MovieChat Forums > Roots (2016) Discussion > Inaccurate.

Inaccurate.

posted 8 years ago by cormac-seamus
19 replies | jump to latest

There is no way that an Irish person in the late 17th century had their own freedom, as they were also slaves. The use of an Irishman as an enforcer in the first episode was offensive and not accurate .

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

Downright embarrassingly uneducated fail.

You might want to read up on the LEGAL differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery. As in, it was very specifically codified in the courts that so-called white people were not LEGALLY allowed to be made full-on slaves. Filthy and dangerous labor? Yes. Slaves? Never.

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste." -- slogan for the UNCF

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] cormac-seamus 8 years ago

Sorry mate, you need to brush up on your history. Which is quite obviously lacking in your reply. From the 16 century up until the end of the17th it was predominately Irish, English and Scottish slaves who worked the plantations. Only the english slaves were indentured. The numbers drastically reduced once Black slaves were brought in from Africa . Some of them were indetured. Most famous was Anthony Johnson who called his plantation Angola. The First legal case of lifetime slavery was John casor. One of Mr Johnson's slaves. Thats a free history lesson mate . Feel free to reply ,if you want more information. History has a habit of turning up uncomfortable truths . Finally, Ireland had a third if it's population sold into slavery not indentured .

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

The First legal case of lifetime slavery was John casor.

First, what year was Mr. Casor's case? Because by your own admission that was "THE first legal case of lifetime slavery". And along with that, what legal "color" requirement was then attached to ALL subsequent individuals who were legally changed from indentured servants to chattel slaves from that point? And best of all... What necessitated such a specific LEGAL requirement at all? (Because it sure as hell wasn't in any way a provable scientific distinction!) So, why specifically LEGALLY codify color with regard to lifetime and multi-generational enslavement in the first place, when there had previously been no need for any type of specific color provision regarding indentured servants, if as you believe "slaves" had previously been "Irish, English and Scottish" up until then?

At best, you're confusing the history of America's rather unique and sudden transition from indentured servitude to full-on chattel slavery, with the immense greedfest in the Caribbean that actually preceded and inspired it. Which is still a bit problematic. Because this miniseries (and also it's predecessor) is generally centered around slavery practices in America only. And in particular, the generational effects of that slavery on one particular American family. Thus rendering your "history lesson" about so-called white slavery in the Caribbean (At least, I hope. Otherwise, you're waaaaay off.) both irrelevant and odd.

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] cormac-seamus 8 years ago

I am afraid you are missing the point here. African slaves unfortunately were not the first. In fact european slaves were there < not indentured> before african slaves arrived. They consisted of Irish, scottish and English. African slaves were expensive and european slaves were expendable.

To answer your question John casors case was in the earlier 1650s and he was an indentured slave, who argued that anthony johnson had kept him beyond his time owing. 1619, was the first recorded case of african indentured slaves arriving in the US and they numbered 20.Anthony Johnson was one of them. The white lion was the name of the ship they arrived on. sir george yeardley and Abraham Piresey were the main culprits. They predominately owned white slaves Early africans were indutered not lifelong. That unfortunately changed as the century wore on as the planters had learned from the carribean that african slaves, would last longer in the conditions that they toiled. As you refered to in your post.

In Virginia for example at the beginning of the 17th century the ratio was 20 to 1 white to african slaves. As the century wore on that changed to 3 to 1. 6000 white and two thousand african slaves By the end of the century 1698 the numbers coming were almost 50-50. To reapeat here, they learned from the carribean.

However, I was correct in stating that irish people at that time would not have been free. You have to understand british history here. A third of the population was sold into slavery. That was british policy at the time to get their colonies up and running both in thhe US and the carribean. When american independence was estblished the British,sent their white slaves to Australia, which indirectly led to the birth of Australia.

Finally, no I was not getting confused with the carribean. I am well aware of what went on in that area. Unfortunately,as you stated earler it inspired the planters in the US.

Again, Like I stated earlier history has a habit of turning up uncomfortable truths.

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

Likewise, I am quite aware that many of the same techniques that were eventually used to subdue and subjugate the Africans, were perfected centuries before on the Irish. So I am in no way attempting to whitewash the brutalities endured by the Irish at the hands of the British. The events surrounding the Potato Famine alone are clearly what we would now describe as crimes against humanity.

