I hesitate to write this, because I've written it before- I used to write it as a response very time the mention of Sir Thomas and slavery came up, and it's almost always ignored by those who feel that they must just make a Statement about how wrong slavery is and it shows just what a bad man Sir Thomas must be.

In 1998, whilst in England, I was looking at some old books (i.e. primary sources) which were contemporary comments upon the workings of plantations at the time of the abolition of the slave trade... and one little remark stuck in my mind. It was about the fact that plantaions which did not use slaves were more productive- as the example of Antigua showed. Unfortunately, I wasn't in a position to copy the quote, or to hold onto the material, and honestly , it didn't say much mote than that, anyway. But, assuming the comment (in a political pamphlet) to be true, it would seem that Antigua was a place where there were many plantations NOT worked by slaves, and therefore Sir Thomas might just as well NOT have been a slave-owner as be one. Given the "date" of the book, it's also possible that Sir Thomas went out to Antigua, in part, at least, to re-organise a former slave-worked plantation.

Now I fully appreciate that this argument isn't going to convince anyone who really wants Sir Thomas to be a bad guy, or wants to indulge in a reflex-action attack on slavery in principle (isn't that just soo easy to do?;-) ), however, it does convince me, as sceptical historian, not to jump to ultra-simple conclusions.

Therefore, I would really like to ask...does anyone have any information at all about Antigua at the time? I've got H.C.'s wonderful map, and I've got tables of sugar imports, but htey don't help in this case. I have not managed to find anything about Antiguan plantaions on-line, even though I've been looking for over three years. Does anyone have any useful links to offer? I'd be glad to see them, if you have the time.