Talk:George Washington/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

How to phrase Washington's attitude towards the people he owned

Presently there is a sentence in the Slavery section that reads "He held an "engrained sense of racial superiority" over African Americans but harbored no ill feelings toward them." relying on pages 283, 285, & 286 of Morgan's article "George Washington and the Problem of Slavery" in the Journal of American Studies. I am unsure that "harbored no ill feelings" is NPOV-enough. He wasn't known for beating these people but then again he pursued Oney Judge & others and certainly did attempt to bring Judge back to slavery. "Ill feelings" seems somewhat paternalistic to me. Let's discuss - Shearonink (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

After reading the text in question, this doesn't seem to be an accurate representation of its content. I would support replacing the sentence in question with:

According to historian Kenneth Morgan, "Washington's engrained sense of racial superiority to African Americans did not lead to expressions of negrophobia." Morgan places Washington's attitude between that of James Madison, "who never expressed sentiments that blacks were inferior to whites", and Thomas Jefferson, "whose negrophobia is evident".

Chetsford (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Off topic comments

The slaves lived right next to Washington. We can't whitewash slavery. The slaves had no rights. Washington wanted rights for white people but not blacks. The slaves were worked hard without pay. The slaves were slept 20 to 30 per quarter. Washington had the mansion to himself with his wife. Washington's claim he was a slave is preposterous. He lived the wealthy life of royalty. Washington was never owned by anyone. Contemporaries complained of his slave ownership. The fugitive slave law he passed that protected slavery directly benefited him. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Just to clarify, is this what you're proposing we replace the current text with? "The slaves lived right next to Washington. We can't whitewash slavery. The slaves had no rights. Washington wanted rights for white people but not blacks. The slaves were worked hard without pay. The slaves were slept 20 to 30 per quarter. Washington had the mansion to himself with his wife. Washington's claim he was a slave is preposterous. He lived the wealthy life of royalty. Washington was never owned by anyone. Contemporaries complained of his slave ownership. The fugitive slave law he passed that protected slavery directly benefited him." Chetsford (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC) I was giving my opinions in a discussion. I have been to Mt Vernon. My point was not to whitewash slavery or make an excuse that Washington was preserving national unity over slavery. He never freed one slave while he was alive. To the slaves Washington was a dictator king. They had no rights. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Do you have a specific proposal? This is not a forum for general discussion about George Washington. Chetsford (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Went digging to see what phrase might have been in that place before, etc (to see if what came before might make more sense to me) and it was "but did not view them to be repugnant."... Rather than paraphrasing what the historian actually said, I think it makes more sense to craft something along the lines of the first response-post upthread, quoting the historian's full statement exactly. Shearonink (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur, repugnant is the most apropos word to use. Drdpw (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The slaves had no rights. That information was added but deleted. I gave the source. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That Washington's contemporaries criticized his slave ownership should be noted in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Which contemporaries? Is there documentation of what men such as Madison and Hamilton, who influenced Washington thinking on the subject, said to Washington (or to others) about Washington's slave owning? Drdpw (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"The slaves had no rights." Do you understand what slavery means? We don't need to say "water is wet". I think you may have made a wrong turn; Wiktionary is the second door after the concessions stand. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Peter R. Henriques The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret Revised July 25, 2001 mentions contemporaries complaining of Washington owning slaves. One was Robert Pleasants. The Massachusetts Gazette was another. Washington also received a letter while President that said Washington held an oppressive hold on "poor unoffending negroes". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not commonly known slaves had no rights. It would be appropriate to mention this, since Washington said he was a slave to the British. We go by what the source said, not what is common knowledge. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"It is not commonly known slaves had no rights." Oh my. Chetsford (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Slaves could legally be killed or dismembered in Virginia. Slaves could have their toes cut off. "Oh my" Whitewashing the subject does not help the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No one is whitewashing anything. I'm expressing surprise at your committed belief that our readers need to be disabused of the idea that slaves didn't have 401(k)s or 15-minute smoke breaks. The very definition of slavery is one who is owned by another and, therefore, has no rights. You aren't exactly dropping knowledge bombs here. I think WP:THESKYISBLUE might apply. But, in any case, do you have a specific proposal of any kind at all or are you just using this as an instructional space or speaker's corner? As previously stated, this is not a forum for general discussion about the subject. Also, can you please familiarize yourself with WP:INDENT? It takes little effort but makes the conversation less perplexing than it already is. Chetsford (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I am entitled to my own opinions. Anthropologist Dennis Pogue said Washington's slaves were "owned by other people, they had no rights of their own, and they were doing hard work." (Source: Lapidus, Faith; Elmasry, Faiza (November 30, 2010). "Harsh Life of Washington's Slaves Revisited". YouTube.com. VOA. Retrieved July 16, 2021.) Dennis Pogue. Don't attack the messenger in a talk page. I don't believe the average person knows that slave owners could legally kill or dismember their slaves in Virginia. And last checked Washington was a Virginia slave owner. He had the power of life and death and dismemberment over his slaves at Mount Vernon. This is counter to the article portraying Washington wanting the right to representation, but his slaves having no rights, not even the right to live. The Virginia law that said slaveowners could legally kill and dismember their slaves should be put in the article. I will endeavor to do the proper indenting.Freedom and slavery, the ‘central paradox of American history’; Colonial Virginia Authorizes “Owners” to Kill “Rebellious Slaves”; Virginia's slave codes 1705 Cmguy777 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources even mention George Washington, let alone establish any connection between the law and him. Why do you believe that information is relevant in this article? "The law happened to be on the books at the time" is not a sufficient nexus to merit mentioning it here; there were plenty of laws on the books at the time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"The Virginia law that said slaveowners could legally kill and dismember their slaves should be put in the article. " Your references don't mention George Washington anywhere in them and are problematic in terms of our WP:SYNTHESIS policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This reference is more appropriate for Slavery in the United States and you might be interested in adding it there. Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Henriques (2001) and the VOA video interview (November 30, 2010), with Dennis Pogue, mention Washington. As far as the Virginia slave laws, this would show the harshness of slave-life, in Virginia. Not to mention the laws, would be whitewashing the article. Dennis Pogue said not to whitewash that the slaves had no rights. There is no way of verifying that the readers have any idea of what slavery is or whether the reader knows Virginia Slave Laws. At least I am giving sources. The connection between the slave laws and Washington was that Washington was a slave owner. The Fugitive Slave law that Washington passed, to "preserve the Union", financially benefited Washington. None of you should have a problem with the Henriques (2001) source that mentioned Washington had contemporary critics concerning his slave ownership. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Dennis Pogue said not to whitewash that the slaves had no rights." No one is trying to whitewash anything. Encyclopedias work by grouping like information into topic-appropriate articles. And so, while we might include information on the history of slave legislation in the United States in the article Slavery in the United States, our onus to avoid whitewashing does not require us to sprinkle it across Jean jacket, Art Nouveau, California condor, George Washington, etc., regardless of how urgently we feel we need to raise awareness of its historical importance (see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). "None of you should have a problem with the Henriques (2001) source that mentioned Washington had contemporary critics concerning his slave ownership." I haven't had a chance to look at it since there's so much going on with your various proposals but, in principal, I have no issue adding that information provided the question of contemporaneous criticism has prominent WP:WEIGHT and coverage. Chetsford (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"sprinkle it" I don't sprinkle anything. I am not Tinkerbell. Comparing George Washington to the "California condor". That makes no sense. Not trying to right great wrongs either. Leaving out the harsh slave laws that were enforced during Washington's slave ownership is whitewashing slavery and the Washington article. Washington was a wealthy slave owner so slave laws apply to the Washington article. Should be able to find Henriques (2001) by Google search. Washington had his critics over slavery. That is significant. Particularly, it bears more light when the President's house was in New York, and Washington rotated his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The point made there is that information being truthful and verifiable is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. In this case, the information you are seeking to include is of tangential relevance (at best) to this article, so I would not support including it here. I would agree with Chetsford that slavery in the United States or history of slavery in Virginia would be much more appropriate places for it to go, and you might want to work on it there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia wants a neutral biography of Washington. Censoring information is white washing. The information is relevant. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you dial it back to about a nine? No one has suggested the information should be censored. We have suggested it be placed in topical and relevant articles. Requesting that information on the mating habits of chickens be placed in Chicken and not KFC is not called censorship. It's called categorization. Chetsford (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Neither censorship nor white washing is occurring here.This article includes truthful and verifiable information about the status and the living conditions of the slaves at Mt. Vernon. What is happening here is that multiple editors have stated to you that the additional information you are seeking to include is of tangential relevance to this article. Drdpw (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I can dial it back. Washington was a Virginian and he must have known Virginia law. The whole premise of this biography is to make Washington look like a champion of the right to representation. As a slave owner, Washington had the legal power to dismember a slave or kill the slave, without any trial. The slave did not have any rights. Washington never championed the right of representation for slaves. He could have at the Constitutional Convention. He was silent. Adding information would allow the reader to have a better historical perspective of Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"The whole premise of this biography is to make Washington look like a champion of the right to representation." That's incorrect. The whole premise of this biography is to present "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Chetsford (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The words "prominence" and "weight" can be very subjective, but should not be used as an excuse to exclude information. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in question still reads as

