Kenya (catch all)

[jmm99]

I've watched Unforgiven and Seven (each top notch), two of the three movies reviewed by Hitesman, several times each. The first and oldest movie in the review is King of the Pecos (Wiki - King of the Pecos), which I watched last nite on Youtube, Youtube - King of the Pecos (1 hr). This is a morality play in black & white.

I'm following Hitesman's review for the movie's scenes - the "quotes" below are mostly my summings of his facts (so, whatever errors are mine). The brief comments are entirely mine.

1. The Basis for John Clayborn's Personal Revenge-Retribution

Alexander Stiles, an ambitious land grabber (he envisions a million acre empire), and his lawyer Brewster, visit the Sweetwater homestead of the Clayborn parents and their son John. Stiles offers $1,000 for the land (probably fair for the land, but ignoring the strategic value of its key watering hole which controls the route between Texas and the Kansas cattle markets ). Clayborn pere refuses the offer. Stiles calls in his running gun Ash and his men. The parents are shot and their son is beaten and left for dead. Stiles then homesteads Sweetwater himself !

I follow Bill Miller's revenge = retribution equation; but I point out that there is a wide spectrum between (1) a one person vendetta; and (2) a society based on talion principles and having mediators to regulate the process.

2. John Clay's Insurgency - Non-Violent Action

Ten years pass. John Clayborn (having taken the name, John Clay) has grown up into a gunslinger and lawyer - don't laugh; recall Andrew Jackson (successful as lawyer and duelist; and not a bad tactician). J.C. (are the initials a coincidence ?) moves to Stiles' county seat, and takes on a group of independent cattle owners as clients in a lawsuit against Stiles. The county judge is an honest but timid man; and Stiles intimidates him from coming to the court house. Clay keeps to non-violent action, but safeguards the judge's passage into the courtroom with an armed force he has mustered. There, Stiles, represented by Brewster, has to sit in a civil trial aimed at voiding Stiles' water hole claims because they are public domain; and thus requiring re-payment of the exorbitant tolls he got from the independent cattle owners. The Court finds for Clay's clients on all counts, except that Stiles is entitled to Sweetwater (which Stiles homesteaded himself after killing Clay's parents). Brewster is fired by Stiles for losing the trial; paid off by Stiles (a "fair cut"); and later killed by Ash at Stiles' behest with recovery of Stiles' money.

Note that this result, besides being non-violent action (Clay employs defensive armed force to protect the judge), is not retribution for Clay or for his clients. It is restitution for the clients, but not for Clay (Clayborn). So, the movie still goes along with the moral sentiments of the 1930s political elites in eschewing revenge-retribution and substituting the idea of restitution. A more touchy-feely segment of today's political elite would require, in addition, reconciliation - with a truth and reconciliation committee facilitating "making nice" between Clay (Clayburn) and Stiles.

3. John Clay's Insurgency - Violent Action

Despite his losing of the legal trial, there is a inadequate legal system to enforce the Court's order, and even to prevent Stiles from using force. No longer able to control the other rancher's cattle by means of the watering holes, Stiles orders Ash and his men to gather all of their cattle by force ("rustle 'em"). To defeat Stiles and his men, Clay organizes the ranchers into a mass cattle drive that must stop in Sweetwater on its way to Abilene. When Stiles refuses access to Sweetwater, Clay (now revealing himself as John Clayborn) and the ranchers kill Stiles and Ash in somewhat the same fashion that Clayborn's parents were murdered years before.

But, before that happens, Clayburn offers Stiles the option of returning (with Ash) to the county seat to face trial for the murder of his parents. Stiles had set up an ambush of Clayburn, but Clayburn had set up a counter-ambush. Stiles decided it was better to live and fight from a fortified position, and waved off Ash and his ambushers.

So, in the end, Clayburn gets his personal revenge-retribution, but only because Stiles refused to take a chance on a murder trial - where a conviction in those days (19th century Texas) would have resulted in group revenge-retribution against the bad guys.

But, we have more. I've cast Clayburn in the insurgent's role to give viewers some mind exercise. Actually, he is the counter-insugent who employs the strategies and tactics of the insurgent. Stiles is the insurgent who takes over Sweetwater and the rest of the Pecos by Lawfare (Brewster) and Warfare (Ash). So, Clayburn responds by neutralizing (options are to kill, detain or convert) Stiles, Ash and his crew; Clayburn goes from non-violent to violent action, when necessary.

That kind of response spans John McCuen's spectrum - see thread for John McCuen, RIP. As Ken White points out in the thread, McCuen's principles work better in cities ! As Cavguy points out in his OP on McCuen:

(1) You must secure your urban centers. I agree with John McCuen that you don't uncover your semi-secure urban base to chase insurgents in the wild. The enemy wants you to do that so he can infiltrate and begin building the political and operational cells in the now-undermanned cities while you chase his bands in the bush, and then look back to find your cities on fire. ...

My 19th century morality play is addressed to the 21st century, but I don't expect its political elite to take notice.

Regards

Mike