This story actually presents a misunderstanding of what the Civil War's connection to slavery and has inaccuracies all throughout the first chapter.
1. First off the father fighting for the union and his property still having slaves does not make much sense.
Illinois was a Union state, meaning the father could not own slaves in Illinois. Since Texas was literally the only wild west state in the Confederacy, then his ranch had to be there.
The father would not have put his money into the Civil War without selling his ranch FIRST. Why? Because owning that land would have put him in massive debt before the war even really began. He would not have been able to get proceeds from his land since Texas was split from the United States during the war.
If the confederacy won, then his property in the South would've been seized. If the Union won his property would've also been seized. It makes no sense why he wouldn't sell the property before his son even went to war since it was a massive economic liability. In fact realistically the son would not be able to even obtain ownership of the ranch because all of its assets would've likely already been sold by the Confederacy before the war even ended since he was working for the union.
"DO YOU REALIZE WHAT VICTORY IN THIS WAR WOULD MEAN FOR OUR FAMILY'S STANDING?" This is what his father says. But it doesn't make much sense.
If he owned slaves in the South then it would've actually tarnished his families reputation. The Confederacy wanted to split from the United States due to the threat of Slavery being abolished (at which the south relied on slavery economically).
The South would've hated him because he threatened their economic stability by being on the Union's side. The Union wouldn't like him because the Confederacy was viewed as traitors. So because he owned property and slaves in the South that would've created massive conflict.
2. The son telling the slaves to go to their families is extremely unrealistic.
First off, because of the nature of slavery involved separating families (as said by a commenter here) they would likley not had a family to return to.
Then the cash the main character gave to them wouldn't have done JACK SHIT. After the Civil War, former slaves in the South would've struggled to own land or property. They would have had to travel to a northern state to probably be able to do anything with the money (which would've taken forever since they went on a carriage). And they were in serious danger if they traveled by themselves in the South because of former confederacy soilders and former slave owners.
And then even after slavery ended in the South, former slaves often stayed and worked on the land of former slave owners (sharecropping) because it provided them with shelter since they could not buy land and prevented them from being arrested or killed.
Everything else about the first chapter that I researched and from my own knowledge was actually pretty accurate BUT slavery. It's like the author put a lot of research into the Civil War but didn't look into chattel slavery to the same extent. It's like the author thought American slavery was forced labor when it was much, much, much more complex than that.
Perhaps they thought the main character would come off as a good guy by giving the former slaves money and sending them off. I guess their logic was they wanted to show that the main character wasn't evil like the rest of the southerners, so he let the former slaves off with money.
But like I explained earlier, those former slaves would've certainly died quickly and that was actually a reckless action from the main character, not heroic.
The only way I could see that working is if the main character actually arranged a safe passage for the slaves to make it up north (like the underground railroad). Doing that would've at the very least shown that they put some more consideration into the topic. Even then, there should have never been chattle slavery involved at all. The story could've easily taken place in the late 1800's to early 1900's instead.
And also it isn't just "fictional" because the effects of slavery last even now. For example, some of my own relatives who are still living had to work their families' cotton fields picking cotton well until the 1950s and 1960s in the South. And even now, segeration ended barley 60 years ago and it ended LESS than 40 years before I was born.
This is such as complex and nuanced topic that has to be treated with the upmost care. The author did not actually do a lot of research into slavery which causes problems since the ML was a former slave. It was not just a "master slave" kink thing because it involved actual dehumanization.
It's called chattle slavery for a reason. It wasn't just forced labor, slaves were viewed as less than human and treated like livestock.
This story actually presents a misunderstanding of what the Civil War's connection to slavery and has inaccuracies all throughout the first chapter.
1. First off the father fighting for the union and his property still having slaves does not make much sense.
Illinois was a Union state, meaning the father could not own slaves in Illinois. Since Texas was literally the only wild west state in the Confederacy, then his ranch had to be there.
The father would not have put his money into the Civil War without selling his ranch FIRST. Why? Because owning that land would have put him in massive debt before the war even really began. He would not have been able to get proceeds from his land since Texas was split from the United States during the war.
If the confederacy won, then his property in the South would've been seized. If the Union won his property would've also been seized. It makes no sense why he wouldn't sell the property before his son even went to war since it was a massive economic liability. In fact realistically the son would not be able to even obtain ownership of the ranch because all of its assets would've likely already been sold by the Confederacy before the war even ended since he was working for the union.
"DO YOU REALIZE WHAT VICTORY IN THIS WAR WOULD MEAN FOR OUR FAMILY'S STANDING?" This is what his father says. But it doesn't make much sense.
If he owned slaves in the South then it would've actually tarnished his families reputation. The Confederacy wanted to split from the United States due to the threat of Slavery being abolished (at which the south relied on slavery economically).
The South would've hated him because he threatened their economic stability by being on the Union's side. The Union wouldn't like him because the Confederacy was viewed as traitors. So because he owned property and slaves in the South that would've created massive conflict.
2. The son telling the slaves to go to their families is extremely unrealistic.
First off, because of the nature of slavery involved separating families (as said by a commenter here) they would likley not had a family to return to.
Then the cash the main character gave to them wouldn't have done JACK SHIT. After the Civil War, former slaves in the South would've struggled to own land or property. They would have had to travel to a northern state to probably be able to do anything with the money (which would've taken forever since they went on a carriage). And they were in serious danger if they traveled by themselves in the South because of former confederacy soilders and former slave owners.
And then even after slavery ended in the South, former slaves often stayed and worked on the land of former slave owners (sharecropping) because it provided them with shelter since they could not buy land and prevented them from being arrested or killed.
Everything else about the first chapter that I researched and from my own knowledge was actually pretty accurate BUT slavery. It's like the author put a lot of research into the Civil War but didn't look into chattel slavery to the same extent. It's like the author thought American slavery was forced labor when it was much, much, much more complex than that.
Perhaps they thought the main character would come off as a good guy by giving the former slaves money and sending them off. I guess their logic was they wanted to show that the main character wasn't evil like the rest of the southerners, so he let the former slaves off with money.
But like I explained earlier, those former slaves would've certainly died quickly and that was actually a reckless action from the main character, not heroic.
The only way I could see that working is if the main character actually arranged a safe passage for the slaves to make it up north (like the underground railroad). Doing that would've at the very least shown that they put some more consideration into the topic. Even then, there should have never been chattle slavery involved at all. The story could've easily taken place in the late 1800's to early 1900's instead.
And also it isn't just "fictional" because the effects of slavery last even now. For example, some of my own relatives who are still living had to work their families' cotton fields picking cotton well until the 1950s and 1960s in the South. And even now, segeration ended barley 60 years ago and it ended LESS than 40 years before I was born.
This is such as complex and nuanced topic that has to be treated with the upmost care. The author did not actually do a lot of research into slavery which causes problems since the ML was a former slave. It was not just a "master slave" kink thing because it involved actual dehumanization.
It's called chattle slavery for a reason. It wasn't just forced labor, slaves were viewed as less than human and treated like livestock.