He held an "engrained sense of racial superiority" over African Americans but harbored no ill feelings toward them. (relying on pages 283, 285, & 286 of Morgan's article as a reference)

Chetsford's proposed edit they posted above (According to historian Kenneth Morgan...) makes sense to me. The way the sentence reads now is not what the source states. There is nothing in the source that can be thought of as 'harboring no ill feeling'. He held these people in bondage...If he harbored no ill feelings towards them he wouldn't have owned them. Either the sentence should be adjusted to Chetsford's proposed edit or the section that reads "but harbored no ill feelings towards them" should be deleted. I am going to at least do that unless someone objects according to policy etc. Shearonink (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Would it be faithful to the source to state that Washington harbored no hatred or extreme aversion towards his slaves or enslaved people in general? Drdpw (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe it would be; my proposal, quoting the source, does that, I think. Morgan distinguishes, I think, ill will from belief in superiority. There is a cat that lives with me and I consider myself superior to it but I don't hate it or have any ill will towards it. Though, if I had my druthers, this should be moved from this article entirely and placed at George Washington and slavery. In my opinion, delving into contemporary analyses of Washington's thought process on specific issues is better left at dedicated articles like Washington and slavery; Washington has been so studied that the main article would be hopelessly long just including the basic Who / What / When of Washington. If we start putting in analysis of his psychology of specific topics it starts to become functionally unreadable. Chetsford (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Critics of Washington and slavery can be mentioned in the article briefly. Other articles could be used to expand on the subject. The main article is George Washington and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret": George Washington and Slavery Peter R. Henriques Revised July 25, 2001 This is a good source. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Simply put the article could read "After the war, Robert Pleasants, a Quaker leader, and a Massachusetts Gazette were both critical of Washington's slave ownership." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be fine to place in George Washington and slavery. Washington has been the subject of commentary by almost anyone of note and it's impossible to force every one-liner anyone has ever said about Washington into this article, which is the reason we have subsidiary articles like George Washington and Slavery, Electoral history of George Washington, George Washington's political evolution, George Washington's reception at Trenton, Attempted theft of George Washington's skull, and a dozen other articles besides. Chetsford (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Opposition to Washington owning slaves would show the nation was already starting to split apart, something Washington feared would happen. Maybe just mentioning Pleasant's opposition to Washington owning slaves, would show that not all in America accepted slavery. Remember this is one sentence, not an article, or even a paragraph addition to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

After the war, Robert Pleasants, A Quaker leader, criticized Washington for owning slaves." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding this sentence by itself, without background information, makes no sense. With background, it belongs in the GW-slavery article, not here. Drdpw (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

On adding such a sentence, what criticism was there of Washington for taking his slaves to Philadelphia while president and his circumventing Penn emancipation law while in office? Drdpw (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, I will ask, why can't the article just simply quote the source itself as Chetsford proposed:

According to historian Kenneth Morgan, "Washington's engrained sense of racial superiority to African Americans did not lead to expressions of negrophobia." Morgan places Washington's attitude between that of James Madison, "who never expressed sentiments that blacks were inferior to whites", and Thomas Jefferson, "whose negrophobia is evident".

