Proofread for Historical Accuracy of Short Story?

A short story has been stirring in my head lately. Will you take the time to read the summary for historical accuracy? Thanks!



It takes place in the 1750s in North Carolina on a plantation. The wife of the wealthy owner has a manservant escort her and her children on a stroll to a nearby creek in the woods. As the mother watches her children play, an arrow penetrates the heart of the manservant, killing him instantly. The children scream as they watch three Indians appear and strip their mother of her precious jewelry. The mother is kidnapped and raped, while the children are left in the woods but are eventually found by a search party. The traumatized mother, now pregnant by one of the Indians, escapes back to her plantation. When the child is born, several friends encourage her to leave the child near an Indian village or take it to an orphanage. As much as the woman despises her new daughter, she decides to keep it but conceals the child behind the walls of the plantation where she verbally abuses her, along with the girl's half siblings and her mother's father. The rest of the story will focus on the teenage half Indian running away to live among the Indians and returning to seek revenge on the family for the years of abuse they afflicted upon her.



My question is, what are the historical inaccuracies in this story? Would the mother have been sympathized with or shunned by society?Proofread for Historical Accuracy of Short Story?
There was no "i my god I have been raped, I have trauma,..." stuff back then. There was not psychology to know about trauma, there was no health care either. It was not talked about and was a taboo. It was even okay for to rape your slaves and servants as you pleased (as man of course) as you owned them. And for people of lower social ranks it was just well one of the results of being a woman. - Sad but true. If a woman was raped and knocked up it was adultary no matter if she agreed to it or not.



1) the male chaperone: Normaly a woman would not have been acompanied by a single male (not even a married male was suitable often). A 2nd female person would have come along - also to watch over the children. - A woman alone with a servant was a to big risk to take (as in getting knocked up by him). - Should not be to difficult to correct that and have her out of the way. The whole going out thing is diffucult a least, because woman were more or less prisoners in their homes - especially wealthy white ones. Best: Make the indians and the woman meet somehow different.



2) By 1750 there were not a lot of indians left. Smallpox took a heavy toll. The 1738 epidemic was said to have killed one-half of the Cherokee, with other tribes of the area suffering equal.



3) The whole incident would be hushed up, the woman - if pregnat would have either fallen down the stairs, had a riding accident by some other "misfortune" lost her child. If such crude apportion methods would not have worked the child would have been killed at birth, given to the slaves of the plantation to be raised by them or being laid in front of the stairs of a church.



4) Said woman would have been in serious trouble as the man would most likly have wanted a divorce (remember rape equaled adultary and adultary was not a good thing) and sent her away, keeping the children. Or they would have (in europe) sent her to a cloister at the end of the world.



5) and of course I forgot: The whole thing would have resulted in the man and other man on the plantage to hunt down and kill some indians - no matter if the ones responsible or not (most likly they would get the woman, children and old ones).