Talk:Newburgh Conspiracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

Actions of Congress

It would be nice to have some clarification for the use of Hogeland's book to support the comment regarding "saw providence", etc. The closest I can see for support of this statement would be in picking through comments by Hamilton, e.g., this which references THE WHISKEY REBELLION - Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 6 [1795]. Tedickey (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New Book about the Newburgh Conspiracy

I was at a book presentation by historian William Fowler, who is publishing a new book in September 2011 titled "An American Crisis: George Washington and the Dangerous Two Years After Yorktown, 1781-1783". Fowler was Director of the Massachusetts Historical Society from 1998 through 2005, where the original Newburgh Address was kept under his care. Mount Vernon commissioned him to present the history of the Newburgh Address in a journal and conference. The research for that project eventually led to this book, which also provides the context for the document as noted in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtaw2001 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Objection to Being Misleadingly Cited

I object to this article's citing my book The Whiskey Rebellion as a source for the assertion "... Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, and Alexander Hamilton, saw providence in the Army's statement of discontent." My book's section on the Newburgh Crisis, following Kohn very closely, does delineate those Congressmen's involvement in the conspiracy, but the imputation of something providential to their thinking is by no means mine. William Hogeland (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok we'll change it immediately. Instead of "saw providence in " what wording do you recommend? Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the response but don't want to start proposing language for an entry on a subject in which I have an interest as an author. I'd suggest that unless this article lays out in some detail all of the major competing views of the crisis, without drawing too heavily on any one of them, NPOV will be impossible to achieve for this controversial subject. (The NPOV-tagging commenter above, for example, has a POV that is anything but N.) William Hogeland (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an outstanding model for COI avoidance. If NPOV is difficult, we should at least try to mitigate our own biases. I've removed the citation, as there seems to be a consensus that it failed verification (and per discussion on Talk:Samuel Adams). Feel free to suggest alternate language in the Talk page- other editors can determine whether it's appropriate for inclusion in the article text. WP:BOLD applies to you, too! But your caution is also appreciated, and may be your most valuable contribution yet.--Robert Keiden (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)