Talk:Business Plot/Archive 2

message: Keep this article. Let each reader decide for him- or herself whether or not what is written is true. Do not delete it because some people don't believe it. Just leave it as it is, and keep the disclaimer that it is disputed. But do not delete it. Also, to the doubtful Rjensen, Spivak indicated that he believed that certain Jewish financiers, as well as Gentile financiers (the Gentiles being the majority) were connected in some way. You would do yourself a favor by doing more research than just reading Spivak's article; he also wrote a book that has two chapters devoted to the plot. Also, just because Dickstein's credibility was no good doesn't mean that Butler's credibility was no good. Dickstein's committee didn't do much with the evidence provided; if anything, they tried to suppress it from the public by pooh-poohing it and releasing an eviscerated report on the committee's hearings on the matter. Travb 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is nothing but an anti-Semitic attack on Jewish groups and Jewish financiers. Contrary to what you stated, the majority of financiers were not non-Jewish but were almost exclusively Jewish in their backgrounds. Spivak's article is replete with references to Jewish people doing "this" and doing "that". I'm wondering if anyone one of the Jewish editors has come across this article. This is nothing more than a modern day Protocols of Zion. And the attempt to "sweep this under the rug" is in keeping with anti-Semitic claims that this would be the standard operating procredure of Jewish groups once found out. Totally ridiculous. This article should be deleted. Jtpaladin 20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article clearly states "The main backers were the Du Pont family, as well as leaders of U.S. Steel, General Motors, Standard Oil, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company" I fail to see an anti-semitic slant. There is information in the article that indicates some of the later principles (i.e., Spivak) are taking an anti-semitic slant, but I see that more of an expression of the attitudes of the day and not a validation of anti-semitism in the present sense. My wife's Jewish grandfather had to "pass" as a gentile in the 1920's in order to work for the phone company. Anti-semitism was, and is, real. However, I'm trying to wrap my brain around how accusing the Du Pont family, hardly scions of Jewish industry, would figure in to all this. Spivak anti-semitic? Likely. This article? I'm not convinced yet. -- Quartermaster 06:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just going by Spivak's info which is in fact tied into the hearings, it is claimed that the American Jewish Committee and financiers, Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb, etc., all of Jewish backgrounds were working towards creating a fascist dictatorship. While there were certainly non-Jewish "front men" in this plot, clearly the backing of this coup would be by powerful Jewish interests. And, to make it worse, a Jewish Congresman, Dickstein, who turned out to be a Soviet agent, did his best to hide these facts and kill this whole episode. Lastly, I don't know if Spivak is anti-Semitic. I don't think so. I think his concerns were regarding the truth behind these events and how the Committee was trying to steer anti-Semitism towards Communism. I honestly don't know how to frame this article in a way that doesn't give proper credit to the evidence presented that Jewish power brokers were using non-Jewish front men in an attempt to take control of the U.S. govt. Personally, I would like to see this article disappear because if this is all false info, it can be used by anti-Semites to attack wealthy and powerful Jews as conspirators who tried to pull off a coup. Jtpaladin 17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some good points. I'm still in favor of keeping even if it is totally bogus - in THAT case it should be clearly flagged as fakery and anti-semitism similar to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion entry. Rabid anti-semites won't let little things like the truth get in the way of their propaganda. However, a well-written wikipedia article including contextual information about "Jewish conspiracies" can serve to address and debunk some of the absurd claims about the whole thing. Unlike The Protocols of the Elders of Zion this is not quite so cut and dried a situation. I can understand you wanting this to go away, but I think it's a little late for that. Best to present it in a light that makes it clear there was no great Jewish conspiracy. I'm still mulling a lot about and want to assure you I'm not really emotionally invested in this article (that's a good thing). -Quartermaster 01:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep this article

