Talk:George Washington

Is this correct?

So i made a edit about changing the political party from independent to federalist since i found an encyclopedia book thats alphabetical and in that book there is a page about George Washington and in that book the political party was federalist. Depotadore (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No Depotadore, not correct. Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, but he remained officially non-partisan during his entire presidency. This fact is noted in the article and in related articles. Please undo the edit you made to article listing him as a member of the Federalist Party. Drdpw (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw The book i'm talking about is Academic American Enclyopaedia Depotadore (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Short description is too long

The short description is too long. To check this, type "Geo" in the Wikipedia search box. A list of articles whose names begin with those three letters will appear. Each article name will be followed by the article's short description. If the short description has to be truncated, it's too long. Right now, as I do that check on my computer, the short description for George Washington is truncated after the first five letters of "States". So the most recent edit added characters that aren't even visible because the short description was already too long. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Y I have restored the more brief short description. Drdpw (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Why Washington joined the Revolution

According to this link, Washington joined the Revolution because of dissatisfaction with the British Army, Tobbacco, and Taxes. I am not sure it is clear from the article specifically why Washington joined the American Revolution, from the vantage of being a colonist. Source: Why Did George Washington Join the Revolution? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 20 October 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)