By dismissing the 19th century's thinking as "skewed and backward", you do precisely what must not be done by modern observers- you impose the standards and values of the 21st century upon people with completely different values, presuppositions and beliefs. It may shock you to learn this, but 21st century Western people haven't cornered the market on correct and right thinking. The people of 100 years from now will no doubt chuckle at some of our fondly held sacred cows, and dismiss US as skewed and backward.
In much of the West, the concept of Law and Order could not apply. Often, the inhabitants of the Frontier West had to choose BETWEEN law and order. The law might dictate that the Suggs brothers and Jake should be put on trial for their misdeeds. Fine, but how would Gus and call accomplish this? Where, for example, could Call and Gus take them for a trial? Any town marshal would be unable to arrest them, because the alleged crimes occurred outside of town jurisdiction. A federal marshal would also have no jurisdiction, unless the crime occurred on federal land (Gunsmoke got this totally wrong). unless the crime scene was part of an organized county, no sheriff would be available to make an arrest, either. Men like Gus and Call, being self-sufficient and capable, would choose to fill the gap and administer rough-and-ready justice; extra-legal, perhaps, but decisive and just, nonetheless. in other words, in the absence of law, order was imposed by extra-legal means.
Now concerning Jake's desire to leave the Suggs brothers and their crime spree, I ask you- what do you suppose Call or Gus would have done in like circumstances? I can tell you. There would have been a flurry of gunshots, dead outlaws lying on the ground, and one lone ex-ranger would have ridden away. Gus and Call both had a rock-solid moral code that could not tolerate even being in the same vicinity as the Suggs brothers. Jake had no such solid core. Jake wanted to leave after he agreed to join the Suggs brothers in criminal activity. He bit off more than he could chew and wanted out, but that doesn't get him off the hook, he aided and abetted the crimes, and was guilty, in both a moral and legal sense.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae
reply
share
star_in_the_zenith_79
11 years ago
I agree its hard to question 19th century actions by 21st century standards. Jake's hanging seems to be the most controversial issue in Lonesome Dove, at least on this board.
I mean from a universal stand point did Jake deserve to die? Probably not. I don't necessarily think that not being enough of a badass to fight his way out of a situation like that is worthy of a hanging. Essentially after so long he was a prisoner, only staying with that gang because they'd kill him if he tried to leave. I don't think anyone can argue that Jake would have done these things on his own, probably even the younger Suggs brothers wouldn't have. On the other hand he rode with them in the first place knowing they were going to commit crimes, even though he was horrified by what they ultimately did. I think Jake deserved a stretch in prison, but not to die. Its pretty safe to say America's legal system had not evolved into a more develop one at that time. But I don't fault Augustus and Call for hanging him, because as they pointed out, a judge would have hanged him too unless of course they lied for them as there would have been no witnesses to testify that he was ever with the Suggses, and Call and Augustus had to strong a sense of justice to do that.
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
star_in_the_zenith_79
11 years ago
Gus assaulted the Barkeep and fired his pistol recklessly in a public place because he felt disrespected.
Yeah this was probably overboard, nobody said they were perfect. Call didn't seem to approve of it though, he told Gus he was lucky he didn't get thrown in jail, course the guy was rude and nobody likes a rude bartender.
Call almost beats a man to death because he lost his temper.
The man assaulted two of Call's men to the point where they were knocked out, and was whipping a third with a quirt trying to steal a horse. I'd say the attack was justified. Probably would have done no good to call the authorites or the sheriff, as the man he attacked was an army scout and the sheriff's department was unlikely to want any part of the Army.
They weren't in any hurry to hang Jake when he was on the run for killing a man.
Well, he had just come back at that point and Jake told them it was an accident (which it was), I guess at that point they were still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It was obvious later on they were fed up with him after he let Lorena get stolen and just went back to card playing, and then went along with five brutal murders. It just really proves that Call and Gus were capable of giving people the benefit of the doubt to a point, but Jake kept screwing up and they finally said enough was enough.
Barlow was a criminal from Mexico but they had no plans on deporting him.
You mean Bolivar? This is an interesting point but its sort of hard to judge since there was nothing ever specified that Bolivar did. Just that he was a bandit.
Deets was a runaway slave but Call and Gus overlooked that.
I hardly think anyone would fault them for this. They obviously cared for Deets a lot, he'd been with them for a long time. For them to protect him from slavery is a far cry from any sort of failing. Any decent person would.
reply
share