I really, really wanted to like this series. Finally, an acknowledgment of a legendary Western lawman who was arguably far more successful than the better known Wyatt Earp or Bat Masterson, plus he was a former slave, with a terrific actor (Daniel Oyelowo) cast as the lead. While somewhat disappointed, I would nevertheless still recommend the series to anyone who knows little or nothing about Bass Reeves. It's worth watching even with its flaws.
Since not much is known about Reeves' life as a slave, the writers were free to let their imaginations roam. Why they chose to portray Reeves as a slave who shot and killed Union soldiers during the Civil War is beyond comprehension. Was it an attempt to show Reeves as a man of honor who felt he had a moral obligation to serve his master? That would require us to believe Reeves thought his own slavery was morally correct. Was it an attempt to appeal to White Southern viewers who still believe in the Lost Cause of the fallaciously named War of Northern Aggression? Or viewers who believe that slaves willingly fought on behalf of the Confederacy? To be clear, the latter view is nonsensical. While there are written eyewitness accounts of Black men seen among Confederate soldiers during battle, the simpler explanation is that many Confederate officers were slaveowners who brought along a slave to perform as their man-servants. The notion that a slave would willingly kill a man fighting to defeat slavery is ludicrous.
There are other nonsensical minor details that are noted by other reviewers (Reeves runs away from his owner, taking a horse but not any shoes, leading to later agony? While still barefoot, he kills two probable slave catchers but he doesn't take their shoes? His cap-and-ball revolver works perfectly after being submerged in a river?). Meh, while annoying, these are mere nits. So suspend your disbelief because in the larger context, it's worth watching to learn more about a man who should be known as a Western legend.
Since not much is known about Reeves' life as a slave, the writers were free to let their imaginations roam. Why they chose to portray Reeves as a slave who shot and killed Union soldiers during the Civil War is beyond comprehension. Was it an attempt to show Reeves as a man of honor who felt he had a moral obligation to serve his master? That would require us to believe Reeves thought his own slavery was morally correct. Was it an attempt to appeal to White Southern viewers who still believe in the Lost Cause of the fallaciously named War of Northern Aggression? Or viewers who believe that slaves willingly fought on behalf of the Confederacy? To be clear, the latter view is nonsensical. While there are written eyewitness accounts of Black men seen among Confederate soldiers during battle, the simpler explanation is that many Confederate officers were slaveowners who brought along a slave to perform as their man-servants. The notion that a slave would willingly kill a man fighting to defeat slavery is ludicrous.
There are other nonsensical minor details that are noted by other reviewers (Reeves runs away from his owner, taking a horse but not any shoes, leading to later agony? While still barefoot, he kills two probable slave catchers but he doesn't take their shoes? His cap-and-ball revolver works perfectly after being submerged in a river?). Meh, while annoying, these are mere nits. So suspend your disbelief because in the larger context, it's worth watching to learn more about a man who should be known as a Western legend.