You can watch the scene here, if you like.
The thing is, this scene takes place in what was at the time the Indian Territory; the men carrying out the executions are former Texas Rangers. So they're not only not in Texas, they're not still Rangers. The territory wasn't subject to Texas law or any state law at the time, and they had no Federal authority former or present. This is pure vigilante justice, without any sort of due process, in which they indulge to such a degree as to kill another fellow former Ranger who didn't himself kill anyone.
It's a very dodgy example to hang much of a lesson on. A powerful scene, which Lonesome Dove contains in spades, but I'm not sure how good a moral or ethical example this really is.
14 comments:
Well, there’s definitely no -law- going on there.
I’m perfectly fine with the absence of law. I’m not a fan of using coercion in general, but it’s understandable that you can’t have man-burning murderers about. Maybe it’s necessary hygiene, but justice? That’s a stretch, and not just of a few necks.
I don't see how you say "no law". Clearly they have their rules, which they are enforcing, and they, and he seem to think he also understood the rules- so it's some kind of law- not formal, not governmental, but law need not come from governments formally, does it?
What I mean, Douglas, is that whatever positive law there is in the Indian Territory at that time in history forbade their hanging these men on exactly the same terms that it forbade the hangings they're claiming to be punishing. When they say "When you ride with outlaws, you die with outlaws," it's highly ironic because they are making themselves into outlaws by this act -- and on exactly the same terms as the men they are killing.
Now, you can of course refer to other kinds of law than positive law. Aquinas defines three, which ideally are directly related to one another like concentric circles: divine law, natural law, positive law. God's law is from God, not men: but whose is the authority to punish violators of it? (Romans 12:19-21)
The third term, positive law, is the law of men; that we just talked about. So that only leaves the middle term.
Natural law flows from the divine law, and we know it by natural theology (in the same way that we can know something about God by knowing about God's works). Positive law, in turn, is meant to flow from natural law and not violate it just as the natural law flows from the divine law and cannot violate it.
So you'd have to say that they are enforcing the natural law, at least if you want to speak on Aquinas' terms about it. Aquinas' idea, though, is not that men are meant to enforce natural law directly: they're meant to make positive laws based on the natural laws, so they can be fully intelligible to men and enforced by positive law means.
There's a direct tie-in to the EN that we've been reading, by the way. If you're interested, this is in Summa Theologiae, Prima Secundae Partis. What you'll find about the natural law specifically as it applies to human beings is that it is Aristotle's virtues, which we are meant to live by; because Aristotle derived them without benefit of scripture or Judeo-Christian tradition, but from reason applied to nature, Aquinas adopts them into the model exactly on those terms.
I suppose that the old Rangers could have a version among themselves of something like the Pirate's Code. Those were actual contractual agreements, which they formally signed, but you could analogically have a kind of unwritten contract that defined what was expected of members and appropriate punishments for violations.
In that case, hanging Jake Spoon would make sense. The other hangings are a bit different, though, because those men never were Rangers. Those hangings are just Rangers doing what Rangers habitually do, whether the law supports it or not.
As I understand it, law enforcement in Indian Territory consisted of the various tribal police forces (e.g., the Cherokee tribe had towns and farms and so forth, their own constitution and government, and a police force) and US Marshals. In some places it was pretty sketchy. As I understand it, not all tribes had developed as much as the Cherokee and so in some places there was no formal local law enforcement. Consequently, it was a haven for outlaws who would go into neighboring states to rob banks, etc., and then escape to Indian Territory to hide out and plan their next job.
How would the Lonesome Dove scene differ from an anarchist carrying out of justice?
Philosophical anarchism does not admit of state-based violence, so they are similar in that regard since these are not agents of any state carrying out any state-created laws.
However, because of anarchism's suspicion of coercive force generally, usually only defensive force is considered moral. It would have no problem with the Lonesome Dove band killing these men if the men threatened them; it would have had no problem with the Lonesome Dove band choosing to ally themselves with the farmers while the farmers were being aggressed against.
Executions after the fact are suspect, but I suppose one could extend them to those guilty of aggressive violence against the farmers at a stretch. Executing Spoon, who hadn't killed or harmed anyone at all, would not be authorized. In fact, if you watch the whole Spoon not only didn't kill anyone, he remained with them only under duress and threat: he was disturbed by the murders but was not able to flee because he was under watch by the brothers. Now, if there were questions about that I suppose it might go one way or another; but in fact it was not in dispute that Jake Spoon hadn't participated in the violence.
Have you read any of James C. Scott's work? His most famous is "Seeing Like a State," but he's done several books promoting anarchism.
I have not. What would you recommend?
I haven't read any of them yet, but I'm about to start Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, which is well-known. It's possibly relevant to my research ... we'll see.
If you had read him, I was wondering what you thought. He was prof of poli sci and this kind of thing was part of his academic work. Here are some more titles from him that sound interesting. He was a SE Asia specialist and so all of these but the last deal in some way with his work there:
Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance
Domination and the Arts of Resistance
The Art of Not Being Governed
Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States
And the explicitly anarchist Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play (available free at the link).
Now I have heard of that last one, at least; I read a review of it some months ago.
I'll let you know what I think about "Seeing Like a State." I'll probably read 2 Cheers as well, just because it's free and looks interesting.
Once we’re done with the EN, I might read some of it too.
Yes, thank you. That's more the line I was going down- To me at least, Jake's apparent understanding and acceptance implies they had a known code between them. I suppose you are right about the others.
Post a Comment