The producer changed some of the information from the real story just to have some dramatic twist to the movie. British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton (William Tavington - the main villain - in the movie) had never burned the church in any state or form. There is no evidence that shows that any of the British soldiers or even Tarleton himself had ordered to burn or burned any church. Burning the church had not happen till World War II “when Nazi soldiers burned a group of French villagers alive” (Did the Brits Burn Churches). But Tarleton would order his troops to set the plantations of the civilians on fire thus they can not provide food not only for the soldiers who were fighting up front but also for themselves to stay alive. The British did not cared if there were any people in the houses or not; they would just burned them with the farms and houses. Because of his brutal and stiff personality, Banastre Tarleton was known as …show more content…
Occam, the black guy, who was fighting for U.S. in South Carolina just because he got putted in the war by his owner since the owner was too old to fight but it turned out to be a good thing for him since he heard that “many slaves were granted their freedom if they agreed to fight for the American cause” (The Impact of Slavery). Wars are never good but in this case, slaves did got something good out of it if and only if they stayed alive till the end of the war. But, again, it was not good for the black men who were owned by or worked for the owner whose houses and plantations were burned by British troops. Those black men, even if they were freedmen, had to go fight against America if not then they get