Editing David Hume (section)

=== Slavery ===
In a 2020 op-ed for the ''[[The Scotsman|Scotsman]],'' Felix Waldmann reported his recent discovery, and publication,<ref name=":02">Waldmann F. (ed.), ''Further Letters of David Hume'', Edinburgh: Edinburgh Bibliographical Society, 2014, 65–69.</ref> of a "letter of March 1766 by Hume, in which he encouraged his patron Lord Hertford to purchase a [[slave plantation]] in [[Grenada]]."<ref name=":162">{{cite web |last1=Waldmann |first1=Felix |date=17 July 2020 |title=David Hume was a brilliant philosopher but also a racist involved in slavery |url=https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/david-hume-was-brilliant-philosopher-also-racist-involved-slavery-dr-felix-waldmann-2915908 |access-date=14 September 2020 |website=[[The Scotsman]]}}</ref> Strictly what was on offer was a 50% share.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hutton |first=Peter |last2=Ashton |first2=David |date=2023-07-17 |title=David Hume – An Apologia |url=https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/10.3366/scot.2023.0468 |journal=Scottish Affairs |language=en |at=Appendix 1 Extract from letter from Hume to Francis Seymore Conway, First Earl of Hertford, 20 March 1766. |doi=10.3366/scot.2023.0468}}</ref> But in March 1766, at the request of [[George Colebrooke]]; Hume did indeed write to Hertford informing him of an opportunity to invest in a slave plantation along with Colebrooke and partners, [[Sir James Cockburn, 8th Baronet|Sir James Cockburn]] and [[John Stewart (Arundel MP)|John Stewart]].<ref name=":152">{{cite journal |last1=Ashton |first1=David |last2=Hutton |first2=Peter |date=2023 |title=David Hume – An Apologia |url=https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/scot.2023.0468 |journal=[[Scottish Affairs]] |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages= |at=The Charge of Supporting Slavery |doi=10.3366/scot.2023.0468 |s2cid=259961720 |access-date=25 January 2024}}</ref>

Peter Hutton and David Ashton assert, contrary to the claims of Waldman,<ref name=":162" /> that "nowhere – absolutely ''nowhere'' – in this letter does Hume ‘encourage’ Lord Hertford to buy..."<ref name=":152" /> Alan Bailey similarly suggests that "it is plain that it is Sir George, rather than Hume, who is intent on persuading Lord Hertford to invest".<ref name=":142">{{Cite journal |last=Bailey |first=Alan |date=June 2024 |title=Hume on Race and Slavery |url=https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/10.3366/jsp.2024.0388 |journal=Journal of Scottish Philosophy |language=en |volume=22 |issue=2 |page=127-128 fn 5 |doi=10.3366/jsp.2024.0388 |issn=1479-6651}}</ref> (Which Hertford ultimately chose not to do).<ref name=":172">{{cite web |last1=Ashton |first1=David |last2=Hutton |first2=Peter |date=28 December 2023 |title=Edinburgh University rush to condemn David Hume shames it |url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/24011889.edinburgh-university-rush-condemn-david-hume-shames/ |access-date=25 January 2024 |website=[[The Herald (Glasgow)]]}}</ref><ref name=":152" />

[[James Fieser]], however, contends that Hume goes beyond merely conveying information: that by vouching for the partners as 'Men of Substance and Character' Hume "adds to the merit of the deal by essentially putting his own reputation at stake" when attesting to their integrity. Further, by suggesting the opportunity was more financially “advantageous” than a previous plantation investment considered by Hertford, Fieser feels "his letter reads more like Hume is encouraging the purchase, rather than just dutifully conveying Colebrook's offer".<ref name=":110">{{Cite journal |last=Fieser |first=James F |date=13 November 2022 |title=A response to Kendra Asher |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecaf.12547 |journal=Economic Affairs |language=en |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=500–504 |doi=10.1111/ecaf.12547 |issn=0265-0665 |url-access=subscription}}</ref>

Waldmann further alleges that Hume "facilitated the purchase of the plantation by writing to the French Governor of Martinique, the [[Victor-Thérèse Charpentier|Marquis d’Ennery]], in June 1766. Indeed, he lent £400 to one of the principal investors earlier in the same year."<ref name=":162" /> In June 1766 Hume ''received'' a letter from d’Ennery in response to a letter he had sent in February of the same year.<ref name=":162" /> Hutton and Ashton, noting that Hume’s letter is no longer extant, point out that it is not known what he wrote, and assert that the reply "provides no evidence to suggest that Hume was actively attempting to facilitate investment in a plantation" and that Hume "may have simply been providing confirmation of Stewart’s personal integrity".<ref name=":152" />  They also assert that "Waldmann’s (2020) insinuation" that money provided by Hume was "used to aid the purchase of a slave plantation, is a baseless speculation" and suggest it was most likely intended to assist in the purchase of a property for Rousseau.<ref name=":152" />

