He decided that writing a refutation to Froude was his patriotic duty[1] and that it would act as self-vindication[2] for West Indian blacks.

Like English in the West Indies, it was criticized for its superficial coverage of colonial affairs and Froude's lack of exposure to the native countries which he discussed.

Froude's work initially received good reviews in English newspapers and journals;[5] however, it caused an outrage in the West Indian colonies.

Thomas criticizes Froude for making sweeping generalizations about the condition of blacks on multiple islands without ever talking or interacting with the people he was writing about.

When Froude claims that leaders of the reform movements "did not complain that their affairs had been ill-managed"[13] Thomas spends over two dozen pages detailing the gross abuses of power and corruption that many of the appointed governors of Trinidad have participated in.

[19] Thomas uses the examples of Frederick Douglass and Chief Justice William Conrad Reeves extensively in his arguments about race and intelligence.

[20] Thomas continues to contest Froude's multiple accusations about the results of black ruling over whites and what the ideal governance situation is for the West Indies.

Thomas encourages "African descendants now dispersed in various countries of the Western Hemisphere ... at sufficient peace to begin occupying themselves about matters of racial importance".

[28] In the West Indies Froudacity "was launched to an ocean of publicity and pronounced a success", but "when the news reached Trinidad that he had died ... the whole country went into mourning.".

[29] Without strongly asserting West Indian political rights, Froudacity is a refutation that does not move the readership towards the cause of the abolition of the crown colony management.

First she notes that "Thomas' essential charity and lack of prejudice led him to play down the depth of race prejudice and ill-feeling West Indian society .... Gordon Rohlehr is surely right to point out the unreality of Thomas' fairly placid picture of post-Emancipation Trinidad".

Finally, Brereton notes that "Thomas does not show that he understood the links between Christianity and slavery and imperialism in the Caribbean".

[33] Thomas might have understood the ties and ignored discussing them for political expediency, or as a devout Christian he might simply have dismissed the idea that religion could do harm.