That seems simple enough, without slicing and dicing whatever "ill feelings" - the present wording - might mean. Because even though he didn't exclaim against them as Jefferson did he did hold these people in bondage/involuntary servitude, he got the wages for their labor while they merely earned an existence, and he did not specifically free any of the people he owned during his lifetime. Morgan's statement also does double duty by placing Washington's attitudes and actions within the context of the other "Founding Fathers". Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I support using the quote as proposed. Drdpw (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Response: The background information is provided in the Henriques 2001 source given. Pleasants believed blacks had the same rights as whites. This provides evidence that Washington did not give black slaves rights because he believed they were inferior. The purpose of the edit is to show Washington had critics, during his lifetime, even while President. It is possible this criticism influenced Washington to free his slaves. It also shows the division that was already taking place in the country North and South. A little more expansion in the sentence should not disqualify from this Washington bio article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Since attitude is brought into question, Washington by law controlled all aspects of his slaves' lives, making him a king or dictator. The slaves had no rights. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington had an aristocratic attitude toward their slaves. Neither Jefferson, Madison, nor Washington advocated black citizenship, jury service, or representation in Congress. The term "Negrophobia" is outdated. Is Wikipedia condoning slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

More whitewashing. Smithsonian is a reliable source. Washington was strongly against freeing slaves by Dunmore. No reason for the edit to be removed. Seems anything that does not put Washington in a positive light, is removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No one is trying to whitewash or sanitize anything or anyone. This article does a fine job of addressing the subject of George Washington and his views on and treatment of slaves. As has been pointed out, it also points to the article that explores the subject of George Washington and slavery in depth. That article is a more apropos place for the content you wish to add. Drdpw (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Remember the "dial it back", above? It is both ridiculous and rather insulting to state that anyone here endorses slavery. We are having a discussion, as editors, about the most appropriate places for particular pieces of content. Since there is a lot of material about Washington, it may well be that particular details are more appropriate in articles which go into more depth about facets of Washington than into this main one. No one wants to "whitewash" anything or hide the fact that Washington owned slaves. Deciding what article is the best place for a particular piece of information is a normal part of writing in a summary style; it is nothing nefarious. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The information can be reduced or put in another article, but clearly at the beginning of the war Washington was strongly against freeing slaves. It also adds neutrality. The British don't look like the tyrants the Patriots are claiming them to be. It would show the Revolutionary War had to do with slavery, not just taxes and representation. To immediately remove the information makes it difficult to edit without fear of removal. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Dial it back can go both ways. Why not let an edit on slavery sit a few days, especially ones with a solid source like Smithsonian. At that time Washington did not want slaves freed. He called Dunmore a traitor for freeing slaves. The reader could interpret that to mean Washington viewed slaves as property, rather than human. And another interesting thing is this sounds a lot like the Civil War, which took place about 86 years later, just that the names are different. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This article says Washington supported slavery to preserve national unity. That statement makes no sense. The abolitionist movement was empowered by the Fugitive Slave law. That law divided the nation. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

FSA93 preserved national unity ?

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 (FSA93) was extremely controversial. This article says Washington preserved national unity by signing it into law. That is a false or misleading statement. The FSL93 was highly controversial and resisted in the North. The act was met with a "firestorm" of protest in the North. Many argued it was legalized kidnapping. Bounty hunters for slaves were invading their states. Abolitionists organized groups against the law. How did that law in any way preserve national unity? Source: Fugitive Slave Acts UPDATED:FEB 11, 2020 ORIGINAL:DEC 2, 2009 History.com Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say Washington empowered slave owners, including himself, rather than preserving national unity. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The statement regarding preserving national unity should be removed from the introduction section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding signing FSA93 into law, even Chernow (2010) says President Washington "acted in the accordance of the wishes of southern slaveholders". Washington remained zealous in tracking down his own fugitive slaves. Source: Chernow (2010), page 758. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, no one is in disagreement with me. There have been no comments of praise or protest. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Critics may have played a role in his manumission of his slaves. I think it important to mention them. Chernow (2010) p 758 mentions them. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"President Washington "acted in the accordance of the wishes of southern slaveholders" " To borrow a phrase from TV Tropes: Captain Obvious. Washington was a representative of the Planter class, and acted according to their wishes. Dimadick (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I just quoted Chernow. FSA93 divided the nation, not preserved national unity. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with removing that wording. I can't find anything in the body of the article that supports that wording, and the lead should summarize and reflect what is supported, discussed, and of course sourced in the body. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

There is an effort in this article to tone down the cruelty of Washington rotating his slaves every 5 months and 29 days in Philadelphia to keep them in perpetual slavery. One day away from freedom and you are forcibly taken back to Mt Vernon. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Why, because I trimmed the melodramatic flourish you added to the paragraph? The cruelty of the practice can be grasped without it, though I have since added a couple words to the paragraph to emphasize the intentionality of Washington's actions in this regard. Drdpw (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. There indeed was an intention to Washington's actions. All this shows is Washington's racism toward blacks. I would say the cruelty is the one day to freedom, and then being forced to return to Mt Vernon. I appreciate not reverting my edits, but rather working with the edits given. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

freeing slaves "was rare and unheard of at this time"

This statement in the lead is simply not true. In 1782 Virginia allows masters to free their slaves. Within 10 years almost 10,000 slaves were freed by Virginia masters. Robert Carter III freed 450 slaves by the early 1790s. He freed them while he was alive. The statement needs to be omitted. Washington's Valet was not freed until Washington's death. Washington was actually behind the standards of his time. Source: Robert Carter and Manumission Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally Washington had every opportunity to free slaves while he lived at the President's House in Pennsylvania, which had the law to free slaves after six months of residency. Washington did not free one of his slaves in the seven years he was there, not one. He deliberately kept them enslaved by rotation every 5 months and 29 days. The Pennsylvania law gave Washington every opportunity to free slaves. He chose not to. Washington may have set free a white or mixed race indentured servant.Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Currency and postage

Who knows how to make the images of stamps and money in this sub-sub-section smaller? They're at least 4 times too big. YoPienso (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, yay for me! I figured it out. YoPienso (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks better. Drdpw (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Elephant in the room" Racism

Is the subject of Washington's racism against blacks being addressed in the article? There is a contradiction. Washington is only for liberty for white people, but not blacks. His not freeing blacks in Pennsylvania would be racism. Are historians protecting him? I think that not freeing slaves in Pennsylvania should be labeled racism in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Was Washington a racist? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Let’s Address The Elephant In The Room: The Racism Of George Washington David James (August 6, 2020) Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

James (8-06-2020) notes that two actions of Washington are racist, expelling black soldiers in 1775 from the Continental Army, and keeping his slaves at the President's House in Pennsylvania, perpetual slaves, by shipping them back to Mount Vernon, right before their six months of residency in Pennsylvania would set them free. The contradiction is freedom for whites but not for blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• No U.S. presidents elected before Donald Trump were racist. Louis Jacobson (July 27, 2020) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• A history of racism is woven into the US presidency Russell Contreras (July 30, 2019) Cmguy777 (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• San Francisco school board votes to rename 44 schools, including Abraham Lincoln and George Washington High Schools Stella Chan and Amanda Jackson, CNN (January 27, 2021)

"The San Francisco Unified School District voted this week to rename 44 schools named after controversial public figures, including former Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and current Sen. Dianne Feinstein."
"The school district, which has more than 57,000 students enrolled, is changing the schools named after historical figures linked to “the subjugation and enslavement of human beings; or who oppressed women, inhibiting societal progress; or whose actions led to genocide; or who otherwise significantly diminished the opportunities of those amongst us to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” according to the text of the resolution."

