Certainly any analysis of this book would be incomplete if it failed to mention the ironic twist in the premise itself. Who should hate slavery more than a slave? And yet, Henry's life as a slave leads him to thirst for the power that Robbins holds as an owner. He is a traitor against his own people, because as soon as he has any freedom, he instantly uses that freedom to further disenfranchise his fellow slaves. He purchases slaves for himself, the ultimate sign of betrayal.
When he is dead, Moses realizes that he has a good chance at being freed. What are the odds that both Caladonia and Henry both are traitors? Why would Caladonia want to own slaves herself? Moses assumes that she will be better than her deceased husband, but what he learns is that she isn't interested in marrying him and freeing him as he had hoped. This means that his wishful thinking was denied, and more importantly, it means that the vitriolic betrayal of a former slave owning slaves is contagious, or perhaps ubiquitous.
In other words, the novel seems to turn a specific race narrative on its head. Instead of saying that white people are evil, slavery-loving, money-hungry monsters, the novel says that basically everyone has those greedy, ego-centric tendencies, and the question is whether people can outgrow that tendency or whether it will corrupt their character. There is no doubt that the community is ruptured by Caladonia's choice.
