The comparative analysis of slavery has a long tradition in historical scholarship. Richard Dunn’s detailed analysis of the Caribbean and North American plantation society can be regarded as a new addition to this field of research. Since he began to work on this project in the 1970s, Dunn has published various articles that cover nearly all parts of his book, which can be regarded as his final synthesis. In contrast to cliometric studies of slavery, such as Time on the Cross that pointed out the “big picture”, Dunn aims to trace the lives of individual slaves by offering a micro-historical perspective of their “skeletal biographies” (10). By doing so, he is convinced to have found nothing less than an approach to “the multifaceted character of racial slavery in America” (1). The possibility to trace down individual slaves within the inventories enables Dunn, as he points out, to “trac[e] the numerous followers as well as the much smaller number of leaders” (2). His study is based on two detailed sets of plantation records, which allow him to analyse the last 70 years of slavery in each region. His Caribbean example is Mesopotamia in Jamaica, a plantation cultivated in sugar cane and owned by British absentee owners. Its North American counterpart is Mount Airy in Virginia, whose masters produced crops for the internal market. In his study, he wants to highlight the chief differences between the two systems. Dunn is aware that his examples cannot be regarded as characteristically for each slave society and that they need to be put within the larger framework in which they operated.

Dunn’s book is divided into nine chapters, which cover central aspects of slavery in the Americas. It focuses on the demographic contrast, family life, labour regimes, religious beliefs, as well as on resistance and emancipation in the slave societies of Mesopotamia and Mount Airy. A homepage in addition to the book gives detailed insights into the author’s methodology and offers the possibility to trace the genealogy of several slave families much more convenient than by the book.

By following Dunn’s narrative, it soon becomes evident that the crucial difference between his two objects of research is the high death rate in Mesopotamia compared to the self-reproducing slave society in Mount Airy. By focusing on Mesopotamia, Dunn did not only rely on the extensive material on the absentee owners, he was able to add further information to his study by using additional sets of records. One important source he used are the diaries of Thomas Thistlewood, who lived only a few miles away. Dunn wasn’t able to find direct connections, but Thistlewood’s notes helped him to illustrate and contextualize several aspects of the slave life in Mesopotamia that are impossible to analyse by focusing solely on the slave inventories. The other important source Dunn used for Mesopotamia, are the records of the Moravian missionaries who ran a mission on that plantation from the mid 18^th century until the abolition of slavery. The missionaries who mostly came from German-speaking countries kept detailed records which are nowadays preserved in the archives of the Church in Herrnhut, Germany. They got access to the Jamaican plantation society because they were invited by the British absentee owner John Foster Barham to preach their message of obedience to his slaves. Their diaries contain information about the religious biography of individual Mesopotamian slaves that allow Dunn a close view from the missionaries’ perspective. At this point, it would have been helpful for Dunn to have at least situated the Moravian mission within its Jamaican or Caribbean context. Especially Maureen Warner-Lewis’ book of a Caribbean slave narrative by a Moravian convert would have been an invaluable source of reference as it contains detailed information about the missionary microcosm in Jamaica.Footnote ¹ This problem is evident in Dunn’s handling of the participation of Moravian converts in slave rebellions. With reference to Mesopotamia, he points out, that none of the slaves participated in the 1760 and 1831 rebellion, but that the head people actively suppressed any attempts to do so. This is probably correct in the case of this single plantation. However, Dunn’s comparison with the reaction of a plantation whose slaves had no active Moravian congregation and who participated in the rebellion, generates the reader’s assumption, that there is a connection between Church membership and obedience. A broader look at the situation in Jamaica would have soon evaluated this assumption, as recent research points out, that Moravian converts did indeed participate in slave rebellions. This leads to a general problem in his study. Dunn often seems too narrowly focused on his sources, where a placement of his study in the larger historical context and further literature study would have been advisable. Parts of his book seem as if the plantation was an isolated microcosm. This is apparent when he refers to greater issues. He is right in stating that the rebellion that broke out in Jamaica in 1830/31 did not achieve the immediate abolition of slavery. His comment that “the revolt achieved nothing at the island” (349) appears to be correct if we keep its impact on Mesopotamia in mind, but it is at least questionable if we consider its influence on British society and slave emancipation in general. Dunn follows this line of argumentation in his final chapter on Emancipation, as he regards the end of slavery in the British Caribbean as an event that was “initiated from across the Atlantic” (369). He whereby diminishes any form of resistance by slaves, that although not predominant in his examples was an intrinsic part of the slave system.

Dunn’s book can be regarded as an important micro-historical approach to the history of slavery. At the same, his study also points out the dangers that occur, by focusing too narrowly on a case study without integrating into a larger historical framework.