— Stella Chan and Amanda Jackson, San Francisco school board...January 27, 2021

Cmguy777 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"Washington is only for liberty for white people" I think you have him confused with Andrew Jackson. Washington's United States had voting rights only for landowners.

• "By the time the United States Constitution was ratified (1789), a very small number of free blacks were among the voting citizens (male property owners) in some states. The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., some states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote, while others either did not specify race, or specifically protected the rights of men of any race to vote. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Women were largely prohibited from voting, as were men without property. Women could vote in New Jersey until 1807 (provided they could meet the property requirement) and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Non-white Americans could also vote in these jurisdictions, provided they could meet the property requirement."
• In 1789, only an estimated 6% of the American population had voting rights.
• Washington was elected President in 1789 from a tiny elite of American voters. 43,782 voters in a country with 3,929,214 people. He did not support the liberty or political rights of millions of Americans. Widening the population with voting rights only became the goal of Jacksonian democracy from the 1820s onwards. Dimadick (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

I provided sources that say Washington is a racist for not freeing his slaves in Pennsylvania and for banning blacks from the U.S. Army. One article grouped Washington with racist slaveholders. I am not here to debate suffrage, jury service, or property ownership among blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There should be something in the article that addresses Washington and racism in the article in the reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

Option I: During the 21 Century, Washington has come under increased scrutiny of racism and oppression for the enslavement of human beings and banning blacks from the Continental Army. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This addition makes sense. Sources support it. It is not judgemental of Washington, from a narration point of view. It is just stating facts. Washington was responsible for the Indian genocide to make room for white settlers. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There really is no critical assessment of Washington in the Reputation section. Hopefully, editors will work with this. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Option II: During the 21 Century, Washington has received increased criticism for his enslavement of human people, the genocide of Native Americans, and banning blacks from the Continental Army.

Options III: In the 21 Century, Washington's reputation has been held under more scrutiny. The San Francisco School Board (SFSB) voted a resolution to remove Washington's name from "Washington High School". The San Francisco School District is changing the names of schools named after historical figures linked to "the subjugation and enslavement of human beings; or who oppressed women, inhibiting societal progress; or whose actions led to genocide; or who otherwise significantly diminished the opportunities of those amongst us to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," according to the SFSB resolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose all proposals Insufficient sourcing to crest WP:DUE. Chetsford (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

New addition please allow to stand in the article

Please don't immediately revert new addition. I used Option three and added a date. It is a neutral critical assessment. You don't have to agree with the San Fransico School Board, but it just shows Washington's name is held under more scrutiny in the 21 Century.

No, you need to establish consensus first before adding anything about the renewed scrutiny of Washington by progressives to the legacy section. Drdpw (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the San Francisco school board voted in April to suspend the process of renaming Washington and 43 other city schools. Drdpw (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors should participate in the discussion before reverting the edit. Allow other editors to read the edit. I don't need to establish consensus on the fact that the SFSB voted to remove Washington's name from the high school. That is just a fact. Not an opinion. Am I suppose to get approval from conservative editors before I make an edit? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral concerning Washington. Not favoring a conservative view of Washington's reputation. That makes this article very political and biased. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I've modified and restored the paragraph. This is an important development that needs to be covered in the article. Notice that the plan has been suspended. YoPienso (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

An aborted attempt to change one school's name is not anywhere near substantial enough for an entire paragraph here. There are subarticles like Legacy of George Washington where it might be more appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right; it's one example of a broader movement to discredit anyone who is tinged with racism or slaveowning. See below for my suggestion. YoPienso (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Counterproposal

To acknowledge criticism of George Washington, a new first paragraph could be added to the historical reputation and legacy section:

Among George Washington's critics are those who note that, despite denouncing partisanship, Washington was a partisan president. Additionally, he, along with various other Founding Fathers, is criticized for his enslavement of human beings. Though he expressed the desire to see the abolition of slavery come through legislation, he did not initiate or support any initiatives for bringing about its end.

The first sentence of the existing first paragraph would need a clause—Even so,—attached at its opening. Drdpw (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

I think something like that could actually fit as the last paragraph in the introduction to that section (following the paragraph which currently begins Parson Weems wrote a hagiographic biography...). It would seem to fit best both chronologically and in terms of flow there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

We need a paragraph in the legacy section about calls to remove GW's name and image from public places. Here's an unpolished suggestion:

In the 21st century, Washington's reputation has been critically scrutinized. Along with various other Founding Fathers, he is criticized for his enslavement of human beings. Though he expressed the desire to see the abolition of slavery come through legislation, he did not initiate or support any initiatives for bringing about its end. This has led to calls from some activists to remove his name from public buildings and his statue from public spaces.

There are numerous good references for the move to pull down statues and remove his name. Here are half a dozen; if you're not into checking them all out, I've arranged them in what I consider descending order of weightiness:

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/09/02/removing-washington-monument-jefferson-memorial-historians/
2. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/24/america-statues-monuments-washington-jefferson/
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40978515
4. https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/oct-11-george-washington/ (This is about the name of the State of Washington.)
5. https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/?fbclid=IwAR2l6dJDOo5iRY_ogombXrOnKTcVGcQlUXMw8rp8EXk3PM-EaVVJ-SMsd54
6. https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-founding-fathers-statues-20200629-a2p5bxfymze3nho3cscwfsosoy-story.html

