Humanities desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 3

George Washington's salary

Did he really forego his salary as POTUS or not? I have a book that says that he did, but here on wikipedia it says he confided that he only took the job for the money, and he even had to borrow money to travel to his inauguration in NYC. Also, I am quite certain I have heard the claim that he took no salary before. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 00:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for that in wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And which of our articles discusses this? Blueboar (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are on the First inauguration of George Washington "George Washington had to borrow money just to get to New York City, which was the capital at the time. Despite owning 60,000 acres and 300 slaves, the cash-poor Washington could not sell or rent any of them as most other landowners were equally strapped for cash. In fact, Washington confided in his nephew that at least part of the reason he took the job was the salary, “as my means are not adequate to the expense at which I have lived since my retirement.""

I may have just answered my own question as I found on his own article "Though he wished to serve without a salary, Congress insisted that he accept it, later providing Washington $25,000 per year to defray costs of the presidency, equivalent to $6.14 million today." I'd still say that makes what I read in that book erroneous though. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 03:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, he initially forwent it, but allowed Congress to 'force' it on him. Whether intentional or not, that's must have been a great ploy image-wise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article content is just a cut-and-paste from a silly Yahoo News article and also citing Willard Sterne Randall in Daily Beast. You might do better with Ron Chernow's Washington p. 552-4. fiveby(zero) 17:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite literally just finished the above it’s a very good piece especially as a non-American, pleasantly balanced and not entirely hagiographic. And yes Chernow says similar to the IP above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:2EC1:8D00:F005:18BD:4756:D126 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited Possessors

What happened to the people who lawfully owned guns that became prohibited possessors under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the earlier Federal Firearms Act of 1938? I have heard of old people that have gone to buy guns only to find they are prohibited (since they weren't for their earlier purchases; however; I never read of any nationwide buyback, announcement, or recall of guns from such persons. The laws do not have a grandfather clause for such owners. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 10:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading of the first linked article, the Brady Act meant that they could continue to own the guns they already legally owned, but could no longer legally transport or ship them across State and International borders (unless the guns qualified as Curios & Relics). However, the earlier Act of 1938 may have already precluded them from acquiring and owning guns in the first place. It seems to me that you are conflating the terms of the Brady Act, which prohibited certain transactions by certain persons, and the Act of 1938 which prohibited ownership by certain persons. I'm sure, however, that there are editors with good knowledge of these matters who can comment more definitively. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the brady act only applied to transportation, but the categories of persons listed in it is identical to the list in effect today that is prohibited from ownership. The 1938 act mentions felons but it is not comprehensive, and more categories of people were added later (Lautenberg Amendment). Regardless of what acts were involved the question still stands of what happened to those people, especially for the broadest categories? — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 02:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nothing, if they didn't blab about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 does not mention or suggest it had an effect on the lawfullness of existing gun ownership. --Lambiam 09:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]