Talk:Horatio Gates

message: Question about the line that Gates "had no obvious connection" to the Newburgh Conspiracy. Joseph J. Ellis has Gates not only complicit in the Newburgh Conspiracy but actually leading the radical faction that wanted to act out the military takeover. p. 142 His Excellency, Knopf, New York:2004. Ellis cites Richard H. Kohn, Eagle and Sword: The Beginnings of the Military Establishment in America, New York:1975. --Hilander 03:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Newburgh Conspiracy

message: Shouldn't this be moved to wikipedia commons? Fawcett5 16:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: "The political maneuverings of Washington's underlings were unintentionally exposed to Washington by Gates' adjutant, James Wilkinson."
It seems like this should read "Gate's underlings"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.137.158 (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "underling" may be less than ideal.  The principal "underling" in question was Brigadier Thomas Conway, who was technically subordinate to Washington.  Another major figure implicated in the cabal was Thomas Mifflin, although he left the army in October 1777, at least in part because of his dissatisfaction with Washington's (lack of) appreciation of his talents.  I don't recall offhand what other officers may have been involved.  Thomas Fleming's Washington's Secret War goes into the Conway Cabal in some detail, and specifically mentions Daniel Brodhead IV as another unhappy officer.  But it was Wilkinson's big mouth that exposed the circle of discontent to Washington. Magic♪piano 13:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Underlings" comes across as a little unencyclopaedic and sneering in tone. I've changed it to the more neutral-sounding "opponents". Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This doesn't seem correct. 

message: This information was not sourced, tagged since July 2011:
  In July of 1780, Gates was involved in a minor skirmish with Loyalists in southern Connecticut, the center of the American textiles trade, for which Britain was a major export market.  No casualties were reported, though stores of Loyalist livestock were destroyed, depriving the British of those provisions.
I researched this, and found absolutely nothing to substantiate it. If anyone does find this information, please add it and provide the reference! Monsieurdl mon talk 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced passage under "Conway Cabal" section 

message: Gates was the greatest American traitor known to date, yet this article uses clever words and irony to just infer that.  Simply put, he was one of the best weapons the British had against the colonies, since he discredited Arnold (one of the best field commanders of the war on either side) and almost took out Washington.  If not for his abject cowardice at Camden, Gates may have succeeded in subverting Washington and effectively handing America to the British.  Amply documented in PBS' http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/ and many other documentaries that speak more plainly and accurately to the true depth of Gates' depravity and amorality in seeking self-advancement at any cost.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That he was "the greatest American traitor known to date" is an opinion I've not seen widely stated; name a few historians who agree with that assessment.  Seeking self-advancement "at any cost" would suggest Gates did (or was prepared to do) things that Arnold (and other genuinely treasonous individuals) did: betraying actual military secrets to the enemy.  Did Gates?  No?  So much for that idea... Magic♪piano 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading in its ambiguity concerning Gates' integrity 

message: How is it that there is not a single thing in here between 1772 and 1780?  Where is the account of Gates during the Revolution?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.75.51 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some vandalism was missed; now fixed. Thanks for noticing. Magic♪piano 15:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing material

message: I think the word "allegedly" should be added to the lede when talking about the Conway Cabal - either Gates's involvement is alleged or the cabal itself should be labeled thus. There is a good deal of doubt whether the cabal actually existed as described.Purplethree (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See two quotations and citations now in two footnotes concerning Conway cabal. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegedly? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Horatio Gates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615220310/https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H001123_01H.pdf to https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H001123_01H.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified