Jefferson was clearly unholy rich. He just spent way more than he could afford. Being in debt doesn’t make you poor. Quite the contrary. Being that much in debt that much of the time marks you as being exceptionally well-off.
This cite :EquityEdu.com is for sale | HugeDomains
*By 1774 Washington had become one of the colonies’ wealthiest men…Washington, the wealthiest individual in the nation at the time and whose wealth (all of it in land that could eventually be sold) by some estimates exceeded $500 million in current dollars (as of 2005), refused to accept his salary.
*
[slight hijack]
The comments about young George brought to mind one of my favorite anecdotes. From The Chronology of Food (1995) by James Trager.
[/hijack]
I recall reading in my textbook that my fellow Marylander Charles Carroll of Carrollton was the wealthiest man in the 13 colonies. Wiki seems to agree with that idea.
One of the difficulties with this question is the definition of “wealth.” At the time, wealth was often measured by land ownership, a leftover from the days of the landed nobility and gentry of Western Europe. By the 18th Century, it was possible to be quite wealthy without owning land, in a way much more akin to how we think of wealth today.
Washington had quite a bit of land. He had sufficient money as well that he did not need a salary to work as the commanding officer of the fledgling nation’s army. That’s not someone who isn’t well-to-do. Now, whether or not that made him as wealthy or wealthier than those who had earned plenty of money, and kept their wealth more “liquid,” that’s a different question.
Define the terms, and a true debate can be held. 
That was something I was thinking about earlier, DS. Given that it didn’t happen during his lifetime, the fact that Washington’s lands is worth $500,000,000 today is irrelevant if one is considering the value of the land during the Colonial period.
This site estimates the wealth of each of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, since he was fighting redcoats in 1776, George wasn’t one of them.
However, we can line him up against some of his fellow plantation owners who are on the list, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Harrison. During the time he owned Mount Vernon, Washington increased its size from 2,000 acres in 1760 to 8,000 acres in 1799. He also owned other developed land in the east. On the basis of his eastern land holdings alone, I’d guess that by the time of his election as President in 1789 he ranked in the second tier of planters in the 20,000-pound range (or in its equivalent in dollars, which were the unit of measure by 1789).
(If someone wants to pay the registration fee, the “Encyclopedia of American Wealth” has additional pages dedicated to Washington himself.)
Beyond the east, there are Washington’s western land holdings. These were the tech stocks of their day–speculative and volatile. Their value fluctuated with each twist and turn of American policy–Indian rebellion, bad; drive out the Indians, good; war, bad; victory, good; Whiskey Rebellion, bad; suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, good.
At the time of his death, Washington appraised his total land holdings (optimistically) at $500,000. This was a great deal of money, but this statement:
. . . cannot be supported. Or rather, it can be supported only by comparing not against a price index, but against the entire GDP, which has indeed grown roughly a thousand-fold since 1789.
Finally, to answer these questions:
At any time after his inheritance of Mount Vernon, and after his marriage to Martha, George Washington was one of the wealthier people in the colonies, and then in the United States–probably one of the wealthiest 100. He was almost certainly never the wealthiest person in either. He was probably never even close.
Was he “made President mostly for his economic status”? Of course not. Other, richer people were never considered for President. He was made President because of his success in the Revolutionary War.
As a note, he worked as a surveyor as a young man. That was a rather odd profession for a young man of his social rank. I have always wondered why he did it. Knowing his character, one reason might have been that he was a “sportsman” type, and probably enjoyed working outdoors. I kinda like to think of him as our first forest ranger.
Of course, another reason could be that he wanted to make money in land speculation. The man who surveys the plots is certainly one of the first to see them and judge their worth! Maybe he was the country’s first investment analyst?
I think less for his success and more for his unifying influence. By title he was the commander of all Continental forces, but by the end of the war he was also seen as the rightful supreme military leader. He was in charge at Yorktown, the last major battle. Men from all over the country knew of him; many knew him personally. Everyone from all parties respected him, and that was very rare.
He reinforced his reputation by giving up his commission when peace was signed. He retired from the army and became a private citizen, at the time when many Europeans expected him to make himself “King” of America. Everyone in the colonies was impressed.
During the short time before 1787, he was still active in Virginia affairs. His frustrations with trying to establish the first Potomac canal led him towards thoughts of a more organized, central government. He was one of the major leaders who participated in the talks leading up to the Constitutional Convention.
So now you have a nationally-known leader who everyone trusts and admires and who has persistently avoided taking power by might. He’s in favor of establishing a government that helps manage conflicts between the individual colonies, and he’s a delegate to the Convention. Who better to make the Convention’s presiding officer?
That role makes it clear that he’s the only choice for first US President. It’s marvelous that he stayed for a second term, and then retired.
I like the guy. He was competent, courageous, fun-loving, honorable, and intelligent. He was also tempermental, stubborn, and argumentative. His wealth was built on slavery. He wasn’t perfect by any means. He took his position as President seriously, seeing himself as an inheritor of the Roman republican idea of citizen. We were lucky to have him as first President.
Not only can it be supported, but it was supported- by the cite I linked to. In fact those words were from that cite.
Note that that wasn’t my opinion, but that cites figures.
A good discussion about a longtime hero of mine. Washington was never the richest man in America, define the phrase as you will, but he was probably in the top hundred by the end of his life.
Crafter Man, Washington was land-rich but cash-poor, as has been noted. He borrowed money from a friend to go to NYC for his inauguration as President in 1789, not to go to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, IIRC.
PBear42, that’s a great stat about the booze he bought for Virginia voters as a young candidate. In Richard Brookhiser’s excellent “Rediscovering George Washington” special on PBS a few years ago, a bartender pours the equivalent of what each voter could have quaffed. By the time he’s done, the counter is completely filled with glasses. 
Washington, ever frugal, later complained to his campaign manager about how much he’d had to spend on booze.
Bravo, 633squadron, for your explanation of why Washington was elected President. He was a unifying force, a Virginian given the job as CINC in 1775 when the Revolution was seen by many as a Mass. or New England affair. He was extremely popular, for winning the war after eight hard years of holding the army together practically by sheer force of will, losing several battles but winning big when he could (Trenton, Princeton, Yorktown). He was incorruptible and trustworthy, for refusing to take a salary and for having resigned his commission as CINC when some wanted him to become king. And he was a born leader, “modest, wise and good,” in Abigail Adams’s phrase.
You are correct.
Yes, I apologize for making it sound as if you were in error. Unfortunately, when one pastes from another poster’s cite, the board defaults to quoting it as the poster’s own words.
The cite is wrong, however; I have no reason to doubt Washington’s appraisal of his own property (late in life) at $500,000, and those dollars would be worth $5-$10 million today. Of course the land itself would be worth much more, but that doesn’t make Washington any richer in his own time.