Why talk about age? I do think the age differences between the characters are significant. The age differences between the three of them almost gives us three generations of a “family”. Although Groot is only fourteen years older than Dunson and therefore not quite old enough to be his father, Dunson is quite old enough to be Matt’s father. But there are other very interesting interpretations of the age differences which I will discuss later. For now, just keep their ages in mind.

Another thing to keep in mind, or in sight, is that bracelet. It has moved again. First Tom gave it to his girlfriend in what was all but a proposal of marriage, next we saw it on the wrist of the Comanche warrior who probably murdered Tom’s fiancée to get it, and then it went back to Tom after he kills the warrior.
Pause…

Some days into the drive, the men are relaxing after work and someone asks Cherry why he joined the drive. Cherry answers that he joined, “…because Matt turned me down…made me want to go” and he insolently adds, “Besides, I’ve taken a liking to that gun of his!” Groot snorts, “Fat chance you have of getting that, Bub!”

But this scene reminds us again of the rivalry between these two very dangerous young gunslingers. Suddenly the conversation becomes serious when Matt reminds them all that the situation at home is desperate. If they can’t make the cattle drive, the entire economy of Texas may not survive. People may starve! But Cherry then asks, if the drive is so important, why they are taking the difficult way to Missouri when there is an easier way to Kansas? Tom questions Cherry about whether there is a railroad in Abilene, but Cherry cannot say for certain. Tom isn’t interested in more discussion and says “I’ll sell my beef in Missouri” and when Groot tries to speak Tom rudely interrupts him and says he didn’t ask for his opinion. Groot answers “No, you didn’t, Mr. Dunson”.

What is wrong with this? After all, it is Tom’s herd and he is the boss, right? Except that we remember that at the beginning of the film Tom and Groot were equal partners and called each other by their first names. Groot still calls him “Tom” most of the time, but he calls him “Mr. Dunson” when Tom is acting like “the boss”. By the way, this is a clear example of how more formal language creates distance between speakers. By calling him “Mr. Dunson”, Groot is not only creating distance (or really acknowledging that Tom has put distance between them by telling him he didn’t ask for his opinion), but he is also showing his disapproval. This is something parents do with children and teachers do with students. If your Mother always calls you “Tom” and suddenly calls you “Thomas” you know you are in trouble. If your teacher has called you “Jeffrey” and suddenly says “Mr. Tarlofsky!”, you know you are in trouble. I was such a little brat when I was ten years old that when the teacher called me “Mr. Tarlofsky” I said, “My friends call me Jeffrey, but in your case, you can call me Mr. Tarlofsky”. I was being an insolent brat! But, I was also showing that I was aware of the socio-linguistic game she was playing and I could play the game better than she could. She really hated me after that, though.

We see that Dunson denies the men any time off for even something as simple as taking a bath. But it must be said that while he drives his men hard, he drives himself still harder.

What changes everything on the cattle drive, however, is the stampede caused by the sugar stealing cowboy, Bob Canale (not Kennedy). We have twice seen Groot scold this man for stealing sugar, but the third time he does it he accidentally knocks over the pots and pans causing the cattle to panic and stampede.

Of all the dangers and inconveniences cowboys faced on a cattle drive, the stampede was probably the worst. Stampedes usually happened at night and they often happened for no apparent reason. Cattle that were over tired, hungry or thirsty were more likely to stampede. Thunderstorms could easily trigger a stampede or, as we see in the film, a sudden noise. The way the cowboys stopped the stampede was to ride as fast as they could to the animals leading the stampede and shoot at their feet to try to force them to turn. They would continue to fire their guns in order to turn the lead cattle. Eventually they would get the whole herd turning in a huge circle and this would eventually bring them to a stop as they became too tired to run. Turning the herd into a circle also kept the herd from running off a cliff or into a river where they might drown.

First of all, if one party fails to meet their contractual obligations, the other party is no longer strictly bound to the conditions of the contract, either. So, for example, if Dunson agreed to pay the men every week and does not actually do so, he would be in breech of the contract and the men would not have to continue to work. That wasn’t the case. The contract stated that the men would only be paid if the herd made it to market and was sold. What this means is that the mens’ wages depend on the success of the project. And what this means is that they have just as much a stake in the success of the cattle drive as Dunson.

The contract would most likely also have stated that Dunson or his trail boss have the right to assign the men different jobs as they saw fit and the men would be required to obey their orders. However, there are certain implicit assumptions in the contract. One would be that since both parties have a stake in the outcome of the project, management, (the employer, Dunson ) would practice all “due diligence” in achieving that goal. In other words, willful mismanagement would violate the implicit terms of the contract. Moreover, while the men agreed in the contract to obey the orders of their employer, there is a clear limit to what an employer can order an employee to do. In the military, an officer may order his soldiers to risk their lives. But a labor contract does not give an employer the right to ask employees to risk their lives…and certainly not in an unreasonable way.

When the three cowboys say they will not continue the drive unless Dunson changes direction and heads for Kansas they are exercising their right to object: 1) to the mismanagement of the cattle drive under Dunson, and 2) to the unreasonable orders he is giving them to put their lives at risk by continuing on to Missouri.

When the men make their demands of Dunson they are essentially insisting on their rights as workers and the actual working conditions implied in the contract. However, Dunson insists that there can be no negotiation and that he is the only one permitted to interpret or enforce the terms of the contract. He then says to one of the men “I don’t want to kill you, Naylor” and the man simply replies “but what?”…and Dunson, Cherry and Matt kill all three men .

These killings are very close to the killing of the Mexican guard fifteen years earlier. In that situation the man had also insisted on the legal rights of his employer (Don Diego), but Dunson’s answer to his argument was to kill him. His answer to the three men demanding their legal rights is also to kill them. I would also point out that these killings are not done passionately. In both cases, Thomas Dunson kills without any excitement or passion. He kills for land the first time, he kills the second time because the men refuse to serve his business interests. In other words, Thomas Dunson kills for financial gain.

I think it is also fair to point out that the men who were killed were just ordinary cowboys, but Dunson, Matt and Cherry are all gunslingers. It would be hard to imagine a less fair fight than three cowboys facing three gunslingers.

This time Groot says it would be pointless to say anything to Dunson because he wouldn’t listen anyway. But the more serious rift seems to be with Matt. Matt tells Dunson directly that he is responsible for what happened. He says that he will still take Dunson’s orders, but Dunson can’t tell him what to think. This suggests to us that Matt may just be starting to think about not taking Dunson’s orders much longer.