Fieser notes that Waldman presents evidence for his claims in the footnotes to his transcription of the Hume–Hertford letter<ref name=":02" /> but concedes that there are some details missing, such as the "precise service that d'Ennery performed for Stewart and his representatives" and any documentation "that explicitly states the intended purpose of Hume's loan to Stewart".<ref name=":110" /> Fieser does however contend that "the timing of the loan and Hume's letter to d'Ennery are too close for us to reasonably think it was for a different project" although he does concede the loan to Stewart of "approximately £75,000" in 2022 currency, repaid with interest of "approximately £1,000", ''"''was likely more of a loan to a friend rather than as a pure business venture".<ref name=":110" />

Waldmann asserts that "Hume sought to benefit" from slavery although he "was sufficiently wealthy in 1766 not to assist in this scheme".<ref name=":162" /> But as Bailey notes "nothing in the letter [to Hertford] indicates that Hume ... had any pecuniary interest in the matter" and, he contends, there is "no compelling evidence" Hume ever "personally profited ... from the institution of plantation slavery".<ref name=":142" />

Bailey identifies Hume's March letter to Lord Hertford is the document that "comes closest to raising serious doubts about the sincerity of Hume’s published disavowals of chattel slavery."<ref name=":142" /> He suggests the letter  "might perhaps be seen as an instance of Hume allowing social convention and his personal obligations ... to lure him into an inappropriate degree of collusion with this scheme."<ref name=":142" /> Danielle Charette, speaking more plainly, describes the incident as one of "personal hypocrisy".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Charette |first=Danielle |date=20 March 2023 |title=David Hume and the Politics of Slavery |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00323217231157516 |journal=Political Studies |language=en |volume=72 |issue=3 |pages=862–882 |doi=10.1177/00323217231157516 |issn=0032-3217 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

As to the charge of racism, made by Waldmann and many others, based on the footnote Hume appended to his essay ‘''On National Characters’'' in 1753,<ref name=":182">{{Cite journal |last=Immerwahr |first=John |date=1992 |title=Hume's Revised Racism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2709889 |journal=Journal of the History of Ideas |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=481–482 |doi=10.2307/2709889 |issn=0022-5037 |jstor=2709889 |url-access=registration |quote=In 1753 Hume revised his essay "Of National Characters" by adding the following footnote:  'I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all other species of men (for there  are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMAN the present TARTARS have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are NEGROE slaves dispersed all over EUROPE, of which none ever discovered any symptom of ingenuity; tho’ low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA, indeed, they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ’tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.}}</ref> and had amended as an endnote for a posthumous 1777 edition,<ref name=":202">{{Citation |last=Garrett |first=Aaron |title=David Hume on Race |date=2017-02-23 |work=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race |page=31 |pages= |editor-last=Zack |editor-first=Naomi |url=https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28299/chapter-abstract/214977924?redirectedFrom=fulltext |access-date=2025-03-07 |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190236953.013.43 |isbn=978-0-19-023695-3 |quote=The note remained ... until the posthumous edition of 1777, where the first two lines were rewritten to restrict the inferior breeds of men to just those of African descent: I am apt to suspect the negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. |last2=Sebastiani |first2=Silvia}}</ref> Hutton and Ashton acknowledge that its content is "especially shocking – and deeply puzzling".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hutton |first=Peter |last2=Ashton |first2=David |date=2023-08-01 |title=David Hume – An Apologia |url=https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/scot.2023.0468 |journal=Scottish Affairs |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages= |at=The Charge of being a Racist |doi=10.3366/scot.2023.0468 |issn=0966-0356}}</ref> Bailey describes it as "highly prejudicial speculation".<ref name=":192">{{Cite journal |last=Bailey |first=Alan |date=2024-08-08 |title=Hume on Race and Slavery |url=https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/10.3366/jsp.2024.0388 |journal=Journal of Scottish Philosophy |language=en |pages=124–125 |doi=10.3366/jsp.2024.0388}}</ref> Fieser suggests Kendra Asher's discussion<ref>Asher, K. (2022). "Was David Hume a racist? Interpreting Hume's infamous footnote (Part I)". ''Economic Affairs'', 42(2), 225–239 {{Doi|10.1111/ecaf.12519}}, Asher, K. (2022). "Was David Hume a racist? Interpreting Hume's infamous footnote (Part II)." ''Economic Affairs'', 42(3), 477–499. {{Doi|10.1111/ecaf.12540}} ''see also'': Asher, Kendra, "Interpretations of Hume's Footnote on Race" (October 17, 2020). Publicly available at [[Social Science Research Network|SSRN]]: {{Doi|10.2139/ssrn.3713919}}</ref> "is the only one to date suggesting that the footnote might not represent Hume's true views".<ref name=":110" /> Fieser suggests Asher's interpretation "must be taken seriously" but stresses the need to "address head on" the indications that Hume both 'encouraged' and 'assisted' friends in the investment in a slave plantation in order to do so.<ref name=":110" />