SPOILERS Near the end of the film, leo's character threatens to kill broomhilda unless shultz pay $12,000. Was it ok for a master to kill his slave back then for nor reason? Assuming the slave didn't rebel or runaway or any such criminal acts, could a slave owner in 1858 kill his slave just because he wanted to?
I'm pretty sure they could. Back then, slaves were seen as property basically, so they could what they want. People were against slavery or that simply frowned upon slavery didn't like when slave owners did that, but they didn't like that fact that they had slaves at all. Of course, that's just what I'm thinking it was, regardless of how inhumane the idea is and how much you would hope it wasn't like that.
Was it ok for a master to kill his slave back then for nor reason? Assuming the slave didn't rebel or runaway or any such criminal acts,
Would it matter? I mean, on a giant ranch like that who was to say that she didn't rebel or run away. It would be Candie's word against anyone else (who all work for him anyway). So legally or not, he would have gotten away with murder.
