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)

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)