Talk:Newburgh Conspiracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792) American Revolutionary War task force

This conspiracy is cited in the novel The Postman as leading to the foundation of the Society of Cinncinatus/Cincinatti (sp, sorry). Is it mentioned at all in any other fictional works? Could we expand that into a "The Newburgh Conspiracy" in fiction section? --A Dude

Contents 1 NPOV assertion 2 Conflicting Terms 3 My Partial Rewrite 4 Citation for Washington's Involvement

[edit] NPOV assertion

The tone of this article seems like it is telling a fable more than it is delivering fact. This is why I added the NPOV tag.--Marty 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate how you feel that it is "fable". If you look at the external links (a couple of more that I have just added), you will see article from reputable sources such as the Library of Congress, PBS, and American Heritage (magazine). There are also many well researched articles on the internet that confirm this incident. Do you believe it didn't happen? How would you describe the incident in a NPOV fashion? --rogerd 03:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This article over simplifies. The notion that Gen. Gates and Alex. Hamilton were allies makes no sense. The article fails to look into how the conspiracy was viewed and used differently by those involved. The politics involved are not simple.

Certain officers wanted the pay owed them and their troops and were willing to seize power to get what was rightfully their's. Some members of the Continental congress, likely including Hamilton, were willing to use the revolt to force congress to honour it's debts, but without intention of actually carrying out the takeover.

Hamilton's letter's to Washington, and Washingtons reply, along with what is known of Gen. Henry Knox's involvement plainly shows that this was more a political event than a military one.

The article is far too simplistic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.199.142 (talk • contribs) 01:36, September 12, 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, fix it. --rogerd 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting Terms

In Horation Gates' article, it is stated that although Gates' aides were connected via rumors, Gates was not directly connected to the conspiracy. On this article, it clearly starts off by stating that he was behind the whole thing.

[edit] My Partial Rewrite

Hey, just wanted to touch base here on the partial rewrite I did (which basically consisted of rewriting the intro, and adding an ending, and more or less leaving the middle about the crucial events untouched). I think the intro gives a somewhat better idea of the complicated currents going on which fed into the conspiracy. As to the rest of the body, a lot of it draws from http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/3/1981_3_40.shtml, which is an external link and I also added it where appropriate when there was a fact tag. However, it would be nice to have a better variety of sources at least. Also, in terms of the ending, it might be nice to have a discussion of the importance of the conspiracy (I know it was basically that Washington stood up for civil authority's supremacy over military authority, but I really don't have good sources). DAG 04:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Washington's Involvement

This is the first time I have edited for wikipedia, but I just wanted to provide the citation which someone thought necessar for many the phrase concerining officers being moved to tears. i thought i would do it here, so that i did not mess up the actual page. "There was something so natural, so unaffected, in this appeal, as rendered it superior to the most studied oratory; it forced its way to the heart, and you might see sensibility moisten every eye." "Samuel Shaw to the Reverend Elliot, April 1783," in John Rhodehamel, ed., The American Revolution: Writings from the War of Independence, (New York: The Library of America, 2001), 788. 143.229.177.58 05:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)