Talk:George Washington

British Merchantalism

I think more can be said on what it was like to be a colonist, particularly Washington and British merchantalism. Washington had to sell his tobacco in England, then use that money to by British goods. It was a closed system. Here is an article link: Robert Cary and Company. The Colonial merchantalism system caused Washington to go into debt. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is another link: Why Did George Washington Join the Revolution? This article lists Tobacco as one reason why Washington joined the American Army. More clarification is needed in the article why Washington sided with the Americans. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have googled "merchantalism" but found nothing. "Mercantilism" is a thing, but I am not sure it is what you have in mind.

There are several places in Chernow where Robert Cary and Company is mentioned. (Beware: in the index, don't look under "C" for Cary, look under "R".) In this Wikipedia article, it is only mentioned once, in note "f". So if you are thinking of putting a little more emphasis on Washington's relationship with this merchant, it's plausible. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Mainly to show Washington's business limitations as a colonist. Apparently, Washington shipped his tobacco to Cary in England, and had to take the low price of tobacco, offered by Cary. Washington did not like this merchantile agency arrangement. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Slavery in the lead (again)

@Drdpw, KlayCax, Nikkimaria, and Howardcorn33: Mention of slavery was removed from the lead paragraphs by a series of edits in December of 2023; this was discussed in Talk:George Washington/Archive 40#Recent edits surrounding Washington's reputation.

Since the main body of the article has substantial sections about slavery, it was eye-catching that the lead did not mention it. But the pre-December-2023 text was not satisfactory either, as it mentioned slavery only in terms of Washington's "legacy" becoming "increasingly controversial over time". Every biographer mentions Washington's manumission of his slaves at his death; his ownership of slaves was already notable at that time. It is desirable that the lead paragraphs should make this clear. The recent attempt to restore a mention of slavery to the lead suffers from the same problem. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the first paragraph serves as a concise summary of who he was, and the second and third paragraphs concern primarily his military and political career. It is difficult to find an area to insert his status as a slaveowner in anywhere but the fourth paragraph, which discusses his legacy. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It could be discussed in the context of his pre-Revolutionary career, or tied to his actions in either the Revolution or his presidency - eg (exact phrasing to be workshopped) "Although he himself owned slaves, he sharply limited US involvement in the Atlantic slave trade". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have boldly created a draft of something as discussed above. This article seems to have a lot of history that I don't know about, so I would not be surprised to see some adjustments, but this can be a starting point. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim that Washington increasingly became critical of slavery is controversial at best. I don't t believe that this belongs in the lead. OntologicalTree (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There are various sourced cited throughout the body (which the lead is ultimately a summary of) regarding this. If you could provide sources that dispute or nuance the claim that his views changed, it would be much appreciated. Also, I bristle against the idea that saying someone changed their views is whitewashing their earlier actions. Both happened, and one doesn't negate the other. If anything, one could characterize it as an explicit acknowledgement that a later change in views in no way alleviates the moral crime of slaveholding. Remsense ‥ 论 23:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If one wants to make this clearer, I would consider omitting the but: As a planter of tobacco and wheat, Washington owned or rented many slaves; he ultimately grew to oppose slavery, and provided in his will for the emancipation of his slaves. Remsense ‥ 论 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A small question: why does it say "owned or rented" instead of "owned and rented"? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 00:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I imagine it's because owned or rented is generally sufficient to indicate that both occurred, whereas and could potentially imply that the relationship between the two was more specific somehow. Off the top of my head, one could plausibly take away from owned and rented that he necessarily did both at once, or something like that. It may sound silly when explicated like that, but without further elaboration owned and rented is ultimately more unclear than it needs to be. See MOS:ANDOR. Remsense ‥ 论 00:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

In the section "Personal life", subsection "Slavery", sub-subsection "Washington's slaves", we say Washington owned and rented enslaved African Americans, and during his lifetime over 577 slaves lived and worked at Mount Vernon. For some reason, when I copied this up to the lead section, I changed "owned and rented" to "owned or rented". I don't think this was a deliberate change. Go ahead and change it back to "and" if you like it better that way. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions.

The first paragraph of the subsection "Abolition and manumission" says, Based on his private papers and on accounts from his contemporaries, Washington slowly developed a cautious sympathy toward abolitionism that eventually ended with his will freeing his long-time valet Billy Lee, and then subsequently freeing the rest of his personally owned slaves outright upon Martha's death. As president, he remained publicly silent on the topic of slavery, believing it was a nationally divisive issue that could undermine the union. The rest of that subsection gives more details, with citations of sources. Re-reading my own one-sentence summary, I would not be surprised if the phrase "grew to oppose" could be improved upon. In the lead section, it is important to mention that he was a major planter and slaveowner, and it is important to mention that he made provision in his will for freeing his slaves, and those two things should be tied together, but even I am not sure that I used the right language to tie them together. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition to my thoughts above, I think it may be worth inserting a personally somewhere to explicate the nature of the views he ultimately held. I'm having particular trouble drafting it myself though, as it would be quite unbalanced to have one independent clause about his slaveholding and more than one about his views later in life. Remsense ‥ 论 02:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it best to say Washington owned slaves, 123 at the time of his death. He was not an abolitionist. He only opposed slavery at the end of his life. Was Washington renting out his slaves to other people? That could be confusing. Please just say Washington owned slaves throughout his lifetime, in the introduction. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter that much in the end, then yes just remove the mentioning of renting. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think renting needs clarification. Was he renting slaves to his neighbors in Virginia? Was he renting his slaves, or his wifes slaves? We know he owned 123 slaves in 1799. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you made the edit. Your wording is good. Thank you for getting rid of the renting part in the introduction. Looks a lot better. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Jerzy Waszyngton" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jerzy Waszyngton has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16 § Jerzy Waszyngton until a consensus is reached. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

