Talk:Robert Morris (financier)

message: There is a common conception that Morris, using wealth from the slave trade, financed the Revolutionary War. Historically that is a gross overstatement, perhaps, but there is evidence that he did financially benefit from the sale of slaves and that moneys from those sales were provided in support of General Washington's efforts. This article needs to confront the issue of Morris and slavery.
: Willing, Morris & Co. (not Morris individually) advertised 28 slaves that may have been sold in agency arrangements. They also advertised a larger consignment, but none were sold and the ship left Philadelphia and the owner took them to the West Indies.
: Additionally they had a ship that brought in 70 to Philadelphia and about 70 to Virginia, but many were sick and their trading firm had trouble collecting money from buyers. Next the ship went from Cape Coast Castle to Barbados, still carrying too few to be truly profitable. Finally the ship was taken by French Privateers. 
: There is actual evidence that Morris lost money in the trade, so it would have been impossible for him to finance a war costing over $50,000,000 with $0.00. While people may wish to believe Morris financed the Revolution with blood money, this is simply not true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtmorris (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morris and slavery 

message: Morris was also a member of an anti-slavery society while funding the slaveowning gentry after the war. I think the issue is too full of contradictions to assume any kind of actual personal interest in the matter from an ethical standpoint. The fact is that most people involved in slavery, or in this case rather loosely involved in slavery, had few or no considerations for it whatsoever. Considering Morris's statements to the effect that the common man (that is, the common white man) was essentially worthless, serving only to give better men his money, I don't think he had much empathy or animosity toward slaves. It's not as though every historical figure in existence was tied deep into the question of slavery simply because they lived in a period during which it was in occurrence.
Slavery was perhaps the most significant economic institution of the South in the 18th Century. It was obviously an economic factor in the funding of the war. Still, there are far better exposes to be had, especially when you're looking at someone like Morris.
This article is insufficient, and I'll be adding to it shortly. Did this come from 1911 Britannica? Or a high school textbook? For the wealthiest man in post-revolutionary America, a man who (arguably) singlehandedly effected the dissolution of government currency in favor of private notes, and who probably had two hands in the pocket of every major revolutionary politician, Morris doesn't have much of a wikipedia entry. I can't imagine anyone would want to know how many kids he had over that. 69.137.157.78 09:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  And... 

message: Holy charged terminology, Friznay. But I guess if you use the term on Washington...
Seriously, there are some quotes from this fellow out there that would scare the compost out of middle school kids looking up information on "the founding fathers". Here's a nice one, if a bit mangled as I can't find the original source but only my quotations of it: "The public  are vulgar Souls whose narrow Optics can see but the little Circle of selfish Concerns. Democratic government is filled with wicked men who are opposed to Heaven and its laws." His regular use of religious phrasing to refer to economic or social situations (namely the lack of deference to the gentry as sin, et cetera) is juicy too, especially given his secularity. This guy was respected and feared by the founding fathers--for his deep pockets, not his moral standing. Fearwig 02:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (merchant) v. (founding father) 

message: Thus stands the end of the beginning section: '"Robert Morris "Life is to short to waist."' How about a colon? How about a comma? How about buying a vowel, like an O? How about trading an I for E? If it were "Life is to short the market," I might say this sentence makes sense. But as it stands, I must, compelled by forces greater than myself, condemn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James Seneca (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call to correct 

message: The current article reads:
"The Stamp Act of 1765-1766 was a tax on all legal documents, yet the lawyers did not act to oppose it. However the merchants banded together to end what they saw an unconstitutional tax."
This is absurd.  The Stamp Act cannot be called an "unconstitutional tax" because there was no Constitution!  England does not have a "constitution" as the term is gererally used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.3.49 (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconstitutional Tax 

message: Morris played a significant role in the North American Land Company, which was one of the three great land companies that speculated in land as a result of the Pennsylvania land act of 3 April 1792. North American had most of its holdings in NY state, but also some holdings in PA. The other two were the Pennsylvania Population Company and the Holland Land Company. I'm considering writing an article about the Penn Pop Co in coming weeks. Maybe someone could research North American, add it to Morris's article, and write an article about it? The Morris article sets it up nicely. There is a category for early American land companies -- see Holland Land Co for categories. --Pat (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American Land Company 

message: This man was a rabid detractor of those he thought socially beneath him.  His economic policies may have propped up the wealthy elite who are the only measurement ever taken of an economy's health, but he ruined the lives of thousands of American citizens who had just finished fighting for the very freedom of these same white landowners.
Handle 2001 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally 'Handle 2001' would consider the above statement to be true, but that is only understandable in the context of Handle own Socialist background. Morris was a capitalist and therefore a mystery to Socialists. He did NOT ruin the lives of thousands, there is simply no proof of this. Instead he risked billions in today's dollars in an effort to pay the troops. Robtmorris (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is not to be used for commentary on the subject of the article. It isn't a chat room or bulletin board. The talk page is for specific discussion on improving the article. --Pat (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary 