But you seem to keep conveniently passing over one rather large question. In the process of going from indenture to full-on slavery, race very, very suddenly became of paramount importance. And it was most definitely NOT predicated on the abilities of the Africans to endure the heat and heavy workloads better than the Irish. Because it is very telling that a couple of the very first race-based statutes placed on the books, around the time of the Casor case, was to very specifically forbid white females from marrying non-white males. And also, to forbid non-whites from possessing weapons. THAT is in no way task related. That is unmistakably a first glimpse at the very beginning steps of what would methodically become fully institutionalized white supremacy. If it had simply been a matter of greed, there would have been no "official" need to make such a distinction.

So again, while the British crimes against the Irish were absolutely massively evil in their own right, the Irish were nevertheless conspicuously excluded from being LEGALLY declared and brutalized as multi-generational chattel for 200 years, and further tortured under a system of LEGAL apartheid for another 100 after that. So, while the conditions the Irish endured were absolutely brutal and often unquestionably inhumane, they were never "officially" declared to be animals "in the eyes of the law". And thus, given sanction to be treated as absolute animals by literally every member of society for 15 generations. So it generally goes without saying that, that fundamental distinction is unfathomably huge and important to this discussion!

So, I'll repeat it to you again. If history has now shown (particularly as a result of the 100 years that followed slavery, called "Jim Crow") that the fraud of race was injected into the equation for reasons other than "just" physical endurance, then what made it so important to almost immediately LEGALLY distinguish them as being even far below the Irish? Who, to that point, had been living their own version of hell on Earth themselves.

Until we get at the very heart of that most fundamental of all questions, everything else is mostly just smoke and mirrors! Because LEGALIZED white supremacy has been a very unparalleled evil, and very real thing for 350 years now. And we accomplish nothing of substance until we finally begin the process of getting to the bottom of why even the Irish were invited into the "club".

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] cormac-seamus 8 years ago

""So again, while the British crimes against the Irish were absolutely massively evil in their own right, the Irish were nevertheless conspicuously excluded from being LEGALLY declared and brutalized as multi-generational chattel for 200 years, and further tortured under a system of LEGAL apartheid for another 100 after that. So, while the conditions the Irish endured were absolutely brutal and often unquestionably inhumane, they were never "officially" declared to be animals "in the eyes of the law". And thus, given sanction to be treated as absolute animals by literally every member of society for 15 generations. So it generally goes without saying that, that fundamental distinction is unfathomably huge and important to this discussion!''

There is so many holes in that post. I would be here all night. You have obviously not read my post. Just went off on a baseless rant. I hate slavery and waht it did, however, I will not stand by and listen to people claiming that Irish people did not suffer from it. Thats callled denial.

Also your second paragarph is completely false. The casor case, at that time african slaves were to few to have laws like you mentioned in place. That would have come more near the end of that century.

Finally, I am like everybody else have an intense hatred of the slave trade and the damge it caused whether you are Black or white. But dont deny, the fact that others suffered to. Unfortunately, the Africans were the last and hopefully, it will never happen again.

'

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

I think I know which amateur histories you're regurgitating your information from. And it's bogus.

First, you might want to do a quick Google search of "anti-miscegenation laws". Apparently, the starting dates that will IMMEDIATELY pop up will be quite a surprise to you. Your primary source of information is apparently off by almost 100 years.

And lastly, if the original "slaves" were, as you say, all white, why would the powers that be have a necessity to later convert THAT "universally white" "slavery" system to one of far more expensive indentured servitude (which is actually their exclusive title in every "legitimate" history book in America), and then convert AGAIN back to a system of chattel slavery, with exclusively Africans after that. The logic of such a scenario makes absolutely no sense. From 100 years as supposedly the exclusive source of colonial slave labor...to just a few decades as indentured servants, side-by-side with Africans...to suddenly massively violent owners of African slaves themselves. The foundational logic of your entire conjecture makes absolutely no sense, either economically or politically. In fact, the best example I can offer you to try and bring you out of this apparent hypnotic state is a thing called "Bacon's Rebellion". The dates, demographics (especially) and subsequent direct political ramifications from that particular episode render this entire debate sad. Bacon's Rebellion is THE Achilles heel of your entire bizarro-world logic.