message: No evidence for the plot has ever been given by anyone--except what Butler said MacGuire told him.  Van Zandt said all his information came from Butler and he (Van Zandt) never was in contact in any way with any plotter.
Someone on the House staff did write up a few pages of a draft report that said the unspecified charges were true. The House Committee rejected that draft report and refused to publish or endorse it. (The draft was found in the files 30 years later.)   Congressmen Dickstein said there was no evidence whatever regarding the big names (all of whom denied the story).  The Committee decided to stop because it could find no evidence whatever, and it said so again in the official report that was published.  And look at the "report" again: no names were named.  So how does Wikipedia suddenly name names? Where do those names come from? Answer: it all comes from Spivak's article of 1935.  It's a wild anti-semitic rant that says the Jews are plotting this coup.  In fact there was a great deal of anti-semitism at the time.  Henry Ford was involved in a similar hoax in 1920s re Protocols of Elders of Zion.  People who are pushing this Butler hoax are basing their argument on Spivak's anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Please read Spivak and decide for yourself.  The Schmidt book on Butler clearly says MacGuire was a liar & perjurer and cannot be trusted. So why trust him now? Let's gop over the historians who say the plot really existed: none.  Hundreds of historians have worked over the material.  The rule in history books is to ignore hoaxes, or (Schlesinger, Schmidt) to expose them. Now there were German-based Nazi activities in the US and the Committee turned its attention to the Bund and similar groups.  Rjensen 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: <B> FALSE</B> charges with zero evidence then or now

message: Most if not all the folks here missed the point. SDB certainly believed it was true and that is the real story.He did testify and that testimony was filmed and those archives are available for public perusal.  Whether or not  any of the Plot actually happened is correctly stated in the article as never proven. So, FAMOUS? Yes. HOAX? Not proven. I was amused that anyone thought the article should be deleted because SDB never proved his case or that the government did not accept his story. That was never the point of the article. The facts are stated in the article and the difference between accusations and the facts is also plainly stated. This episode demonstrates once again that there are censors in WikiWorld who do not read what they want deleted or chose very fascile reasons to do so. This is a disservice to Wikipedia--disagreeing with someone ain't the point of constructive censorship. The point is did SDB testify that it happened? He most certainly did. Malangthon 18:03, 31, 12, 2005 (PST)
::Excellent points Malangthon. Thanks Travb 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing the Point 

message: If we accept that Butler and Van Zandt were telling the truth as they were apprised of it, there would have to be either a plot or a hoax costing thousands of dollars either way. Given Butler's known and public sympathies, for American businesses to support such a plot would seem unthinkable. The possibility of such an expensive and dangerous hoax would seem even more unlikely.
My question? Who would have been in a position at the time to have had thousands of dollars to dump into either destabilizing the USA, making American business look bad, causing apprehension and doubt in America, had a tin ear for American culture and the place of the military in it, and had agents operating in the US capable of such a stunt?
My vote, ever since the Venona Decrypts became public, has been Joseph Stalin, as he would benefit his interests no matter what happened, and throw blame on his enemies if it failed.
Just a thought. 129.93.205.213 01:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the business elite of America would chum up with Stalin.Travb 04:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question?

message: There never was a march on Washington--article has to say that. The key Congressman (Dickstein) was a Soviet spy--that needs to be said.  Butler was chosen to rule America by Democrats/ wets/ capitalists even though Butler was a Republican/ a dry leader/ a strong opponent of capitalism and bankers. That paradox needs emphasis.
The naming of Al Smith etc was all done by a fellow named Spivak who said they were part of a giant Jewish plot. Needs to be brought out. Rjensen 10:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs fixing 

