This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Pennsylvania High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philadelphia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). African diaspora This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I don't think "(merchant)" is really the location for this page. Robert Morris is known as a merchant, but as a signer of three landmark documents in US history and minor player (relative to the likes of other more well-known figures) in the American Revolution. Daniel Quinlan 16:48, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

I think "(financier)" would probably be a better name than "(merchant)". Perhaps "(Founding Father)" would convey his role in signing the three important documents, but in the end it's a judgement call. Wmahan 15:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the original intent was just disamb. But he was more than just a financier, just as he was more than just a merchant. I'd vote for Founding Father. Go for it. Pollinator 12:23, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

A minor player? He was the wealthiest man in America. Roughly 40% of all war spending went through his own businesses, despite the fact that he was in charge of directing that spending. He was a huge figure in the Revolution, and even the Philadelphia Convention, and yet he's almost never talked about... I don't think traditionalists would appreciate an exhaustive history on the man. It wouldn't be pretty.68.33.227.194 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Stamp Act of 1765-1766 affected Morris's business due to its dependence on imports. In 1675, Morris began his public career by serving on a local committee organized to protest the Stamp Act. "

• "1675"??

dislexia? Pollinator 12:23, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)\

Its Robert Morris Jr

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)[reply]

So what if he made a mistake every one does(UJRK)Sorry wrong coloum

This section had been used, in error, to advance the idea that the "Presidents' House" has been placed in the wrong spot. Information about Peter Kuhn was included without consideration for the likelihood that Mr Kuhn moved between 1785 and 1790. This confused the contributor into thinking the 1790 address of 179 High street was the same location noted in the 1785 address between 4th and 5th street. I also deleted from this section much of the information about the various lots Morris owned because it did not pertain to the section heading. Robtmorris (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think he is a very great man and because of him this country stands today!!!

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

The English thought they had a constitution, and still do. It is the sum of their laws. It is different than the American version, but it is not absurd that English colonists would think like Englishmen. Robtmorris (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) }}[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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). I think that if you were to read "The Vigorous Spirit of Enterprise" by Thomas M. Doerflinger, you would see how true this is. Instead of making statements like "prima facia absurd" you may want to keep an open mind about things. Robtmorris (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

"overturn the religious test laws, thus restoring voting rights to 40% of the citizens including Quakers, Jews, and Mennonites.."

This isn't sourced, and appears to be grossly inaccurate. The only religious tests Pennsylvania appeared to have was believing in the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. This didn't affect Quakers or Mennonites, and in fact may have been written that way just so it didn't.

It did affect Jews. Wikipedia says they numbered about 300 out of a population of 30,000, so that is 1% not 40%.

This needs to be sourced. Furthermore, it would probably turn up more interesting information, as one of the people that worked closely with Morris was from the Philadelphia Jewish congregation that was pushing to overturn that law.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have to demonstrate knowledge rather than make unsupported claims. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

While Charles Rappleye's Robert Morris: Financier of the American Revolution (2010) is a reliable source, this recent rewrite uses that single source nearly exclusively: 122 of the 141 citations (87%) are to Rappleye. There are 15 items in the bibliography, yet this rewrite relies on one source. Before the rewrite, the citations were from a much wider array of sources. OCNative (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the user responsible for the re-write. I take no issue with the tag, but I would like to note that the current version still represents a significant improvement on the previous version of the article, which contained a large number of:

1)Unsourced, untagged statements,

2)Primary sources

3)Sources where the work being cited was unclear because it wasn't listed on the page (and I still couldn't figure out the book after looking at Google Books)

4)Overly-detailed info in need of a copy edit

I would have liked to have saved more of the previous version, but the issues above made that difficult. The current article still needs work, but it does provide a concise-yet-comprehensive overview of Morris's career that can serve as the "skeleton" of a good article. Orser67 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice recap- Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

We never had slaves 74.51.22.100 (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]