YoPienso (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

CMguy's proposal, "During the 21 Century, Washington has received increased criticism for his enslavement of human people, the genocide of Native Americans, and banning blacks from the Continental Army," works too. YoPienso (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. The San Francisco School Board vote to remove Washington's name from a high school, and others, is a significant event. The purpose of my initial edit was to tell the reader Washington and others are under more scrutiny in The 21 Century. Also under contention was the removal of a W P A mural of Washington from a school. Cmguy777 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding school renaming specifically, it would seem appropriate to add a sentence (appropriately referenced) to the reputation / legacy's education subsection stating something like: In 2021, multiple community school boards voted to rename secondary schools named for persons, Washington among them, deemed to have been racist, sexist or homophobic. Drdpw (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Related to the above, a sentence might be added to the monuments subsection, something like: When monuments associated with oppressors of slaves and Native Americans were targeted by activists in 2020, statues of Washington were toppled in Portland, Oregon in Baltimore, Maryland.[1] Drdpw (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Something needs to be added to get this article up to date and allow neutral statements regarding a counter-movement to Washington's reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Above sentence by Drdpw added to article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The SFSB changed course and decided to keep Washington name after public protest. 17:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

In August, 2020 a life size bronze statue of Washington was toppled in Los Angeles. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: In 2021, efforts to remove Washington's name and image by the SFSB have been unsuccessful, due to Washington' link to slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As has been stated previously, it might be more appropriate to put this in the Legacy of George Washington article. Drdpw (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

An expanded version yes. But we can't sweep things under the rug either. I also think the lead should mention their have been 21 Century protests of Washington for slave ownership. The LA Washington Statue toppling should be mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that anything be swept under the rug; it's simply that the information you wish to add here is tangential to this biographical article. Drdpw (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It is significant that Washington's name was voted to be removed by the SFSB. The SFSB backed down in April under public pressure. The toppling of Washington's statue in LA is significant. The Patriots toppled King George III statue in New York. The whole point is that Washington's name because of his link to slavery and racism, has been under attack, by the SFSB and activists. This should be mentioned in the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Because or the ongoing activism to discredit Washington and other founders due to their involvement in slavery, it seems to me it should be included at the end of the lead paragraph of the "Historical reputation and legacy" section as a new paragraph. However controversial the opinions may be about this activism, the fact that it's taking place isn't the least bit controversial. And this is a shocking new development, unimaginable just a few years ago. It should be duly noted, not buried in the "Places and monuments" sub-sub-section. We can't include only the laudatory parts of Washington's reputation and legacy. YoPienso (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree; mention of the Washington connection to the present-day re-examination of America's legacy of slavery and racism should not be put into any of the Memorials subsection's subsections (its inclusion there was premature). It should be mentioned in a dedicated paragraph in the section's introduction, as I suggested above in my initial counterproposal. I regret my part in pointing this discussion into the sub-sub-section weeds. Drdpw (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone ahead and inserted a paragraph up-page. YoPienso (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose "Proposal: In 2021, efforts to remove Washington's name and image by the SFSB have been unsuccessful, due to Washington' link to slavery. " Insufficient sourcing to crest WP:DUE. Also, it's inaccurate as written; the proposals weren't unsuccessful due to Washington's link to slavery. Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I favor the proposal and information about damages to Washington memorials by activists. Not saying anything is bias and whitewashing. When the President of a so-called representative republic is actively denying freedom to black slaves every six months, in Pennsylvania, keeping them in perpetual slavery, that is racism. Modern criticism of that racism should not be excluded from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

George Washington was a wonder man that had started the world we live in now. 216.107.203.66 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please mention the year

When discussing events that took place in a new year (for instance, the Battle of Princeton was on January 3, 1777), please mention the year at least once in the article, instead of assuming that readers will infer the correct year from the fact that the most recent previous events were in December 1776 and now the discussion refers to January. 2601:200:C000:1A0:D028:9F22:534E:3701 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Loyalist sympathies ?

Did Washington have any loyalist sympathies prior to the American Revolutionary War? He did serve in the British military. His mother during the ARW may have had loyalist sympathies. Benedict Arnold may have said Washington could be bought too. Benedict Arnold, who ended up fighting for Britain, I believe was a close friend to Washington. Does anyone have any opinions on the matter? Thanks.

This page is not the proper forum for discussion of opinions concerning whether Arnold thought Washington could also be bought. This article addresses Washington's shift away from loyalty to the Crown. And, as far as Benedict Arnold is concerned, Washington considered him his "fighting general," and supported him up to the time of Arnold's defection back to the British. Drdpw (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say Washington had loyalist sympathies? His policies as President favored Britain. This may have caused a party split with Jefferson. I am not stating an opinion, I just asked a question. Arnold was expressing defection sympathies before his defection, and Washington did nothing. Arnold married a loyalist, prior to his defection, but Washington kept him in command. This is only meant to be a discussion. If there are no sources that say Washington had loyalist sympathies, the case is closed. I do believe I read his mother may have had loyalist sympathies. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

I want to fix some mistakes in this article to make sure people get the best answers Lolcool12345r (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Caption on the crossing the Delaware painting

Are we finally to the point where we can admit that the footnote on this caption was a particularly stupid idea and should be removed? Any criticisms about "inaccuracies" in this painting would also apply to the other pictures in that section. --Khajidha (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Year he was named General of the Armies?

The Wiki states that he was given the rank of General of the Armies in 1978 but the official Army website FAQ page regarding 5 Star Generals states that he was given the rank in 1976 during the Bicentennial (https://history.army.mil/html/faq/5star.html). Which date is correct? Schizowallflower (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed – 1976 is correct. thanks. Drdpw (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Preceeded By" is empty and labeled as "Office Established" Considering there were preceding presidents, it shouldn't be marked that way.

This line is heavily misleading, as there was a position called president that was over the colonies that was a direct predecessor to Washington, legally speaking. The position wasn't new, it was just the framework surrounding it (switching from Articles of Confederation to Constitution) was new.