message: I hate to have to be pulled into this arguement again, and waste my time, but I fear you are not going to let this die until I debate you into a corner again, as I was forced to do before.  Regarding your edits
You write:
 The Business Plot, The Plot Against FDR, or The White House Putsch was a discussion between a retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler and a bond salesman named Gerald MacGuire about a plan to march on Washington and seize the government. The discussions supposedly happened in 1933...All of the inofrmation comes from testimony of two men: Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it.
It was so much more Rjensen, and your statment ignores this.  Your edit makes it sound like the sole bit of evidence is a discussion between Butler and Gerald MacGuire.  This is patently false.  I am disturbed that you continue to present this view when I have exhastively shown that this is false.  Why do you cling onto such ideas?
Your edits are littered with POV, in the form of weasel words, which are unenyclopedic and which I have reapeatedly (and consistently) argued in many articles not to include: 
*"Of course there never was a march or a coup." 
*"The discussions supposedly happened in 1933."
*"supposedly happened between July and November 1933."
Other milder unencyclopedic POV in your edits is present:
*You wrote: The official Congressional report was ambiguous, and did not name names beyong Butler and MacGuire. Definition of ambigous: Open to more than one interpretation: an ambiguous reply.  Clearly many of Butler's accusations were confirmed, your edit ignores this. Your edit also ignores that the reason that the report did not name names, is because portions of the report were edited and suppressed.  This is clearly written later in the article.
*"and the news media laughed it off"
*"and his reputation as a strong left-wing critic of capitalism"
True or untrue:
In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot , but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten. 
You delete this sentence completely, and instead add: 
However a prominent anti-Semite named [Lawrence Spivak]] claimed the plot was a Jewish plot to take over the country, and he named numerous prominent Democrats as plotters. The people mentioned such as Al Smith all issued vigorous denials and the news media laughed it off. 
Using the old footnote to support your new view!  Where in footnote  does it mention [Lawrence Spivak]]?  I talk in length about [Lawrence Spivak]] below, and add information about him.  How is [Lawrence Spivak]] a marginalized anti-semite who wrote one article in a communist paper make him: "prominent"?  
Dickstein
When the archives of the Societ Union were opened in 1991, it was revealed that Dickstein had been a spy for the Soviets, reporting on actions in Congress. 
We have gone through this all before. Why are you opening up this argument again?  If you want to list that Dickstein  was a spy, you need to mention the members of the entire committee, REMEMBER its called the McCormack-Dickstein Committee committee.  Why don't you mention that McCormack, the other half of the committee name, was a prominent democrat and leader of the house for several years?  I made a laundry list of everyone on the committee, starting with McCormack, and I included that Dickstein was a Soviet spy (it appears like it was later erased by someone else). But this is not good enough for you--you want to completly discredit the entire article as a hoax, in the first paragraph, with highly POV, slanted points, some points which are clearly false.
More use of my footnotes
Smith and DuPont were leading opponents of prohibition and Butlker was a leading supporter of prohibition. Smith anmd DuPont were leading capitalists and Butler after 1932 made a living giving speeches to left-wing audiences denouncing bankers and capitalism.  
Where in   does it say such things? What does prohibition have to do with the plot?  I mention Butler's speaking career later, why bring it up in this paragraph?
I am trying to appeal to reason here Rjensen. Your edits make this article a lot less encyclopedic.  I didn't even mention the numerous spelling errors.Travb 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your edits

message: You ignore my question Rjensen, and try to cover it up with a barage of questions which I will not answer until you answer these two questions:
*Question 1:
Why accept the word of one man, Weinstein, and yet disregard the word of four men:
::*Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt, who told reporters that Butler had approached him to lead the 500,000-man march on Washington, but that he had refused.[12][13] 
::*Captain Samuel Glazier—testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States. [14][15] 
::*Reporter Paul Comly French, reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post
Weinstein had no evidence but his word.  Butler had evidence showing that Gerald MacGuire was a liar, including bank statments, etc.  You also deleted this sentence: In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot, and added your own words, but left the footnote, which has nothing to do with this footnote!
IS ACCEPTING Weinstein's words with no supporting evidence, but disregarding Butler's testimony, which had supporing evidence INCONSISTENT, YES OR NO.  EXPLAIN FULLY.
Question 2:   
*You also ignore your blatantly false statments. This statment is a lie, Rjensen: "All of the inofrmation comes from testimony of two men: Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it. "  Why do you continue to repeat such statments when you know they are incorrect and have no basis in fact?
Rjensen my respect for your intellect, which you earned at Samuel Dickstein (congressman) and Labor unions in the United States is quickly disapating.  You are starting to look no different than User:Calton and many of the other stubborn, irrational wikiusers here. I was hoping for more. Travb 11:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weinstein has photocopies of the Soviet documents. Butler apparently did not keep any paperwork. 
* Van Zandt says he only talked to Butler, no one else. 
*Medals of honor are given for heroism. Butler was drummed out of the Marines for wild exaggerated stroies about Mussolini that he heard from someone at a party. Weinstein was confirmed by the Senate for Archivist of the US.
*Bank statements for how many millions of dollars? Answer just $20,000--how many men will that pay for at say $20 a day for 100 days? Answer: a ten-man march on Washington. 
* Captain Glazier ran a CCC camp. He did not implicate any of the American Liberty league people--maybe there was a second coup underway?
* French talked only to MacGuire and says he got the same story Butler got. could well be true.
*I did read all the documents. All the info on the coup comes from 2 men (Butler and MacGuire). MacGuire was a con man from day 1 I agree. Butler--was he fooled or did he see himself as dictator? that I don't know. Rjensen 12:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote: "All of the inofrmation comes from testimony of two men: Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it." 
So, let me edit your edit, based on your acknowledgements, using your own statments above, and the sentence which you deleted (but kept the footnote): 
"All of the inofrmation comes from testimony of five men, Van Zandt who said he was approached by leaders of the coup*, Captain Glazier testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States, and French who talked only to MacGuire and says he got the same story Butler got, Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it. Bank statements for $20,000 confirmed Butler story. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot [2], but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten."
Would you agree with this edit, if so, this is exactly what the article said before your edit.
True or false: all of the information came from Butler and MacGuire. TRUE OR FALSE.  By your own acknowlegement, the word "all" really doesn't mean "all" does it? The majority, but not "all".  Would you agree that the sentence "all of the information came from Butler and MacGuire"?  Yes or no? Simple question.
 *"Van Zandt says he only talked to Butler, no one else" your facts are incorrect, please go back and read the footnotes I provide. I await your retracation.
Travb 12:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Who was getting $20 a day during the Depression?? The Bonus Marchers who were evicted by MacArthur camped in Washington DC without even a dollar a day in their posession.Edison 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You ignore my question 

