Abolitionism in the colonies and in the New World started a long time before the revolution. First it was a religious movement that gained momentum, and then it grew into a political movement over many, many decades.
So I don't agree that it was totally unrealistic for a slave holder to voluntarily set his slaves free even if it only had religious or moral justification. However the patriot had personal reasons for doing it and historical precedent in America just happened to agree. Even though he wasn't an outwardly religious person, it illustrated the high moral fiber of the hero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism[/quote]
I never said that abolitionism didn't exist during that time, but it was at best exceedingly rare for a gentleman in South Carolina to free all of his slaves and pay a wage to them. Even many who harbored such sentiments maintained slaves for social and economic reasons. However, we see no mention that Martin is an actual abolitionist with the possible exception of having a slave sign for enlistment.
We also never see a reasoning for him to be an abolitionist. There's no discussion of why he feels that way despite the majority of his neighbors feeling differently. For that reason alone, it makes it pretty clear that they chose for him to be without slaves for marketing reasons. That's not a criticism either, as a discussion of slavery would have been a theme best left out of the film.
And there were other plausible, logical reasons that were part of the story line justifying why the patriot might have decided to set his slaves free. The hero had a lot of emotional baggage going on at the time and his decision made a lot of sense.
It may not have been a popular thing to do, but it certainly was a plausible action considering the entire story line.
He considered other people to be more important than money, and revenge/waging war more important than his own personal well being. He was an emotional character that made more than one emotional decision during the film. But he took care of his own and voluntarily sacrificed everything that he had.
Did we watch the same movie? I ask because while I agree that there were some indications that he had dealt with the horrors of war, this wasn't a man who was showing a lot of signs of emotional baggage. All in all, he was pretty well adjusted. In film, you have to show that someone is having problems. Alcoholism, nightmares, flashbacks, or any number of other devices could have been employed, yet they weren't. The closest you see is the haunted look in his eyes as he discusses the action at Ft. Wilderness. That's a far cry from being saddled with "emotional baggage".
The character of Benjamin Martin, as a person, wasn't the problem in any way however. He did bad things during the F&I War and had to live with it, which he seemed to do pretty well considering. He was apparently a good father, and had to be even more of one with the loss of his wife.
However, no amount of nuance to a character can erase a behavior that makes no sense within the context of that character without some serious allusions to motive. There isn't any. That makes it clear that the decision wasn't based on "That's what Benjamin Martin would have done", but instead was based on making sure the character was likable to the broadest audience possible. Again, not a poor decision as today's audience don't have a fondness for slavery (quite thankfully). I'd have made a similar decision, though not the exact same, if I were telling that story.
