he just didn't want to kill a Rebel soldier because it was a shame and disgrace to him. Although all done silently, the captain and sergeants knew what they were doing the entire time and it was clear that the sergeant would carry out the final blow. What do you think about the actions of the Union soldiers?
It's really hard to say what the reasoning in that was. There could be so many reasons as to why it wasn't the captain. Since the union soldiers clearly had twisted views of things like setting up and hanging a man for no reason I would think that they would consider it a privilege or high honor to kill a rebel (as awful as that is and sounds) they don't seem to care that the rebels are people too. I would assume that Bierce did this for a reason he was probably trying to prove or show us something in saying this. I think the reason the captain didn't deal that final blow and kill Fahrquhar was because he could still somewhat have a clear conscious because he wasn't the one who actually killed him. He helped set Peyton up and he let them kill him but he wasn't the one to physically let the board go killing him so he could still justify himself. Another reason for this might be that incase anyone above them were to hear and have a conscious and take action against them he could claim that he wasn't the one to have killed them, getting him out of trouble. I think this one is less likely though. Or maybe as awful as this sounds he just wanted to watch it happen with a better view rather than from standing on the plank. Or it could have had something to do with honor like you said. I'm not really sure but this is a great question.
ReplyDeleteExcellent hypothesis. I had not considered several of your suggestions. It is very possible that the commander was concerned about having a clear conscience.
DeleteI think Cliff's idea that the captain was too dignified or too proud to kill Fahrquhar was really good. Maybe the captain had already killed enough people to please him. Or maybe he was just supervising. Whatever the case I am still in the dark as to why the captain didn't just kill Fahrquhar himself. I will keep thinking about this and hopefully come up with more ideas to share later!
ReplyDeleteThe actions of the Union soldier are terrible. He knew that he was taking an innocent life, but would not carry out the deed himself. Perhaps he was just following orders, or he felt too important for such trivial duties. Either way, it was the sergeant who executed the deed, not his commander. It may have taken the captain off guard, because the war was not supposed to reach civilians, yet there was one in front of him, suffering death for a wasteful war. This theory would only be accurate if the spy was acting without orders, however, because spies would probably be controlled by the captain.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting thoughts on the matter. I hadn't thought about it throwing the captain off his guard because it was a civilian suffering in front of him instead of some rebel, or how it could have been orders from above that he didn't want to follow himself.
Delete