message: Rjesen wrote:
Weinstein has photocopies of the Soviet documents. Butler apparently did not keep any paperwork. 
User:Calton appeared to disagree: "Allen Weinstein's word, that the material he looked at -- and which he doesn't have copies of to allow comparisons." Butler had no paperwork, correct.  Butler did have four people who corroborated there was some kind of plot. As I discuss fully in the article, I feel in a very even handed manner, that many historians scoff at the idea of the plot.  What we do know is that MacGuire approached Butler, it was coroberated by French, a reporter.  That Van Zandt and Glazier were also approached. Glazier was approached indepently.  Glazier may not even have known Butler. We know that MacGuire was a liar and perged himself several times, and that the bank statments confirmed some portions of Butler's testimony. We know that the case was dropped and powerful names from the Congressional testimony were secretly deleted from the final report, and never called to testify which McCormick confirmed later to Spivak.  This is all in the article already. 
Now, if I were practicing law, and I had to choose between both cases, I would think that Butler's case is stronger.  There is hard evidence supporting Butler's story--4 testimonies (in a court of law, testimonies are evidence)--one testimony which is completly independent of Butlers.  There is very strong circumstantial evidence which supports Butlers claims about the money.  In addition, MacGuire is a liar, and purges himself.  There was a very strong case here, but it was dropped and clearly buried by the committee. Whereas you have the testimony of one man, Allen Weinstein, with no cooberation, and, unless you can document your assertion, no photocopies.  
Ad homenien attacks on Weinstein and Butler prove nothing.  In Butler's case, you not only have to destroy Butler's credibility, you have to destroy four people's credibility--one person who never even knew Butler.  Thus far you have attempted to destroy Butler's credibility with evidence which shows that he was an outspoken person who told people how he felt--no matter how uncomfortable it is.  Hardly daming evidence that he was lying.Travb 13:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weinstein vs. Butler

message: "One of Wall Street's richest bankers and stockbrokers," This may be wrong, I need to check my notes, until then, I will keep it out of the article.Travb 12:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MacGuire, as a rich banker

message: *::Yes or no:  Captain Samuel Glazier testified under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States. Glazier said nothing about Butler, MacGuire, Clark, Smith, Raskob etc.  There was no connection--must be some other plot. 
::This actually boolsters the case, it doesnt weaken it.  In any case, if I have a witness who independently confirms an allegation, this strengthens my case.Travb 13:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Captain Samuel Glazier

message: *::Yes or no:  French cooberated what Butler said .  No. French had no information apart from his interviews with Butler and French (correction: Macquire). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 
  
:::That wasn't the question.  I didn't ask if French had any information apart from his interviews with Butler and Macquire. I ask it French cooberated what Butler said. Yes or no? Travb 13:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French corroborated what Butler said

message: Rjensen in your last edit, can you explain why you deleted this entire paragraph, which is heavily footnoted?
Portions of Butler's story were corroborated by:   
*Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt, who told reporters that he had been approached to lead the 500,000-man march on Washington.   
*Captain Samuel Glazier—testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States.    
*Reporter Paul Comly French, reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post. Travb 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text by [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 