message: (please add to article) Robert Morris was never repaid for the money he advanced to finance the US Rev War and if he had been, he would not have lost all of his wealth and died a pauper. And these facts are part of the typical, extreme bad behavior of the US; taking the money to win the war, never paying it back and bankrupting the hero who financed the war... and the same is true for Peter De Haven's advancing the powder from his powder mills to aid the army and he also was never paid back at all anything...All such facts are a key part of this article
and need to be added. king midas touch 69.121.221.97 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: never repaid

message: The position of Superintendent of Finance was analygous to prime minister or president, as the post-1789 meaning of the job. Morris' contribution to the US government should be emphisized more.Ericl (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 0ther president of the United States

message: The statement that Morris' wealth prior to the war was "small when compared to ... the average middle class Englishman living in London" is prima facia absurd. Such a claim at least requires citation. 141.158.50.151 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-war Wealth

message: Aded "citation needed" to the statement that the Bankruptcy Laws were passed, in part, to get him out of prison. He had been in prison for some time when the laws were passed. As an anarchist, I wouldn't be surprised if a law was passed that was partly to bailout a friend, but we still need a citation or two in order to qualify the claim. If one isn't provided within the next week or so, I'm just going to remove the statement as unverifiable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.135.173 (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bankruptcy Laws 

message: You might care to add this link to the history page of the Robert Morris Inn in Oxford Maryland.
http://www.robertmorrisinn.com/history.html
Rumjal rumjal 10:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: There appear to be sections of OR - Original Research, and over-reliance on dated sources - county history and late nineteenth century history (the explanation of the Spanish taking over former British land after the war is strange, as they didn't have all the territory south of the Ohio. Have deleted complaints that Morris is not recognized at the memorial on his former house site - it is recognized for a different purpose.Parkwells (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to improve sources and cites

message: This article isn't very neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.192.1.98 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Morris is probably prominent enough to have the name come to this page, and is maybe one of the few major American founding fathers (John Dickinson is another, and I have a request in there as well) who doesn't have a 'clean' linked page. The name now goes to a disamb. page, which can be linked to in a top notice. Thoughts? Thanks. Randy Kryn 00:02 10 February, 2015 (UTC)
:I definitely agree that this Robert Morris is far more prominent than any other Robert Morris in the U.S. Internationally, I'm not sure if any other Robert Morris is nearly as well known. Orser67 (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request to 'Robert Morris'

message: Under the heading "Superintendent of Finance of the United States", it states "In defending himself from would-be critics, Morris insisted Congress allow him to continue his private endeavors while serving in a related public office."  That sounds contradictory to me.  It seems to me that if he wanted to "defend himself from would-be critics", he would've suspended his private endeavors, rather than continuing them.  Did the original editor mean to say "In defiance of would-be critics, Morris insisted Congress allow him to continue his private endeavors while serving in a related public office"? Occam's Shaver (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial conflict of interest 

message: I was able to find in the Journal of the Continental Congress that he was elected by Congress February 20, 1781. I also found that in May 1784 (not March) Congress legislated that the off ice was to be replaced by a department headed by a committee of three. However Morris was to remain in office until the committee was in place. Both Congress and the Committee of States referred expenditures to him throughout the Legislative Year. On the first day of the new legislative year (November 1, 1784) Robert Morris resigned his commission. It appears Congress did not have a Quorum until December 1, and that is the date that Congress receives the letter and appointed the committee.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.224.94 (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Office a Superintendent of Finance. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Morris (financier). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018201921/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/declaration/bio33.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/declaration/bio33.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018201921/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/declaration/bio33.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/declaration/bio33.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is an atrocious article on a figure and period I know very well. And the footnotes are woefully incomplete.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to demonstrate knowledge rather than make unsupported claims. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would help to know more about what the problem is. Is the article too long?... which references are missing?. I am writing another article that Morris and I am also trying to tie it into this one as well. Over 200 people a day read this article, it should be of high quality. Cheers ... Risk Engineer (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atrocious 

message: User 142.255.99.86 removed from the lead sentence that Robert Morris was a slave trader. His company certainly was involved in the slave trade according to the Slavery section references, but perhaps that is not his most notable history. Is there any agreement to put it farther down in the lead near his other commercial ventures? Ward20 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We never had slaves 74.51.22.100 (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slave trader dispute[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Morris_%28financier%29&type=revision&diff=963097817&oldid=963089765]