The Irish were absolutely treated "like animals" for hundreds of years! That is utterly indisputable. BUT, they were never LEGALLY declared to be. The LEGAL manipulations in Ireland that the British enacted regarding jobs and land are absolutely unjustifiable cruelty. And are also directly responsible for millions of Irish deaths. Again, indisputable. But in no uncertain terms, they NEVER went so far as to LEGALLY declare them to be nonhuman. Lower class, and thus worthy of all manner of vile, inferior class treatment...yes. Undeniably. Nonhuman...no. Were they often treated as such? A lot! BUT...were they ever "officially" stripped of that most fundamental of human rights? No.

So ultimately, what you end up doing is unintentionally (at least one would hope) diluting and distorting the responsibility of the real perpetrators when you try to add embellishments to this history. So, in many respects, even though the Irish were regularly treated as "less valuable" than even the Africans themselves, they still were never LEGALLY declared to be. And no amount of historical contortions and lies will ever erase that singular distinction. They NEVER ceased to "officially" be human! Despite literally millions of examples that very much appeared to show otherwise. Yes, the Irish were victimized in a million hideous and inconceivable ways (indentured servitude itself was a regularly crippling and/or fatal undertaking). Just not in THAT way. Victimization is not a contest.

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] cormac-seamus 8 years ago

Just not in THAT way. Victimization is not a contest. To use your own words here, that is what you are doing. You are in complete denial on this subject, African slaves were not the first set of slaves in the US and there is plenty of documented evidence to support that. You are calling it bogus. Thats called denial.

<The Irish were absolutely treated "like animals" for hundreds of years! That is utterly indisputable. BUT, they were never LEGALLY declared to be. The LEGAL manipulations in Ireland that the British enacted regarding jobs and land are absolutely unjustifiable cruelty. And are also directly responsible for millions of Irish deaths. Again, indisputable. But in no uncertain terms, they NEVER went so far as to LEGALLY declare them to be nonhuman. Lower class, and thus worthy of all manner of vile, inferior class treatment...yes. Undeniably. Nonhuman...no. Were they often treated as such? A lot! BUT...were they ever "officially" stripped of that most fundamental of human rights? >

I suggest quite strongly here that you study British history a bit better as the US was a former british colony. They built those colonies off the back of slaves and unfortunately african slaves were the last and unfortunately it is what history remembers. No one one doubts the africans were treated appalingly and in some are still being treated badly today.

<And lastly, if the original "slaves" were, as you say, all white, why would the powers that be have a necessity to later convert THAT "universally white" "slavery" system to one of far more expensive indentured servitude (which is actually their exclusive title in every "legitimate" history book in America), and then convert AGAIN back to a system of chattel slavery, with exclusively Africans after that>

Obviously, you have not read my post.It is clear here, you cant accept that white slaves existed and that is a shame. Furthermore, that paragraph tells me, you are not up to full speed on waht happened in the carribean. On why it moved from white <irish ,scottish and the english slaves> to black slaves. I have already covered this in an early post. Go and have a look at Rhianna lineage. You will find that her great grandafther was an irish slave. They were called redlegs in the carribean and were bottom of the ladder in terms of social standing.

Finally, adrressing your last paragraph. This is not a competition to see who was treated the worst. Slavery is abhorent and shows the dark side of man. Remember, and not so long ago there was signs up in both the US and in England NO BLACKS, NO DOGS AND NO IRISH NEED APPLY. ''They never ceased to be human''I suggest you study a bit of Irish history here. The famine for a start was not the first in history and it was incorrectly called the potato famine. There was food, however they had a policy of genocide in the country and the food that was there went to the colonies and people were left to die. So what was that quote of yours again They never ceased to be human ????.

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

You don't like that word "LEGALLY" do you??? And you also keep repeatedly pretending you don't see the things I'm writing about very specific mid 1600's dates, as they pertain to the early genesis of the fraudulent concept of race. WHY? Because they define the key fundamental LEGAL and societal differences in attitude between "multiracial" indentured servitude and "black" chattel slavery. So, you just keep right on endlessly pretending I'm not mentioning them, over and over. In fact, at the very least, one would expect enough of an acknowledgement for you to try and dispute the dates themselves. But, instead you just pretend you don't see any of it, and keep right on ranting.

