Talk:Martha Washington/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits by 71.0.89.28

From the recent sequence of edits, it appears you wish to blame President and Mrs. Washington for the entire institution of chattel slavery in the United States. Keep in mind that these were people of their time, and place, and that slavery was an accepted institution. A neutral point of view is required on all Wikipedia articles. Words implying strong emotion or culpabilty are not appropriate. Historical views on these issues vary -- and while all are welcome to be presented, it is appropriate to identify those historians, documentation and opinions which are in the minority or questioned by their peers. So, if you continue to make edits which reflect' 'Bold text''''Bold text''''a strong POV, you will continue to be reverted or your edits will be altered to remove the POV. This is Wikipedia policy. If you would like to discuss your opinion, your point of view, or the point of view of your sources, this discussion page is the place. Please make comments there before you edit the article again. Thank you. WBardwin 07:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

don't think that 71.0.89.28 was trying to "blame" anyone for slavery. I think you're making way too much of a few fact changes. "Keep in mind that these were people of their time, and place, and that slavery was an accepted institution." Not so -- G. Washington did NOT accept slavery. He released his slaves. I think you're showing your POV here. comments by 128.143.193.229 12:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It was an accepted institution at the time, although somewhat controversial -- I didn't say anything about George's personal pov or his decisions about his slave's freedom at/near the end of his life. Although George and Martha were "good" masters, they bought and sold people during most of their adult lives, moved people from estate to estate and seperated families. These were common practices, and very few people of the time found them as abhorrant as we might do. So, if we judge them by our own perspective, we are inserting a POV into the article. WBardwin 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that someone has risen in support of my fixes to this entry. I humbly suggest that you might want to look at Wiencek's book. He brings new light on what was "accepted" or not in that era about slavery. You may be showing your own POV! Also, if I may make some gentle corrections, with apologies, "seperated" is properly "separated" and "abhorrant" is actually "abhorrent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.91.156 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

The revisionist nature of Wiencek's book, and the fact that other historians call his conclusions into question, are included in the New York Times Book Review. Washington's negative (from our perspective) relationships with slaves are also discussed. New York Times Book Review 207.200.116.130 08:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard the phrase "southern institution" as a locution that would demand ironical quotes. Did the author mean "peculiar institution"? First of all, slavery was not uniquely southern (our family's farm in Upstate NY still had a whipping post on it when we purchased it in 1932--or so my great-grandmother claimed). But, in relation to the south, it was called the "peculiar institution.68.161.219.118 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

02/04/09 - Sorry, but I cannot nor will I ever support wikipedia now after seeing what they allowed to be posted about Martha Washington. She was a person of her time and that time included slavery. She inherited her slaves yet, you let the creator of this article of information on her to go on and on about Martha Washington and slavery. I have followed her life since I was a teenager as President Washington is and always will be my favorite president. Never, had I see such garbage written about her until recently. Slavery happened, get over it and time to move on. Stop trying to ruin people like Martha Washington who had more morals in her time then any of the so called authors of this flaming article about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.219.93 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Made some updates to try to remove strong POV in this article. In general, I think this entire article is shallow and too much space is devoted to the MW having slaves. I hope the edits I made were done appropriately, as I'm trying to help.VolunteerMom (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Estate Management

What information do you have that Martha managed the Custis Estate after her marriage to GW? His letters show that he [dealt with the overseers on the Custis properties.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.89.28 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page. I recently read Brady(Brady, Patricia. "Martha Washington: An American Life), and reviewed some other material. Brady noted that after Daniel Custis' death, all managerial functions, including letters to the family's London agents were taken over by Martha. Not surprisingly, as Custis had no close male relatives other than his young son.

What may be surprising from our perspective was that some of these activities and correspondence continued after Martha's remarriage. Well catalogued documents show that George was an active manager of his, his wife's, and his stepchildren's property. He considered himself an involved and progessive farmer. But Martha was involved both in purchases and in sales of the properties' products. I think most 20th/21st century people discount the very important management contributions of the women in households and large properties in this period. They were not limited to buying gowns and putting on dinner parties - but were responsible for large scale sales and purchases of commodities, for feeding and clothing slave and employed workers, and for maintaining several households. The loss of the wife/mother of the family was a severe blow to the well-being of the large economic enterprise of the southern plantation. Male responsibilities focused more on crops, livestock, building, stocks and investments, and regretably on the buying and selling of people. Men also tended to supervise a property manager for each seperate piece of real estate.