OntologicalTree sock blocked

Seew:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax Doug Weller talk 09:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Template-related suggestion

I suggest that the "memorials and depictions" section of the George Washington footer template be forked to its own separate thing. The section is quite long and many of the items are tangential compared to the significance of his military and political and personal life stuff. The statues and coins relate to each other quite well IMHO and there's enough there to warrant a separate template. jengod (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There is currently for Washington both separate articles for his monuments, and for his statues. For the Presidents, there is also an article for postage stamps which starts with a large section on Washington. Which forks do you want to reconsider? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Washington's 1764 debt

Should a relative value of Washington's 1764 £1,800 debt be put in the article? I used measuring worth and got £322,500.00 (2023). [1] Cmguy777 (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the format which is used for a similar edit in another part of the article: "At the time of his death, his estate was worth an estimated $780,000 in 1799, equivalent to $14.29 million in 2023." ErnestKrause (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it would have to be in British pounds since the debt date is in 1764. Was this debt ever fully paid off or settled by Washington? It seems like a large amount of currency. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

For the terms of the Jay Treaty, the article here currently states: "The British agreed to abandon their forts around the Great Lakes, and the United States modified the boundary with Canada. The government liquidated numerous pre-Revolution debts, and the British opened the British West Indies to American trade". ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Did that include Washington's debts? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Washington has ever been excluded from that stipulation in the Jay Treaty. I've just linked the article for the treaty if you have an interest in it. Happy Holidays by the way. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

What (whose) pre-Revolution debts were forgiven? Was Washington's personal debt included specifically in the treaty? Drdpw (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the current wording from the article as to the debt amounts covered in the Treaty from the Jay Treaty page stating: "Britain paid $11,650,000 for damages to American shipping and received £600,000 for unpaid pre-1775 debts." ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Did the U.S. government pay off Washington's debt, including others? If Washington's debt was paid by the Jay Treaty, something should be mentioned in the article. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Found this: according to colonialwilliamsburg.org ("How Did Washington Make His Millions?"), Washington settled his debt with Cary following the death in 1773 of Patsy Custis, using money he inherited from her estate. The U.S. government did not pay off Washington's pre-Revolution debt. Drdpw (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like a reliable source, and should be added to the article, along with how Washington settled his debt with Cary, two years before the Revolutionary War. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Its in the article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a good addition to the artlcle. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Early life

The last three paragraphs of the Early life section don't seem well suited to that positioning - they are more general comments on Washington's health and viewpoints rather than specific to his early life. Is there somewhere else these would be better placed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that they do not belong in "Early life". A separate section or subsection would be in order. But there is a chronological narrative, and there is no obvious placement for them in that chronology. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this sufficient cause to split out a Personal life or similar section from the chronology? We do have a couple of non-chronological sections already, on religion and slavery. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Both approaches seem to have an up-side to them. For example, Washington's problems with his teeth started earlier in his life, even though it was only very late in life that he was finally left with only one remaining tooth; possibly the wording could be tweaked in the Early life section to reflect that the problem with his teeth started earlier in his life. Similarly for the comment on his being a fine horseman since his early life, even though the comment currently in the article singles out Jefferson's flattering comment on this score after he met Washington later in life. The possibility for a Personal life section has lots of examples from biographies on Wikipedia and it might need some discussion to decide what to include in such a section if this option is preferred: his height and weight, his marriage prospects and courtship, his medical history, his horsemanship, his popularity as a dance partner, etc. A third option might be a Medical history section if the health issues are the main concern here. I'm not sure which preference is best here, each option seems possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's sufficient medical information to warrant a standalone section just on that. Another possibility might be to have that and the religious views content as subsections in a Personal Life. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the FA for John Adams uses a slightly different outline at the end of the TOC. I'll try it here on the Washington page and editors can say if it works. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, not much is known about Washington's childhood. He attended school sporadically. I am not sure there needs to be any break off sections. He was a ward to his brother Lawrence after his father's death. Washington basically became the Washington we know, after he took over Mt. Vernon. How close was he to the Lord Fairfax family? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron article states that: "Fairfax was the only British peer who resided in the Thirteen Colonies. In 1748, he became acquainted with George Washington, who was distant relative of the Fairfax family. Impressed with Washington's energy and talents, Fairfax employed him to survey his lands west of the Blue Ridge Mountains, which was Washington's first employment". ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Right. Thank you. Maybe more information on Washington and Lord Fairfax can be added. Maybe the article can mention not much is known on Washington's youth or early education. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is still at about 170Kb system size after much trimming and I'm not sure if you mean a possible expansion of the Early life section in some way as a preference. For the Chernow biography, his approach is to have an opening 90 page chapter about Washington's early life which he titles as "Frontiersman", and which suggests 90 pages of material to choose from. Its a fairly good read if you have an interest in the subject. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)