George Washington and 18th-Century Abolitionist Thought | s-usih.org
With a library of over 1,000 volumes, it can be difficult to tell which books Washington actually read and which simply collected dust. Most of his books were given to him, and in thanking friends for these gifts, he rarely indicated that he had actually read them. Even books he was known to have read have few markings inside, as was the case with volumes in the library of John Adams, for instance. However, Washington seems to have signed many of the books he read, and the ones that were particularly important to him he had bound. Of particular importance for the study of antislavery thought, Furstenberg argues, is a bound volume of six pamphlets, five of which were from foreign authors.
Collectively, these pamphlets articulated abolitionist sentiments that Washington is known to have held in his later years. These include the idea that slavery was a stain upon a nation’s honor, that it was an inefficient economic system, and that slavery should be gradually abolished through legislation. Washington never advanced a religious argument, thus it comes as no surprise that a pamphlet from Granville Sharp did not make it into the bound volume and was clearly never read by Washington, as the pages had not been separated.
In addition to this bound volume, Furstenberg examines the personal connections with individuals whom network theorists would label nodes in a growing intellectual network. We know, for instance, that both Washington and the Marquis de Condorcet were well acquainted with Lafayette, and thus can reasonably assume Lafayette passed on Condorcet’s antislavery ideas, ideas that Washington replicated nearly verbatim in a conversation. Brissot, a key figure in the French antislavery movement and author of one of the pamphlets Washington owned, visited Mt. Vernon in 1788, providing another connection between Washington and transatlantic abolitionist networks. The bound volume that now rests in the Boston Athenaeum, Furstenberg argues, sheds important light on Washington’s antislavery thought, but it also “makes visible the contours of a largely hidden international circuit of authorship, publication, and readership that stretched across the Atlantic, connecting salons in Paris, debates in London, and publishers in Philadelphia to readers in Virginia.” For intellectual historians studying the antislavery movement, the methodology that Furstenberg employs constitutes a valuable addition to the close reading of abolitionist texts to which we are so accustomed.