Documents also show that as George's military and political duties took him from home, Martha stepped into some of his functions as well. She supervised some of the property managers and forwarded their reports to George when they were apart. Although she consulted with him about other issues and concerns of the property, some decisions were made without asking his opinion. Her management/involvement may have been compounded by the relatively early death of her son in the Revolutionary war -- leaving several young Custis children, two of which became the Washington's formal wards. Unfortunately, Martha burned what she considered to be personal correspondence between herself and George shortly before her death. This leaves business correspondence and household records as the most complete primary sources for her activities. From that perspective, I think it fair that they share credit in this article for managing the Custis estate. Hope you agree. What sources or material have you been reading about Martha and George? WBardwin 08:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your points sound good, but specific sources are needed to support the statement that they shared responsibilities, or a general source on elite women's roles. Parkwells (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Double check birthday

Anon contribution: "The Encyclopedia Americana, Colonial Williamsburg and The White House sites all give Martha Washington's birthday as June 2, 1731, not Jun 21, 1731 as listed in Wikipedia."

looks like it could have been an easy vandalism. Will check the back files -- please look for confirmation. WBardwin 22:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

She was born on the Chestnut Grove Plantation in New Kent,VA

If anyone wants to edit it to say this, as this is the exact location of her birth, not just "near Williamburg". (btw, i know this because i lived on the grounds where she was born, and teh government has this huge landmark thing that says Martha Washington was born here...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.162.186 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Reworking Bio

I removed this phrase from the 2nd paragraph of the biography, talking about Martha's son Jack:

his widow Eleanor Custis was a daugther of Benedict Swingate Calvert-son of Charles Calvert, 5th Baron Baltimore.

I was restructuring run on sentences and just couldn't find a workable way to include this information in her biography. If there was some reference as to why Eleanor gave Martha the children to raise, then I could see it fitting in. Otherwise, it's a non sequitur.JordeeBec 04:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Another image available

FYI, I just uploaded to Commons the anachronistic portrait of Martha Washington that hangs in the East Room of the White House. — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On the money

She was also first woman on U.S. money, a US$1 silver certificate; anybody know year? Include it? Trekphiler 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) She was second woman after Pocahontas who appeared on US currency: "1865: A national bank note with "The Battle of Lexington" and "Columbia Leading a Procession" on either side of the face and obligation text conspicuously in the middle. The reverse features "The Baptism of Pocahontas" in black, and a green border." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.237.96 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Flag

Shouldn't she have a British flag next to her Born date? I think that is a modern, not colonial, Virginia flag, but I really do not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

First Lady VS Consort to the President

Consort to the President or something along those lines should be used instead of "First Lady" which was not a title until the late 1800s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.116.3 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Martha Washington was Church of England I believe, and the National First Ladies Biography link says the same. The article says Baptist, and I'm curious as to what resource describes her as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.203.224 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation help

I am in contact with a professional voice actor who is trying to record a spoken version of George Washington and he wants to hear someone pronounce "Martha Dandridge Custis". If anyone would be willing to call him up or even leave a voice mail with the proper pronunciation, please email me and I will send you his contact info. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Birth name

I'm confused about Mrs Washington's birth name. Was her father John Dandridge [text of the biography], John Plotriage [sidebar], or John Plotriadge [sidebar]? All of these CANNOT be correct. Djgibboni (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC) DJGibboni —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djgibboni (talk • contribs) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism. "Dandridge" is correct. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

martha

lots of facts too reduce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.203.13 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Filthy democrat!

I inserted this quote in all seriousness; hope it doesn't offend anyone.

Bailey's included this famous remark in his well-known history book The American Pageant. It's a commentary of the attitude of many social elites, including the Washingtons, on the emergence of democratic political movements, especially with regard to events in France in the the late Eighteen Century. They abhorred "democrats", of course. 36hourblock (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote (vandalized by a cowardly Wikityrant) was posted as follows:

"Filthy democrat" — Martha Washington, on discovering a greasy mark on the wallpaper following a presidential reception, surmising its source.

