Thirdian

>>> However I think your comment implies that this undermines his specific claims more than it actually does. <<<

I assure you this is not the case. I don't intend to convey an amount of underminding. I rather intend to convey the existence of conflicting evidence and scholarly opinions.

>>> I can't access the whole of your source but this paragraph itself seems like a substantial exaggeration to me. I don't think Oldfield is offering a whole litany of Clarkson's mistakes and exaggerations, only a very small set of critiques. [...]... (read more)

Hochschild and historians generally treat his book as a reliable source for the factual details.

Clarkson's book and the historiographical tradition it spawned are highly controversial among historians.

Anita Rupprecht puts it like this: "Clarkson's History established a heroic British narrative of humanitarian action that remained largely intact until the period of decolonisation in the middle of the last century. As is well known, Eric Williams's dismissal of that version of events set terms for a vigorous historiographical debate that still rages today."^[... (read more)

The claims in this post (which is basically a retelling of Clarkson's account) are far too bold for this limited body of sources to support them. It is based on just one autobiographical primary source and one non-scientific narrative history as secondary literature and they aren't even interrogated. There is no serious attempt at source criticism. Not for the important details, not for merely heroic claims like this:

"Thomas Clarkson is a hero for the ages. [...] Clarkson is the key figure in the abolitionist movement. His autobiographical accounts could b... (read more)

There's a typo in your link, the parenthesis isn't closed.