message: I deleted: 
"arguing plot is part of Jewish conspiracy to take over USA; he alleges names of big business leaders, reveals deleted portions of congressional committee"  
...which is partially Rjsens edit, partially my own.  
Why?  space issues.  Rjsen, if you want to add this all back, you can, or better yet, you can write more about Spivak in the article.  The only reason that Spivak is important is not because of his hair brained conspiracy plots, but because he was unwittingly given the full congressional report, which he published.
As Historian Schmidt said: 
::"Journalist John L. Spivak, researching Nazism and anti-Semitism for New Masses magazine, got permission from Dickstein to examine HUAC's public documents and was (it seems unwittingly) given the unexpurgated testimony amid stacks of other papers. Spivak's two-part feature "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy" appeared in early 1935, a month after the hearings closed. He cogently developed a case for taking the suppressed testimony seriously. But this relevant material was embellished with overblown aspersions against "Jewish financiers working with fascist groups"-a mishmash of guilt by association that connected Morgan interests with Jewish financier Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee. Spivak was intent upon grinding his own axes, and elucidation of the plot was obscured. The suppressed Butler-MacGuire conversations could hardly support all this. Moreover New Masses was left-wing with a limited readership; the scoop was stigmatized as "red" propaganda and generally not cited elsewhere." --From Schmidt, Hans Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History University Press of Kentucky(1998) ISBN=0813109574 p. 229.
Again, please add back this info if you wish, I just want to keep the timeline short and succeint.  (sp?)  I added that Spivak wrote in a communist magazine, I figured that was a good comprimise: i didn't include his hair brain plots, but I didn't include the most important part either: he was unwittingly given the full congressional report.  If McCormick hadn't had given him the full report, his article would have been forgotten. (its was ignored by the mainstream press anyway, as author schmidt states above)Travb 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spivak is the main reason the issue was not forgotten. Nobody cares about Butler--they care about Al Smith & DuPont. So let's get it back in. Rjensen 07:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: General Hugh Johnson (head of NRA) had just been fired by FDR in summer 1934-- Secretary of Labor Perkins said he had recently gone around praising Mussolini. Siunds like a likely person for Butler to ask. Rjensen 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just lost a good amount of data I typed in because of an edit conflict.  God dammnit.Travb 07:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted some info from timeline

message: Rjensen  has repeatedly argued that Van Zandt was not approached by anyone.
21 November 2005 Rjensen wrote:
Van Zandt said all his information came from Butler and he (Van Zandt) never was in contact in any way with any plotter. 
21 November 2005 Rjensen's edit:
Butler told Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt that he, Van Zandt, had been suggested as a leader of the march on Washington. Van Zandt told reporters he had no contact whatever with any plotter, and that all he knew came from Butler. 
22 November 2005 Rjensen wrote:
On Van Zandt. He gave an interview to Associated Press that was carried by the NY Times Nov 23, 1934 p 23. It's online through PROQUEST. He said Butler told him of the plot and that he (Van Z) "would be approached by envoys at Louisville, Ky, during the VFW convention. The commander said he informed Butler he 'would not be in when the envoys called.'" I read that as saying Van Zandt had not yet met with any plotters and he refused ever to meet them in the future. Who talked to van Zandt? apparently only Butler. Therefore Van Zandt does not provide any independent confirmation--he only repeated to the press what Butler told him. Schlesinger used the same NY Times source but misreads it. Van Zandt did not say that he had been approached directly by the plotters, he said he had been approached by Butler. Schlesinger thinks that Van Zandt met with plotters other than Butler, but Van Zandt never says that, saying instead he refused to meet with plotters. 
Rjensen wrote 23 March 2006:
A couple extra points. Van Zandt only talked to Butler. 
Rjensen wrote 23 March 2006:
Van Zandt says he only talked to Butler, no one else. 23 March 2006 
Rjensenwrote 23 March 2006:
Van Zandt. I have read his statement to reporters. He said that Butler talked to him, and no one else had approached him. Have you read his statement? 
23 March 2006 Rjensen wrote:
1, Van Zandt's story: 
New York Times Nov 23, 1934; Pg-3 
Says Butler Described. Offer. 
By The Associated Press. 
HELENA, Mont., Nov. 22.—James E. Van Zandt of Altoona, Pa., National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, reiterated here tonight that he had been approached by "agents of Wall Street" to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a “Veterans Organization.” The commander said General Butler informed him of the request to him less than two months ago. Butler told Van Zandt, the commander said, that Van Zandt had been selected to be one of the leaders of the organization, and that he would be approached by envoys at Louisville, Ky., during the V. F. W. convention. The commander said he informed Butler he would "not be in when the envoys called." 
The V. F, W. chief said Butler then asked the agent what the purpose of the organization was. He was told it was to return the American dollar to the gold standard and to “get rid of this fellow in the White House.” 
I read that: Van Zandt only talked to Butler and refused top talk to any plotter. 
Signed:Travb 08:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] wrote