Bailey, Thomas. The American Pageant, A History of the Republic. Vol.1, 4th Edition. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1971. P. 255

You'll notice that whoever snuck in and tore it down was rather slipshod; they failed to remove the now superfluous reference; let's see if they sneak back in and finish the job. Hee-hee.--36hourblock (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Her husband's birthdate is given in both styles so that readers are in no doubt that 22 February is a Gregorian date and 11 February is a Julian date. Why don't we do the same for Martha? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Martha Washington/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

In the section "Martha Washington and slavery" the last sentence reads: "she whipped her slaves and was so mean that she killed the ones who didn't do it right" The sentence doesn't make much sense in the context of the section; is it a rogue insertion? On using a modern Virginia state flag by Martha's birth information: I'm not sure what the policy in the matter might be, but while the Virginia state seal was adopted in 1776 and therefore dates to Martha's lifetime, the first official Virginia flag was adopted in 1861. Source, Flags of the World web site, http://www.fotw.us/flags/us-va.html. Axsc2 (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

MW and Slavery

The following paragraph appears to duplicate much of the section's content and has been moved here for discussion. Perhaps some details could be incorporated into the text. WBardwin (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Her husband, George Washington, in his will, expressed the "earnest wish" to free the slaves that he owned in his own right, and to do so at the time of his death. Some of the slaves at Mount Vernon, however, were the property of Martha (the "dower negroes"). Although George, as Martha's husband, under the common law doctrine of seisin jure uxoris, had control of Martha's property, including the dower negroes, during the marriage, that control would end at George's death, and Martha had the right to retain her slaves. George's slaves and Martha's slaves had intermarried, and, as George noted in his will, emancipating his slaves at his death would "excite the most painful sensations, if not disagreeable consequences." For George to free his own slaves at the time of his death, moreover, might have left Martha with inadequate means to operate Mount Vernon. Therefore, George provided, in his will, that his slaves would not be set free until Martha's death. Even this provoked difficulty, because some of the slaves, knowing that they were to be free upon Martha's death, refused to work and were merely waiting for "Lady Washington" to die.

Material can be added only if there is a source for the assertions about the slaves not working and waiting for her to die. In fact, Martha freed GW's slaves within a year of his death rather than waiting.Parkwells (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

martha washington

martha washington is george Washington's wife —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.56.2 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You got a reliable source for that, bucko? 71.245.146.125 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey you're wrong...she was the daughter of a tobacco plantation owner in the South. (86.45.219.166 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

Valley Forge: Original Research (OR)

Much of this section is based on OR in primary records, which is against Wikipedia policy. Articles are supposed to be based on RS, reliable secondary sources. Additional sources should be found for content, or it can be removed.Parkwells (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dates Suspect

The article says that Mrs. Washington's first husband died in 1757. Later on, it says that she married George in 1755. Ahem. That cannot be right. Also, it says that she was 27 at the time of her marriage, and that George was nearly 27. Even if they married in 1757, that is not correct. Martha was born in 1731, so she would have been 25 or 26 in 1757, depending on the time of year. George, who was born in 1732, would have been 24 or 25.John Paul Parks (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What Else Was Martha Wearing at the Wedding Ceremony?

The article indicates that Martha wore purple silk shoes with spangled buckles. Surely she was wearing more than that. Do we have any information on what her wedding dress looked like?John Paul Parks (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Martha Dandridge Custis Washington

Is this really the most appropriate way to refer to her in the opening para? She was born Martha Dandridge. When she was first married, she was Martha Custis. After marrying George, she was Martha Washington. It may be common practice in the US to continue using maiden names and previous married names, but this seems to breach Wikipedia guidelines. Our practice is to use a person's full legal name, but this ain't it, imo. JackofOz 12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but historically she has been known by the full three surnames. It might be best to leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.116.3 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

She's usually referred to as "Martha Washington" or "Martha Custis Washington". I'll change the lead to that and add née Dandridge. The page should stay at Martha Washington though, because that's how she's best known. Ariadne55 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

During her lifetime she would have been known as Martha Dandridge, then Martha Custis, then Martha Washington. The habit of ascribing multiple surnames to women didn't start till later: about 1820 in New England Unitarian circles, I would guess. The problem about giving her three surnames at once is that this form would never have been used in her lifetime, by her or anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.217.108 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Lack of attribution in 'Biography' section

I may be misreading the reference section, but the middle of the Biography section is lifted almost entirely from The Complete Book of U. S. Presidents [ISBN 0-517-18353-6] without proper attribution:

It seems likely that Washington had known Martha and her husband for some time. In March 1758 he visited her at White House twice; the second time he came away with either an engagement of marriage or at least her promise to think about his proposal. ... Their wedding was a grand affair. The groom appeared in a suit of blue and silver with red trimming and gold knee buckles; the bride wore purple silk shoes with spangled buckles. After the Reverend Peter Mossum pronounced them man and wife, the couple honeymooned at White House for several weeks before setting up housekeeping at Washington's Mount Vernon estate. Their marriage appears to have been a solid one, untroubled by infidelity or clash of temperament.

At the moment some of these pieces are attributed to a 2009 Washington Post article, but the copy of Book I have was published in 2001. Were the proper attributions lost in a previous edit? Perplexed 01:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Added your cite; the WA Post article mostly does not include this content at all.Parkwells (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Content to live a private life at Mount Vernon and her homes from the Custis estate, Martha Washington followed Washington to his winter encampments for each of eight years.

Are you sure you don't mean 'Not content to live a private life...'? Valetude (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

11-year gap

Nothing on what she was doing between 1778 and 1789. Valetude (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed something about this article...

It now has 5 "citation needed" templates. Now that, in and of itself, is not so remarkable...however, what is remarkable is that these templates are several years old, dating from 2010 to 2018. I fixed two "citation needed" issues dating from October 2017. Could maybe folks pitch in and find refs/adjust the text/etc on the remaining ones? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There are only 3 left now. Anyone else want to dive in? There are at least 135 other people who have this article on their Watchlists, wouldn't it be nice to have all those "citation needed" issues fixed?... Shearonink (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink, I put it on watch a few weeks ago. Happy to see you got to it first! I've been trying to gather sources and start reading, but I'm terribly terribly slow these days. Definitely interested in jumping in, if you don't mind someone who's not around much. Victoria (tk) 18:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The more the merrier! Seriously...YAY and Thank you. It's kind of interesting to me that US Presidents' articles get oodles of attention and editorial mayhem but the First Ladies have a tendency to languish...with "citation needed" templates. Laying around for years. I do want to fix this article up a bit and welcome your jumping in. Anyone else around here who's interested in improving this article is welcome to jump in too. As Abigail Adams said... "Remember the ladies". Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right, it is kinda interesting how little attention the First Ladies articles get. Even more interesting is the lack of sources. I've been searching for scholarly sources and am finding very little, to the point that there are scholarly articles about how little has been written about Martha! There is a book at the local library that might be helpful, so I'll pick it up the next time I get there. Otherwise I'll get something through ILL, but need to carve out time for it. Victoria (tk) 16:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have this book: link. Now all I have to do is read it. Victoria (tk) 20:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Added Ties That Bound: Founding First Ladies and Slaves to the Further reading section. I've checked through what GBooks preview is prepared to show me, specifically "The Widow Washington" chapter, but could find nothing to support any of the two citation needed statements that still appear in the article. From what little I've seen of the next chapter, the book does appear to also provide general info on Martha beyond its immediate focus on slavery. Factotem (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Birthdate - Old Style(Julian)...? New Style(Gregorian)...?

I have a request in to the George Washington Library re: if Martha Washington's commonly-cited June 2nd 1731 birthdate is Old Style or if it is New Style. If June 2nd is New Style then - the way I reckon it - her Old Style birthdate would be May 23rd, 1731. (Add 11 days from OS date to make NS, and re: George for people born between January 1st through March 25 they get an advance of one year.) Shearonink (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

One of the librarians wrote back saying that June 2, 1731 is the OS. birth date, the N.S. birthdate is June 13, 1731. I have asked them for a published reference stating this. Shearonink (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Cite has been found, I added it to the article. "The Dandridges of Virginia" Author(s): Wilson Miles Cary from The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jul., 1896), pp. 30-39. Shearonink (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Title?

Although the title was not coined until after her death...

I'm not sure First Lady ever became an official title. Still unofficial, I believe. Valetude (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)