The line should read something more like:

"Office re-established under constitution, preceded in Articles of Confederation by Cyrus Griffin (1788-89)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.51.240 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The portion of the infobox under discussion is labeled "President of the United States". There were no prior "presidents of the United States", and adding predecessor content here would be confusing, IMO. While top leaders over the colonies also had a title of "president", I don't believe the infobox is a good place to convey that. —ADavidB 12:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. – The lead paragraph of the President of the Continental Congress article includes a sourced sentence about that office being unrelated to the President of the United States, and includes a section on the subject. —ADavidB 12:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: this issue of "President" etc. - see the Recurring Themes section in the talk page headers above. Editorial consensus and consensus of reliable sources is that George Washington was the first President of the United States, John Hanson held a different office being that of President of the United States in Congress Assembled. Shearonink (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2021

Could you please add he was included in the musical “Hamilton Conner Roquemore (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No Conner Roquemore (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Slavery

Removal of title as "slave owner" is important, as it confirms that he was so. Inappropriate to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauGraf (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact about Washington that he owned enslaved persons. However, this is not among the primary things for which he is notable. This fact should absolutely be mentioned in the lead and in the article, and is, but not in the lead sentence material. This issue was discussed a few months ago and that is the consensus of editors, see Talk:George Washington/Archive 37#George Washington, slave owner for discussion details. Drdpw (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

disagree. It is important, as it is for Robert Lee, or Thomas Jefferson. ~Blaugraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauGraf (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not whitewash history. Washington was a prominent wealthy slave owner. He was a slave owner while he was President. The Fugitive Slave Act that Washington signed into law while President benefitted him, a slave owner. He rotated his slaves every six months to keep his slaves in slavery perpetually. He barred black slaves from serving in the Revolutionary Army, while King George III freed them and gave them uniforms to fight for the British. The British freed slaves were given a colony in Nova Scotia. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Stop with the polemics against Washington and false accusations that Wikipedia is whitewashing Washington's behavior as a slave owner. This subject has been discussed thoroughly over the years on this talk page, and, as a result, the article reflects the historical facts accurately. Drdpw (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Slave owner, should be mentioned in the intros of all the US presidents who were slave owners. It's a topic discussion, that should be held at the appropriate WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Per List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves, there were 12 slave-owning presidents. Dimadick (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not a false accusation Washington owned slaves. Washington even admitted he owned slaves in his will. I am not attacking anyone. Just stating an opinion on a talk page. I am not attacking Washington, nor Wikipedia, but merely questioning the reliability of sourcing. Why do historians rate Washington so highly, even though he was a prominent slave-owning President? Are historians pro-slavery? Washington had limited education and he was not a public speaker. He signed legislation that strengthened slavery in the South. I have been to Washington's home. I was in the bedroom where he died. I have visited Mount Vernon and Washington D.C. I want editors to freely edit the article. There should be a certain amount of freedom of opinion on the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of human teeth in dentures

I took text from George Washington's teeth to put in this article, but that was reverted. I would argue the use of human teeth taken from living people, in a time without anesthesia and little pain control; is an obvious and important fact, even for such a famous person. I'm not saying to put it in the lead, or give it much space (that's what George Washington's teeth is for). But, it should at least be mentioned in a matter-of-fact-tone. To entirely remove all mention of this fact, is white-washing. I don't care about the exact wording, and am not arguing for the specific wording I copied. I'd be happy to keep the entire "teeth" discussion concise, since there's always a size issue the overall article. If we need to limit coverage, it's probably unnecessary to say "As a public figure, he relied upon the strict confidence of his dentist." That kinda goes without saying (or could be said of every conceivable medical treatment). --Rob (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You want us to mention that his dentures may have included teeth extracted from slaves. Some sources say that when Washington’s own teeth were pulled, he saved the teeth for use in his own dentures. If he also bought teeth from slaves, is there any evidence as to whether those teeth had already been removed for the sake of the slaves’ health (just like Washington’s own teeth had been removed), or evidence that the slave wasn’t selling teeth of a deceased relative? Sure, it’s hypothetically possible that Washington coerced a slave to let his teeth be pulled, but it’s also possible the slave already had them pulled for health reasons, or perhaps the slave sold teeth of a deceased relative, or maybe Washington bought teeth from slaves solely for his wife Martha who also had dentures. The matter certainly warrants further historical research, but the whole thing seems quite vague at this point. So, I support the revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple possibilities, and a variety of sources that discuss details,. All of that can go in George Washington's teeth. For this article, I'm asking we simply state they *may* have used teeth from slaves. We're already mentioning what they're made of (e.g. that they're not wooden). We're mentioning a drug he used for pain related to dental issues. It makes sense to mention what good sources give good reason to believe they were made of, as that's at least as significant. Also, while we must qualify the statement with "may", this isn't mere speculation or conjecture. We know as fact, that he personally purchased teeth from "negros" (as he referred to them) for 122 shillings.[2] So, there so there is no possibility that we're defaming him, or implying he did something he was adverse to doing. The exact details of who's teeth were put in who's dentures is unclear, and doesn't need to be discussed here. But, a bare mention of the fact he may have used human teeth is quite significant, and worthy of mentioning. --Rob (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This article mentions that he got smallpox as a young man which *may* have rendered him sterile. But we don’t mention in this article that the treatment he got —- mercury(I) chloride (calomel)—- may have caused his dental problems. It’s hard to see why that’s less significant than his purchase of teeth. So there’s a lot of iffy stuff that we’re not including here in this main article that’s still fascinating & biographically significant. Scientists have apparently not tested his dentures at Mount Vernon to find out how many human teeth were included, and with modern technology they should also be able to determine how many of those human teeth were his own teeth that had previously been pulled; if it turns out that some of the human teeth in his dentures were not his own, perhaps they could also test to see whether they originally belonged to African Americans (anyone can get their DNA tested nowadays to find out what regions their ancestors came from). AFAIK none of those tests have been done, but they would bring us to a much more substantial “may” than the “may” we have now. Even then, it’s well known that slaves at Mount Vernon grew vegetables, hunted, and earned money in other ways too during their spare time, so it would have been entirely normal and unremarkable for them to get some extra money by selling their own teeth that had already needed to be pulled for health reasons (or selling postmortem rights to their teeth or selling their deceased relatives’ teeth). So you can see that it’s a very long chain of suppositions that gets us to a really noteworthy conclusion. I agree it would be noteworthy if Washington had teeth yanked from his unwilling slaves just so he could use them in his own dentures. That would be hideous behavior. But we’re nowhere near a substantial probability that that happened, and most reliable sources on this subject don’t suggest a substantial probability. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thivierr: I might have been a bit hasty in reverting your edit. I was sure that there was already a sentence in that paragraph stating that Washington's false teeth were made of a variety of materials, including animal and human teeth. It appears that such a sentence was/is not there. I've no objection to there bring a sentence in the article about the material used in Washington's dentures, perhaps one like this from the mountvernon.org website: "Throughout his life Washington employed numerous full and partial dentures that were constructed of materials including human, and probably cow and horse teeth, ivory (possibly elephant), lead-tin alloy, copper alloy (possibly brass), and silver alloy." ("The Trouble with Teeth"). Drdpw (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

How about this: “He had several sets of false teeth, which he wore during his presidency, made using a variety of materials including both animal and human teeth, but wood was not used despite common lore.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's learn how to be succinct, shall we?

