I've recently noticed that a few people I know, all native American English speakers in their 50s-70s and originally from the Midwest, use "would have" and related forms when talking about factual events that happened relatively long ago.
Here's a made-up example of what I mean:
Upon seeing George Washington's house, one might say "This is where Washington would have lived." instead of "This is where Washington lived."
Another example: "I would've been born in that hospital." as equivalent to "I was born in that hospital."
This sentence, however, isn't an example: "I would have had lunch with her every day last week." It doesn't work because it's insufficiently far in the past.
As @Cascabel notes, it's better to have real examples than made-up ones. So, I hopped on the phone and asked one of the "would have" users a history question (he's a baseball historian) without mentioning my goal. Sure enough, here are a few non-made-up examples:
"He would've been there from 1941-1963, excluding a brief period he took off for the war."
"My father would've taken me to see him for my tenth and eleventh birthdays."
"It wouldn't have been uncommon for baseball players to have had second jobs back then - it certainly wasn't like today."
Is this a regionalism? A generationally-related usage? Or is it some other phenomenon I don't know the name of? I've only seen a handful of people do this, so, for all I know, they're the only ones.
Is there a name for this sort of usage? I'm not quite sure what to call it, which has made searching for it somewhat difficult, and it's very possible that I've missed an already existing answer.