Now, once again, there's a very precise reason why I keep pointing out that very exact distinction. It's because it's all part of a dark, demonic, still violent, still present, umbrella called institutionalized white supremacy. Key word, "institutionalized". That permeates virtually every minuscule aspect of the last 350 years of American society. And...that places a fundamental distinction on how the Africans (and their progeny) were treated, and REQUIRED to be thought of, by EVERYONE. (Even 100 years AFTER the abolition of slavery!) Including even the Irish themselves. ONCE AGAIN...the Irish history with the British is absolutely inconceivably atrocious and criminal! But when the smoke cleared, no matter how brutally they were treated by the British, they were never "officially" declared NONHUMAN. Including ALL the ensuing generations that they would theoretically ever give birth to being declared chattel from the moment of birth as well. Again, theoretically FOREVER! AND...they were LEGALLY considered ABOVE the Africans. Meaning, no matter how badly they were treated, they still had at least minimal legal rights that the Africans did not possess. So your example of historical signs is strictly anecdotal. Because only one group was legally REQUIRED to be treated that way. And only one group could get a so-called white person LEGALLY prosecuted for violating THE LAW for treating them as actual humans. Only one.

Clearly it's very personal to you to try and make people acknowledge the astronomical suffering of the Irish, in the same way that they do that of the Africans. But for just about the last time, they are two very, very different examples. Primarily based on the ramifications of one group being legally declared nonhuman, and one group not. And secondarily, based on the still very race-specific (just much more covert) violence that is being perpetrated against the descendants of those Africans to this day.

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] cormac-seamus 8 years ago

<You don't like that word "LEGALLY" do you??? And you also keep repeatedly pretending you don't see the things I'm writing about very specific mid 1600's dates, as they pertain to the early genesis of the fraudulent concept of race. WHY? Because they define the key fundamental LEGAL and societal differences in attitude between "multiracial" indentured servitude and "black" chattel slavery. So, you just keep right on endlessly pretending I'm not mentioning them, over and over. In fact, at the very least, one would expect enough of an acknowledgement for you to try and dispute the dates themselves. But, instead you just pretend you don't see any of it, and keep right on ranting.>

Making it law, efffectivly meant they were now the legal property of their owners. A practice that had already been in place befrore african slaves arrived in large numbers. Differnce this time it was now law. massachussets being the first stae I believe. "multiracial" indentured servitude and "black" chattel slavery. according to you, it was only the africans that served life time slavery. You are clearly biased and prejudiced in your views here. I have altready stated times and dates. I have provided stats of what was coming in and the stats for the end of the 1600s. You have dismissed it as false and bogus. As for ranting maybe visit some of your own posts mate.

I will concede, that african americans before and since the abolition of slavery are still suffering and have suffered some unspeakable horrific injustices that were inhumane to the extreme. Finally while not trying to dismiss the unspeakable sufferings of the african slave. African slaves suffered because of their skin colour. Irish slaves suffered because of A their nationality and B. their religion and were seen as expenadble. And last of all, yourlast paragraph we are going to have to agree to disagree on that. A slave in my opinion, is considered non human whether it is law or not.

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

A slave in my opinion, is considered non human whether it is law or not.

That PERFECTLY sums up the fundamental difference in just about everything we are each writing here. I'm not giving you "my opinion". I'm giving you indisputably specific historical (and provable) dates and events. Along with the actual, easily verifiable, legal manipulations that directly justified and resulted in those events. Meaning, long-accepted, provable, historical TRUTH. NOT opinions. And especially, not regurgitated information from clearly emotionally invested and non-credentialed amateur historians, that is quite easily disprovable.

So, in absolutely no uncertain terms, it was precisely due to British Law that they were able to do such inconceivably hideous things to the Irish for hundreds of years. And likewise, it was a variation of that same British Law that enabled the colonists to do EVEN WORSE to those Africans. By legally going one unfathomably Godless step further, and officially declaring the Africans nonhuman. Thus, for the first time in human history, making their endless torture and dehumanization a literal round-the-clock civic duty for everyone. So, again, without that very specific legal justification from within the courts, neither of these "crimes against humanity" would have had the necessary infrastructure to carry them out so brutally, on such a massive scale, and for so many centuries.

So, quite literally, your use of that final phrase, "whether it is law or not" is the single most willfully ignorant thing you've said in all your rambling to this point. Because it is fundamentally codifying it all into far reaching laws that gives the necessary justification for following through on those seemingly random, evil, disorganized and abstract thoughts of racial and religious subjugation and domination.

