The Plot that Wasn’t: Accusations against Henry Dundas collapse under scrutiny

New research in The Scottish Historical Review is deeply flawed. [1]

In its August 2021 edition, The Scottish Historical Review published a flawed and controversial article that blamed Henry Dundas for delaying the abolition of the slave trade in the late 18th century. Written by Dr. Stephen Mullen, “Henry Dundas: a ‘great delayer’ of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade,” is marred by serious inaccuracies and analytical flaws, along with unfounded references to secrets and plots. It cannot be considered a reliable assessment of Henry Dundas’s role in the abolition debate of the late 18th century.

The flaws we have identified fall into three broad categories:

(1) Failure to address obstacles to abolition

Dr. Mullen failed to address the most important challenge to his premise that “immediate abolition would have passed earlier” had it not been for Dundas’s actions. To prove this, Dr. Mullen needed to establish that the passage of legislation for immediate abolition was possible in the 1790s. Without such proof, Dundas cannot be said to have delayed anything. The widely-acknowledged obstacles to abolition in the 1790s included (a) the revolutionary wars driven by a hegemonic and bloody-minded France that was on the rampage through Europe, (b) King George III’s opposition to abolition, (c) the House of Lords’ opposition, and (d) the overwhelming economic centres of power related to the slave trade. Dr. Mullen failed to address these obstacles in a meaningful way, instead positing simply that abolition was possible because power was shifting to from colonies to the homeland, an argument advanced on thin and questionable grounds.

(2) Omission of “inconvenient data” and contrary evidence regarding the Black Regiments in the West Indian islands.

Dr. Mullen accused Dundas of blocking the universal practice of emancipating slaves after military service — a claim he also promoted in Scottish media. His analysis ignored key facts and essential context.

It is easily established on the historical record that within a few months of making that decision, Dundas realized his mistake and reversed the policy, which thus never took effect. He also demonstrated in other ways that he supported emancipation of Black soldiers:

• Three years later, when he learned that Black soldiers on the largest islands could be whipped or even killed upon an order of a local magistrate, he emancipated them overnight.
• He mandated conditions for other Black soldiers that would set the stage for later emancipation, such as paying Black soldiers the same pay and benefits that white soldiers received.
• He provided resources for education of Black soldiers, and grants of money or property at the end of service, which was incompatible with an expectation of a return to plantation slavery.

Dr. Mullen inexcusably failed to address evidence found in the very sources he cited that would qualify or contradict his claim that Dundas blocked emancipation.

Dr. Mullen also accused Henry Dundas of being behind Britain’s decision to purchase of slaves for the military. Again, his position was ill-founded. Dundas repeatedly opposed his army’s request for permission to purchase slaves, and ultimately it was cabinet that over-ruled him and made the decision.

(3) A persistent pattern of errors, omissions, and flawed or fallacious reasoning

Dr. Mullen’s paper is marred by a persistent pattern of flaws — factual errors, omission of essential context, logical fallacies, etc. — some minor, some more substantial, which combine to create a misleading account of Henry Dundas’s actions and intentions. In the face of this pervasive pattern of errors, Dr. Mullen’s analysis cannot be considered sound, and his findings cannot be considered reliable.

CONCLUSION: If this analysis this is the best case that can be made against Henry Dundas, then what Dr. Mullen has revealed is the weakness of the case.

Find our full article here: The Plot that Wasn’t

Our broader research on Henry Dundas is here: The Missing Pieces

Dr. Mullen’s article is here: https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/240875/

__________________

[1] Prepared by committee member Jennifer L. Dundas, BAA SF LLB

[2] Mullen, S. (2021) “Henry Dundas: a ‘great delayer’ of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade.” Scottish Historical Review.