message: Re: The Politics of Upheaval by Jr., Arthur M. Schlesinger
This exact page was brought to my attention by Rjensen.  The sentence about Van Zandt was ignored.  When I looked up The Politics of Upheaval by Jr., Arthur M. Schlesinger, which Rjensen was using to support his argument, it actually contradicted several things Rjensen had claimed that the article said. See evidence of this above.
Schlesinger sites a follow up New Masses article, and two articles in the NYT.  Rjensen brought the Nov 23, 1934 article to my attention, and I can't find the Nov 30 article (maybe you can Rjensen?).  The New masses article is not online, Schmidt mentions it in his book here.
Re: New York Times Nov 23, 1934; Pg-3
This article was brought to my attention by Rjensen. In fairness, we both missed the sentence which said he was approached, until this week.
Re: Maverick Marine:  by Schmidt, Hans
Schmidt states mention of Van Zandt is in the Philadelphia Record, 23 Nov. 1934, and somewhere in the NYT, I am not quite sure where.  He cites completly different dates for the NYT article than Schlesinger and Rjensen.
Conclusion
Van Zandt was obviously approached.  Rjensen  says now that "Were there OTHERS in addition to Butler who approached Van Z? Maybe."  I think this is the closest I will ever get to an admission that Rjensen was wrong.
Rhetorical Question for Rjensen 
Do you ever come out and say you are wrong Rjensen?  I do all the time, even in this article.  
My concern
I am concerned about many of your edits, particularly your March 23 edits, in which you deleted a lot of content which contradicted your point of view. You state that you were "cleaning out the speculation", your speculation included four footnoted entries from four different sources, including: 
*the actual testimon of The House Un-American Committee, 
*two historians, and 
*a journalist.  
In addition you deleted a photo, and two of the categories that this article is in.  If I wasn't around to guard the article against such deletions, what else would you delete?
I have attempted really hard to assume good faith from the beginning.
I also admit. particularly later I was particularly [Wikipedia:Civility uncivil].  
I am concerned because some of the ways you source information on this article has been shown to be questionable.  
I repeatedly have rebutted a lot of your information, but you continue to argue and edit in partially and sometimes completely incorrect statments. It is a lot of work for me to go back and refine your broad, incorrect statments.  I guess the article has expanded as a result of this dispute between the two of us.
I have to try to assume good faith.  That said maybe you simply don't know that much about the business plot as I first assumed.  This is my good faith assumption.  My bad faith assumption we won't go into here, although in the heat of the moment, I have expressed my bad faith assuptions above.
Every single fact I am going to have to prove to you beyond a resonable doubt that it is correct.  And even when I prove beyond a resonable doubt that you were incorrect.  Cornered you will you ask rhetorical questions, such as this gem today: Were there OTHERS in addition to Butler who approached Van Z? Maybe.  Would it be to much to admit that you were wrong on this one point?  
There is an unspoken rule on web blogs that a person can never admit they are wrong.  I argue this is people's weakness, their Achilles' heel,  not a strength. I ruthlessly exploit this weakness all the time.
Again, are you wrong on Van Van Zandt?  By my lack of diplomacy, have I made it such a "face saving" issue that you can never admit that you are wrong? Travb 10:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well Schlesinger and I relied on the exact same news report from AP, printed in NY Times. It clearly says Butler approached Van Zandt about joining the plot in Sept 1934. Were there OTHERS in addition to Butler who approached Van Z? Maybe. I read headline as yes but the actual quotes as saying no. It certainly sounds like Butler was recruiting people as late as Sept 1934--why else did he approach Van Z? Rjensen 08:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Thank you Fagstein for your input.
The word alleged
Fagstein wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what the point of the argument is, but based on the last few edits, it seems there's a disagreement over whether to, among other things, refer to this as an "alleged" plot or not.
Yes and no. I accept the idea that this is an "alleged" plot. And currently have no problems with this plot being called "alleged", within reason.  Some people use "alleged" and "claimed" as weapons, in this case they can be weasel words there is a fine line.  I have no problem in the first paragraph using the word "alleged".  I think the word "testified" is more accurate than claimed when Butler and others are testifying in court.  "Claimed" is okay when Van_Zandt speaks to the newspaper.  As long as those words are used in moderation, and not as weasel words.