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] cormac-seamus 8 years ago

<I'm giving you indisputably specific historical (and provable) dates and events. Along with the actual, easily verifiable, legal manipulations that directly justified and resulted in those events. Meaning, long-accepted, provable, historical TRUTH. NOT opinions. And especially, not regurgitated information from clearly emotionally invested and non-credentialed amateur historians, that is quite easily disprovable.> Take your blinkers off.

Aah first of all I was the one that provided facts, dates and names of those involved. You have done noting but only try and refute my post as wrong and bogus. You are biased and prejudiced. I empathise entirely, with the suffering of afriacn slavery. However, History has a habit of turning up uncomfortable truths and I am afraid you are uncomfortable with some basic historical facts. 1619- The White Lion, Anthony Johnson, John Casor. Stats for the beginning and the end of the 17th century overwhelmingly point to the fact white slaves from Ireland, England and scotland existed in the US before African slaves arrived in large numbers from the 18th century onwards.

All through history,Slaves have always been seen as property. Therefore non human. You through your blinkered lens struggle with that fact. There is plenty of documented evidence to support that. In the uk, slave owners saw their slaves as property and wrote begging letters to the commision that was set up after the abolition of slavery. Property was the most widely used word not human beings They were in the same category as sheep and cattle. They went one step further with african slaves in the US and made it law to justif their barbaric practice.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

I have provided you with a link, so you can brush up on the slave trade that supported the British Empire and paid for the industrial revolution in England. Slave owners were compensated to the tune of billions and it took 12 years before it officially became illegal.

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

Thanks for playing, but I'd say we're just about done here. Because every single legitimate history book in the Western world refutes your clearly untouchable NEED to believe that the Irish were in fact slaves instead of their universally accepted role as indentured servants. Regardless of my attempts to point you to quick and easily accessible information regarding the statutes in American colonial law that implicitly forbid all whites from ever being placed in such a role. In fact, a simple sixty second search of Google is pretty much all it would take a rational person to find such information. But none of that is of the slightest interest to you, because clearly "you simply just know it". And no matter how massive the amount of contradicting evidence, NOTHING is ever going to change your mind.

But it was really the part about "...Whether it is law or not..." that was pretty much the final nail in ending this particular "discussion". Because it signifies you taking blind, self-destructive pride in your ignorance. And that, I'm afraid, is above my pay grade.

So, I'm afraid it's now time for me to finally leave you to your own private racial demons.

Good luck in that strange crusade, against 350 years of the collected and accepted beliefs of the entire Western world, regarding the apparent "hidden" truth about slavery's "far more numerous, yet overlooked" victims. Along with your steadfast belief that despite all the millions and millions of textbooks, tenured history educators, libraries, and now endless internet entries, in that entire time, that all endlessly contradict your beliefs, nonetheless you're somehow one of the only people on Earth that actually understands the "real" history of whites as both indentured servants AND chattel slavery correctly. And lastly, with your clearly disproportionately passionate need for the world to acknowledge the symbolic(?) debt that's apparently still collectively owed to the Irish for 200(?) years of unbroken and (apparently unbeknownst to almost everyone) also entirely unpaid, forced enslavement. Far beyond that of even the Africans themselves.

No...that doesn't sound crazy at all...

Uhhhhh...bye now.

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] cormac-seamus 8 years ago

Good luck, cant deal with facts. You are just another revionist. Biased and prejudiced. I suggest you study British history a bit better.You were not the first slaves in the US but you were the last. 350 years compared to 800 years of British oppression. Slain leat.

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

Biased and prejudiced.

Cool story. If only, for example, the UK hadn't ever-so-stealthily changed their immigration laws in 1968, for the purpose of preserving white supremacy, your "reverse-racism" type accusations would have at least a minimal basis in lived reality. But alas, they did. And as a result, the real truth gradually gets harder and harder to hide from. The real truth of why there was a necessity to do such a thing in the first place.

Unfortunately, the continuing existence of legally sanctioned white supremacy betrays every ounce of everything you think you believe know race. Both past and present. Because, the now-covert, but still immense violence necessary to continue trying to perpetuate that white supremacy is now probably the single greatest threat to stability in the entire world.