To say in the summary that Washington was "an American political leader, military general, statesman, and Founding Father" is sloppy writing, at best. Being a political leader and statesman goes hand in hand, and there is no reason to say it twice. It is also sloppy to describe him as a general, because that is merely a rank, and he held many ranks over time. If a notable person had been a Private First Class, died in battle, and was awarded the Medal of honor, it would not be likely that anyone would describe him as "an American Private First Class" in the summary. Therefore, the summary should be more accurately read that Washington was an American soldier, statesman, and Founding Father.

Furthermore, it's silly that making such a minor change, that does nothing except clean up clumsy verbiage, seems to be a problem for some people. The absurdity of such mindless revisions is highlighted in reverting a change that does nothing but CORRECTLY capitalize the title "President of the United States." Let's please act like we have better than a kindergarten education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaapje (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gekaapje: A succinct and non-condescending "I have changed X to Y because… " statement would have been sufficient and more constructive. As for the capitalization of 'President', we go by the manual of style – see, MOS:JOBTITLES. Drdpw (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"George Washington, guilty of acts of genocide"

According to the site voltairenet.org, on June 4, 1779, George Washington ordered the invasion of Iroquois territory and the killing as many Iroquois as possible regardless of age or sex. Those who survived were given as slaves to the colonists. “Destroying not only the men but the settlements and the plantations is very important. All sown fields must be destroyed and new plantations and harvests must be prevented. What lead can not do will be done by hunger and winter.” 40 Indian settlements were subject to massacre and thousands of plantations were devastated. Is there support for this claims in standard sources? Starple (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that the site is a deprecated source, but it does seem to be claiming to quote a letter by Washington. Is it genuine? Starple (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I just got a website that was in French. 1779 Washington was fighting the American Revolutionary War. Were the Iroquois aiding the British? It could be considered genocide. Another source or other sources would be needed for clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Some native peoples were allied with the British during Queen Anne's War and others with the French. The British kept their promises to their allies and a Royal Proclamation of 1763 forbade settlement west of the Appalachian crest. That caused a lot of unhappiness with people like Washington who were eager to take more land. And with the French no longer a threat after the Seven Years' War, they felt they no longer needed protection from the Crown. Starple (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That would make Washington a land grabber and criminal. He started the French Indian War. That was a land grab too. I think Washington did not want the Crown or Parliament to make slavery illegal. It is hard to believe people would war over taxes and tea. Slaves and land yes. The problem is historians venerate Washington and make him look like a god. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"I think Washington did not want the Crown or Parliament to make slavery illegal." How likely was that in the 18th century?

• Per Abolitionism in the United Kingdom, the 1770s wave for abolitionism in England resulted in the creation of a new generation of freedmen, counting between 10,000 and 15,000 members. The legal decision cited as a precedent did not apply to British overseas territories.
• The British Empire abolished the slave trade in its areas with the Slave Trade Act 1807. Then-living slaves were not actually freed.
• The British Empire abolished slavery in most of its areas with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. The notable exceptions to this law were the areas under the control of the East India Company, the island of Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and the island of Saint Helena. Dimadick (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

One of the categories says he was of Dutch descent, but no sources from the article claim this.

Please cite sources if Washington was of Dutch ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk • contribs) 07:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Washington was not of Dutch ancestry/descent; I have removed him from that category. Drdpw (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This site may help the page. As far back as the 12th Century, Washington's family was in England. Beyond that their is little knowledge. "The Wessyngtons, or Washingtons, had been a prominent family in the county of Durham, England, since the twelfth century when William de Hertburn settled at Wessyngton on the River Wear and took the name de Wessyington based on the name of the location." Ancestry Rob Hardy, Ph.D. Carleton College (mountvernon.org) So it appears Washington's ancestry goes back, at least 5-6 centuries in England. That might be good to mention in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This could be added: " Washington's family ancestry goes back to the 12 Century when William de Hertburn settled in Wessyngton on the River Wear in Durham County, England. Hertburn took on the location name of Wessyington, later changed to Washington." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The name "Hertburn" is English. Washington ancestry beyond the 12 Century is probably speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article link: Washington, Tyne and Wear Cmguy777 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that's tangential material here. What this article currently states, "Washington's great-grandfather John Washington emigrated in 1656 from Sulgrave, Northamptonshire, England, ..." is sufficient. The information you note above about George Washington's English roots belongs (and is mentioned) in the Washington family article. Drdpw (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The information would quell rumors of Washingtons' ancestry as far as being Dutch, Albanian, etc ... This would work: "Washington's family ancestry goes back to 12 Century England." That is just a 9-word sentence. No more questions on Washington's ancestry. The source is very reliable. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The detail is still extraneous. Adding it will not quell the unfounded claim that Washington was Dutch or Albanian. The article states clearly where The Washington's family was from. Other details about his ancestry can go in the "Washington family" article.

9 words sourced by a PH D is not extraneous. Anything to stop the notion Washington was Dutch or Albanian is good for the article. Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sourced details. I did so. I don't want an edit war, but the reversion was unfounded, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Rented Slaves in the Lede

According to the article Washington rented hundreds of slaves. The current slavery paragraph ignored their suffering. It didn't describe what they did for him either so I added a line saying that he exploited them in his house, farm, and Whitehouse.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 16:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• According to which article? And what are the sources? And contrary to your statements here and in your edit summaries, nowhere in the slavery article is the term "renting" of slaves or the term "hiring" (as related to hiring out of Washington's slaves to others) specifically mentioned.
• But anyway, adding that information only to the lead is against the Lead guideline - MOS:LEAD - it appears nowhere else in the main text of the article. The Lead guideline states that the lead section is supposed to be a summary of an article's most important contents.
• It is against policy to use one Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article, please see WP:CIRCULAR.
• That being said, the main Washington article is over 1MB in size and already has a section about George Washington and slavery plus there is that other separate article about George Washington and slavery. We cannot fit every morsel of information about Washington into this article, it's already much too big - that's why there are sub-articles.

Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Shearonink It is a fact, although apparently he was only renting 42 slaves at his death - see this article. For some reason it has been removed from the article. I take it that you do not oppose to the inclusion of this information in this article, and that article. https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/the-growth-of-mount-vernons-enslaved-community/ ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 17:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Shearonink please can you explain why this is not a reliable source. https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/washingtons-1799-will/ ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 18:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Directly cite the source in the article. Verifiability and all that. Mentioning it in edit summaries, sort of loosely alluding to the source within a vaguely-constructed "cite" but not providing a direct reference to the source according to this featured good article's established precedents and referencing style is against editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk I can't understand you at all. The information came from the Mount Vernon article cited, which is used as a reference in the article. Are you saying that it is not a reliable source?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This next section is a continuation of the discussion that was taking place on User talk:L'Origine du monde at the George Washington and slavery section. My comments below are in response to L'Origine du monde's last statement there:

I think simple facts about how many slaves he rented are more important than much of that other information. I disagree with your characterisation of my edits, and I would be very grateful if you would continue the discussion on the relevant talk page, starting with an explanation as to why mountvernon.org is not a reliable source.

You have misunderstood my comments. I never said mountvernon.org was not a reliable source. You, however, did not cite that organization as a source, you created a reference that was unable to be verified with this edit when you added <ref>Mount Vernon Slaves</ref> to the article. That's an incomplete reference and, now, looking over the complete article, looks like you were trying to link to the named reference "Mount Vernon Slaves". Your reference's nomenclature was mangled, I've adjusted both it and the allthingsliberty references (in accordance with the cite-style established here at this article).
As to where in the article the number of people Washington leased/rented from other slaveholders (lead?/main text?) or whether or not the number of people that Washington rented should be included in this article or in George Washington and slavery, I am going to leave that to others and editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Shearonink - sorry for the confusion.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 13:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Look. All of this begs the question, why don't historians call Washington a "tyrant" for owning slaves. Whether he rented slaves seems to be a moot point. His slaves were subject to being whipped. Why is that not "tyrant" status? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If they don't use the term in reliable sources, we don't do so here. Beyond that, this is not a social medium for discussion as to 'why'. —ADavidB 05:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral and not reflect the bias of historians or editors. Are historians pro-slavery when it comes to Washington? I am asking these questions only for myself, rhetorically, not to other editors, nor want a discussion on the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd modify that to "Wikipedia articles are to neutrally reflect the writings of historians and other reliable sources." Editors should include this information (biased or not) proportional to its existence. —ADavidB 05:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is some support to my view: The Yorktown Tragedy: Washington's Slave Roundup The blacks who fought for the British were rounded up and imprisoned. Washington turned the U.S. Army into a mob of slave hunters. This information has been ignored. "This is not the way that Americans choose to remember Yorktown." All we are told is that Washington and the French defeated the "bad guy" British, who had freed the colonist slaves. I would say historians tend to cover up Washington and slavery. It is almost as if historians choose to remember Washington the way they want to. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"why don't historians call Washington a "tyrant" for owning slaves" Because tyrants were absolute rulers who typically rose to power through "unconventional means". That Washington was a slaveowner does not mean he had absolute power in the United States. He simply had the support of the political oligarchy of his era. Dimadick (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am mainly referring to Washington as a tyrant over black people or slaves. Washington had absolute power over them. He used the U.S. Army to imprison freed slaves the British had freed. He did have the support of France and Spain during the Revolution or War of Independence. Yet he went to war with his fellow British subjects. In that sense, he was like the Cromwell of his times, going to war against his King. The difference was Washington went to war with Parliament too. There was also the harsh treatment of loyalists after the war ended. There was the harsh treatment of Indians during the Revolution. The Presidency was made for Washington in mind. The President is commander of the Army, appoints judges, and can pardon people. Those are similar qualities of a King or emperor. I would say Washington did rise to power through unconventional means. The colonists rebelled. There was a war. Sometimes historians seem silent on the matter. There really were no rights for women or Indians after the war. What I think would be helpful is a historian who actually addresses these issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not proposing anything for the article. I just think more clarification is needed on Washington and slavery, and why he is admired so much by historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"There really were no rights for women or Indians after the war." Women's rights were rather poor or nonexistent before the war as well. I think the legal system on the British colonies derived from English Common Law, which severely restricted the rights of women. :

• "According to English Common Law, which developed from the 12th century onward, all property which a wife held at the time of marriage became a possession of her husband. Eventually English courts forbade a husband's transferring property without the consent of his wife, but he still retained the right to manage it and to receive the money which it produced."
• "According to a study published in the American Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, the condition for women during Locke's time were as quote":
  • English women had fewer grounds for divorce than men until 1923
  • Husbands controlled most of their wives' personal property until the Married Women's Property Act 1870 and Married Women's Property Act 1882
  • Children were the husband's property
  • Rape was legally impossible within a marriage
  • Wives lacked crucial features of legal personhood, since the husband was taken as the representative of the family (thereby eliminating the need for women's suffrage). These legal features of marriage suggest that the idea of a marriage between equals appeared unlikely to most Victorians." Dimadick (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Is slavery a form of tyranny? Do historians consider slavery tyranny? George Washington was a slave owner. Why are historians so silent on the matter? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop. As it says up top: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Drdpw (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have stopped. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

In the part here: By early adulthood he was writing with "considerable force" and "precision" There should be a comma, making it: By early adulthood, he was writing with "considerable force" and "precision" Moetoslow (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

...not really necessary...2600:1702:4960:1DE0:3168:4B2F:94B3:123F (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Birthdate again!

According to Wikipedia: "How to render Washington's birth year has been previously discussed on this talk page, as seen in the Talk page Archives including Talk:George Washington/Archive 1#Birth date, Talk:George Washington/Archive 6#George Washington's birthday, Talk:George Washington/Archive 6#Founding Fathers' birthdates, Talk:George Washington/Archive 9#GW's birthday & calendar switch issue, Talk:George Washington/Archive 7#Birthdate, and Talk:George Washington/Archive 10#Dates for George Washington's birth. Editorial consensus is that he was born in "1731/Old Style" and in "1732/New Style" - this rendering is supported by reliable sources." However that currently, 21Feb 2022, is not the case. All references to the old style birthdate have been removed. Alright Wikipedia, it is time to put it back in old and new style and then PROTECT IT so it cannot be changed again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A9B0:527F:55C2:C7C1:7401:8ECA (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That information hasn't been removed, it is in the article, at Note "b" which appears in the article's first sentence right after GW's name + February 22, 1732 and which reads:

Contemporaneous records used the Old Style Julian calendar and the Annunciation Style of enumerating years, recording his birth as February 11, 1731. The British Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 implemented in 1752 altered the official British dating method to the Gregorian calendar with the start of the year on January 1 (it had been March 25). These changes resulted in dates being moved forward 11 days and an advance of one year for those between January 1 and March 25. For a further explanation, see Old Style and New Style dates.

Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)