Chapter 2
"Peyton Farquhar was a well-to-do planter, of an old and highly respected Alabama family. Being a slave owner and like other slave owners a politician he was naturally an original secessionist and ardently devoted to the Southern cause. Circumstances of an imperious nature, which it is unnecessary to relate here, had prevented him from taking service with the gallant army that had fought the disastrous campaigns ending with the fall of Corinth, and he chafed under the inglorious restraint, longing for the release of his energies, the larger life of the soldier, the opportunity for distinction. That opportunity, he felt, would come, as it comes to all in war time. Meanwhile he did what he could. No service was too humble for him to perform in aid of the South, no adventure too perilous for him to undertake if consistent with the character of a civilian who was at heart a soldier, and who in good faith and without too much qualification assented to at least a part of the frankly villainous dictum that all is fair in love and war."
Why couldn't Peyton Farquhar fight as a soldier if he had the ability and urge to perform other risky deeds (such as an attempt to sabotage the bridge) for the Southern cause?
Wow, I never thought about that! I know of people who have had bad feet (flat footed) and couldn't withstand all the walking combat involves. It could be as simple as that or more complex. I don't know maybe a conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteI just looked up the word "imperious" and I found out that it meant: assuming power or authority without justification; arrogant and domineering. So, maybe he couldn't enter the Confederate army because he wouldn't submit to authority. So again, it might be an attempt of satire against the South. Does that answer your question?
ReplyDeleteYeah, he could've had some kind of health problem, but that's a really good assumption Jonathan! I never thought to look up what the word meant :) He does seem like the type of guy who wants to take control into his own hands and be independent in his plan of action for bravery. So yes, I think that answers my question pretty well.
DeleteThat makes a lot of sense now! Good thinking Jonathan. Peyton's arrogance could very well have been a leading cause in why he tried to sabotage a bridge single handedly.
DeleteExcellent, Jonathan! I'm happy you looked that you looked up the definition of "Imperious." I did as well, because it is a clue! In my opinion, Farquhar's not being in the army DOES have something to do with the word "Imperious." But my take is a bit different than yours. I will share it in class!
DeleteI found another definition for "imperious" that says: domineering in a haughty manner; dictatorial; overbearing. Peyton was imperious, this means that he was arrogant and had a strong will that he arrogantly put above everyone else's. This other definition is similar to the one I posted earlier, but it is a little deeper than the other.
DeleteThe definition of "imperious" definitely reveals a lot of information I didn't comprehend right away. It didn't make sense that he would perform such a brave but dangerous deed by himself without the aid of an army to back him up or lay out a plan. It seems like no one would even know of the life he sacrificed for the cause besides his family and the enemy, but they must've since he desired the glory. Maybe with his strong will and pride in the high standards he set for himself, he believed he could gain more glory or be more successful independently.
DeleteOr he just doesn't work well with authority, but he still wanted to accomplish a significant deed for his country.
DeleteGood insights Carli!
Delete