So, in actuality, your entire obsession here with the question of whether the Irish were or weren't actually slaves 300 years ago should just about be the least of your concerns in our fast changing and explosive racial climate. Because 500 years of seemingly endless and immense worldwide violence, perpetrated in the name of white supremacy, is now quietly generating a more and more powerful (and potentially just as violent) backlash against that original system's current benefactors. Making single-minded and oblivious people like you pitifully obvious targets for their pent-up anger. So, no matter how hard you try to deflect and minimize the truth about the last 500 years of white supremacy, and mentally contort yourself into believing that it has long-since ended (and that it's apparently all about class now), that fantasy is pretty much not working at all for people of color. There are now 6 billion quite angry nonwhite people on this planet, that blindly arrogant people like you might want to finally shut up and actually start listening to. The price tag for not listening to them is getting potentially higher everyday.

In fact, loosely speaking, this so-called "discussion" of ours is a microcosm of the overall dynamic I'm describing here. With the fundamental difference being that your very life could ultimately end up depending on you finally pulling your head out for once and actually listening to real the truth about the now mostly subtle and covert violence that still defines their everyday lives. OR...you can keep right on being totally oblivious, in this more and more diverse world, and preaching endlessly to those millions of people absolutely fed up to the hilt with white supremacy about their need to acknowledge that there were "Irish slaves" 300 years ago. In which case they'll probably then be more than willing to instead quite personally show you precisely what that cycle of endless racial violence feels like. The choice is yours.

I very much know which outcome I'm betting on.

Good luck. You're gonna need lots of it.

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] Cotteeskid 8 years ago

Where did you get this idea that the British sent slaves to Australia?
What was sent to Australia were prisoners (convicts) with set prison lengths and imprisoned by the judicial system, although significantly more harsh than was deserved eg. steal a loaf of bread to feed your family, be imprisoned for years.
they were not slaves unless you alone have redifined the meaning.

[–] junocreate 8 years ago

Just to agree with Cotteeskid and reinforce the point, the people sent to Australia were convicts, and they also were not just Irish. I have three convict ancestors, one of whom was an Irish political prisoner caught up in a failed rebellion, another was a petty thief from Norfolk, England, and the other was a Romany Gypsy girl, sentenced in 1794 to 7 years transportation to Australia. She was six-months pregnant when caught stealing a dress. Convicted and put on a transport ship immediately, she had her baby off the West Coast of Africa. Both she and the baby survived and thrived once they got to Australia.

So one thing you can say about the British treatment of its convicts is that they were not just limited to maltreating the Irish. The main focus of this British policy was the poor, any nationality or race of poor people.

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 8 years ago

You're simply and completely wrong.

First off, there were no Irish or British slaves in the Americas (well except for some who were enslaved by Native Americans). What you're thinking of are indentured servants. These people were absolutely NOT slaves in any way shape or form.

By the time Kunta Kinte comes to America however, in the decades before the Revolution, slaves had been the dominant labor force on Southern plantations for generations.

Furthermore, the existence of Irish indentured servants did not mean that Irishmen could not also be wealthy landowners, as some were.

In particular, Tom Lea only comes into the picture around maybe the beginning of the 19th century. At this point there were essentially no indentured servants working on plantations in the United States.

Tom Lea in particular is a fairly believable representation of the majority of slave owners. Your average slave owner was not a big plantation owner like Kunta's owner was. Instead they were a small farmer or business owner who owned one to five slaves. What we see in Tom Lea is a fairly common form of slave owning in the South, although his specific circumstances are a bit unusual. There were a lot of people who, through hard work and luck, were able to make a success of themselves and then invest their money in a slave or two. Tom Lea is unusual in that he apparently makes his money through cockfighting rather than a more usual professional occupation, but his status as a small time slave owner was very accurate and realistic. He actually seems like he's going on his way to the big time when we leave him. It's not clear how many slaves he owns. We only really see three adult slaves at the time of the Nat Turner rebellion (Kizzy, Mingo, and Chicken George) but he references others.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] mythbustfan 8 years ago

Uh this story starts in the mid 18th century to the end of the Civil War circa 1866 or so, the mid 19th century

The 17th century isn't mentioned

name the movie or tv quote
SQUEAL! Squeal like a little piggy poo (Note: not Deliverance)