Sorry I was not clearer. I would have written more about the debate on Wikipedia:Third Opinion, except that the rules on Wikipedia:Third Opinion forbid no more than a sentence.
The underlying problem
The problem is really between myself and Rjensen.  Rjensen has argued that their is no merit to this plot.  His stand has remained consistent over the months.  I have gone from a skeptic leaning toward believing the plot, to believing that their was a plot, based on my extensive research, forced upon me by Rjensen edits. That is the one good point from this debate, I have learned so much, and the article is much better and much more detailed. 
::*Rjensen has quoted books out of context to support his view (the books actually contradict what he states).  When I look up the books and bring up this contradiction, I am ignored. See Talk:Business_Plot#Something_doesnt_jibe... above.
::*He has gotten several key points wrong about the alleged plot, (see the ongoing Talk:Business_Plot#Van_Zandt argument) above. And when I call him on this, he uses verbal atrobatics to try and save face. See Talk:Business_Plot#Van_Zandt above for the most egregious example.
::*Lately he has deleted large footnoted portions of the article, which contradict his view of the plot.
My contributions and my compromise
*Since I started editing this article, I have added every single footnoted refrence, added the table, added 3-5 entire new sections, and increased the size of the article by 2 to 3 times.
*I have comprimised with Rjensen and added the following information:
::*Dickstien as spy is in the article, 
::*the reference to the cocktail puscht is in the article, 
::*negative historical treatment is in the article... 
....The last two sections I added in detail, with footnoted references...
In regards to Dickstien being a Soviet spy, I even fought someone on Talk:Samuel Dickstein (congressman) defending the allegations, on Rjensen's side. And I created the huge footnote section on the Samuel Dickstein (congressman) wikipage. 
deletions in the first paragraph
But my comprimises have not been enough for Rjensen, he continues to delete footnoted sections of the article, and continues to want to include all of the negative information, and only the negative information in the first paragraph.  He has repeatedly erased this footnoted sentence:  
In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot, [2] 
...despite the Congressional committees footnoted final findings later in the article. Business_Plot#Final_resolution
This sentence is actually a quote from a book which Rjensen actually first brought up on the talk page, and actually contrdicted what he was claiming ):  
::Here is the footnote I added: Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval : 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt), Mariner Books. . p. 85 "As for the House committee, headed by John McCormack of Massachusetts, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statments made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports." 
So Rjensen is deleting his own referenced books, which he first brought up on the talk page, which dont fit his view of the plot.
Since I caught him in his contradiction months ago, he has not referenced anything he has written on this page.  He has not added a single footnote that I recall. His edits increasing consist of deleting my footnoted work, and changing the wording of the article, deleting anything which does not fit his view of the plot, particularly in the first paragraph. On the other hand, everything that I have written I have backed up with sources, footnoted sources, sometimes even several sources for the same footnote.
proven in some court 
Fagstein wrote:
I would probably use the word (alleged), unless it has been proven in some court that this has happened.
I am happy with using the word "alleged". Please see Congressional McCormack-Dickstein Committee on the Business_Plot#Final_resolution final resolution.  These are quotes from the actual committee. Only the last and first sentence are not quotes from the congressional committee.  The committee stated: 
::In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country.
::No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.
::There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.
the word testify
Fagstein wrote:
Similarly, it makes more sense to say someone testified that something is the case than to simply say it is true. It doesn't take away from the usefulness of the article, but does clarify where the story comes from. 
I am happy to use the word "testify".  I agree 100% with your recommendations Fagstein.  
Signed: Travb 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you [[User:Fagstein|Fagstein]] for your input

message: I would like to suggest that this article is edited with extreme caution in the near future. I request that any new information is only inserted in the article with a tight reference. Furthermore, I request that any editor who has inserted unreferenced material which is in any way a source of dispute removes that information themselves, and stores it in the section below for the time being, and that if unreferenced material is removed by any other editor, they accept that editor's right to do so under wiki rules. 
If there is a difference of opinion as to how to reach any concluding statement, and two opposing sources are cited, the simple solution is to include both sources. If there is a conflict over which word(s) to use, again words should be taken from sources, and editors not attempt to make their own summary, unless a consensus can be reached.
Tyrenius 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds reasonable.  If you wish, Please take out any parts of the article that you see are unrefrenced.Travb 02:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referenced edits and caution

message: Please store here any material removed from article which has not got a reference, until such time (if ever) as a reference can be found for it. Thanks Tyrenius 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Tyrenius.  I suggest adding  first, metioning this on the talk page, then removing after a week if no one corrects. This avoid revert wars.Travb (talk)   14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced material from main article

message: I have to agree with User:Tyrenius. Although I wrote the majority of this article, and believe the plot was real, using the word "alleged" at the beginning of the article does not weaken the article at all.  Unfortunatly no one was convicted of these crimes, so throughout history it will always be an "alleged" crime.  That is not me "downplaying" the plot, because I have "up-played" the plot more than anyone on wikipedia.  That is simply me being realistic.  No convictions=alleged. Travb (talk)   14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Alleged"

message: I think that this article is needed and that any effort to delete it is a mistake.  The fact that there were actually congressional hearings held about the topic, and there undeniably were, makes it indisputably encyclopedic IMO.  Whether these hearings revealed anything over and above Gen. Butler having an overactive imagination is a different issue.  (I believe that they did, but it seems to be true that the "proof" regarding the plot centers around Gen. Butler's on the record testimony, and not much else.)  What we don't need, though, is a bunch of self-referential links back to this article.  There are facts in dispute here, and what we need is links to outside sources showing the dispute in legitimate published sources.  My effort has centered around removing links that just take one back to this article, as the link to the McCormick-Dickstein committee did.Rlquall 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: The Business Plot was alluded to in an episode of the now-obscure short-run 1976 NBC television series City of Angels (a 1930s-set private eye show starring Wayne Rogers and obviously inspired by Chinatown, not the more-prominent 2000 hospital-set series starring Blair Underwood).  I don't know if this actually belongs in the article, but it definitely belongs here, at least.  Rlquall 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it to the article, at the end, where Popular culture references usually go.  If you don't add it no one will. I find asking people to do things on talk page 99.9% of the time never works.Travb (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture reference 

message: As per Weasel_words#Generalization_using_weasel_words:
There are some forms of generalization which are considered unacceptable in standard writing. This category embraces what is termed a semantic cop-out, represented by the term allegedly. This phrase, which became something of a catch-phrase on the weekly satirical BBC television show, Have I Got News For You, implies an absence of ownership of opinion which casts a limited doubt on the opinion being articulated.
No more use of the word alleged.  I supported it before on this article, but no more. Travb (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that alleged is a weasel word in this context.  It can be a weasel word, certainly, if it's used without saying where the allegations originate; but in the intro, that information was contained in the very next paragraph. --Aquillion 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principal  with you User:Aquillion but I am trying to be consistent.  My big pet peeve are weasel words, and I figure that if I harp on them on other pages I watch and start to edit, I should be consistent here too.  I used to defend the word alleged here, but then I realized I was being inconsistent by defending its use here, and harping on others for using it on other wikipages.  Travb (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The word alleged

message: I like the version now. I would have liked to see some broader perspective on American business leaders attraction to and support of Fascism, perhaps something from one of American Ambassador Dodd's letters to FDR. 
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . . "
"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there."
- William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937
70.120.166.202 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said a million times before, asking for others to do something on a talk page is a waste of time, 99% of the time.  so WP:BB be bold, and make the changes you want to the page.  Travb (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I like the version now

message: James Sargent's review sounds interesting and suspiciouos at the same time. Any links to Sargent and his ideas on "complex trends and events" - you could hide a herd of elephants under that phrase. I read the review and Sargent certainly appeared to want you - his graduate students, etc - to not bother with this book or historical event. He offers several complaints but doesn't point the way to the good stuff - if Archer didn't footnote, it is hard to see how Sargent would know with his head so far into the sand.
Please provide sources for your entries, and avoid personal opinion on the article page.  thank you. Travb (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article page

message: Seems to me the mere fact there's so much debate about the issue is reason enough to keep. I first came across this in a syndicated broadcast of City of Angels & didn't even (really) believe Smedley Butler was real. (With a name like that?) Baseless? Maybe. Implausible? Certainly. Yet desperate people do odd things, & a lot of powerful people were almost certain FDR was a dangerous Socialist, if not a Communist. Might they have trusted Butler? Or thought they could manipulate him? German industrialists were sure they could manipulate Hitler...  Trekphiler 04:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Settle down!