The Newburgh conspiracy

Newburgh conspiracy
Alexander Hamilton, who is believed by many to have played a role in the Newburgh conspiracy

The Newburgh conspiracy was an alleged 1783 plot by officers of the Continental Army to impose their will upon the national government. Their motive was the Confederation Congress’s inability to pay arrears of salary and its unwillingness to provide pensions. Most of the participants in the Newburgh conspiracy did not candidly record their thoughts so it is uncertain what course of action they may have taken. There was talk of refusing to disband the army when ordered to do so, and some may have harboured intentions of seizing power. Ultimately, the conspiracy was quashed by the personal intervention of George Washington.

Background

Like some other problems of the time, the Newburgh conspiracy was brought about by a lack of money – specifically, Congress’s inability to regularly pay members of the Continental Army. This was a frustration shared not just by officers and soldiers but also some in the government.

The payment of ranks in the Continental Army had been a perpetual problem during the Revolutionary War.

Payments had become increasingly sporadic through 1781 and 1782. It was not uncommon for

In October 1780, the Continental Congress, in a desperate attempt to retain its commissioned officers in service, had promised all serving officers a lifetime pension at half-pay. This was strongly criticised in some state assemblies, where there were strong doubts about if Congress would or could fulfill this promise.

Grievances take shape

The grievances of Continental officers had been building steadily through 1782. Hostilities with Britain had ended and treaty negotiations were underway in Paris. Many believed that Congress might soon dissolve the army, returning them to civilian life with the issues of pay and pensions unresolved.

In November 1782, a clique of officers led by Major-General Henry Knox, one of Washington’s most senior commanders, drafted an ominously worded petition to Congress. It read in part:

“We have borne all that men can bear, our property is expended, our private resources are at an end, and our friends are wearied out and disgusted with our incessant applications… Any further experiments on our patience may have fatal effects… There is a point beyond which there is no sufferance. I pray we will not sincerely pass it.”

Despite negotiations with sympathetic figures in the Congress, Knox’s overture was not successful.

The Newburgh addresses

In the first days of 1783, a group of officers led by Colonel Walter Stewart prepared another list of grievances and dispatched it to Congress. The petition, though framed gently, called on Congress to honour the promises it had made to its officers. Their claims were endorsed by Washington but were again rebuffed.

In March, two anonymously written addresses were circulated among officers encamped at Newburgh, New York. Though their authorship has never been confirmed, many historians attribute them to Major John Armstrong Junior, a seven-year veteran of the war. One of the addresses read in part:

“[Is this] a country that tramples upon your rights, disdains your cries and insults your distresses? Have you not more than once suggested your wishes and made known your wants to Congress… How have you been answered? … If this then be your treatment, while the swords you wear are necessary for the defence of America, what have you to expect from peace, when your voice shall sink and your strength dissipate by division? When those very swords, the instruments and companions of your glory, shall be taken from your sides, and no remaining mark of military distinction left but your wants, infirmities, and fears?”

It closed by summoning officers to a meeting eight days later, to consider Congress’s responses and “what farther measures should be taken”.

Nationalists in Congress

In Congress itself, several influential politicians shared the frustrations of the officers and felt hamstrung by the limited powers given by the Articles of Confederation. They hoped to use the plight of the army to push for greater national and centralised powers, particularly the authority to raise taxes.

One of these was Alexander Hamilton who only 12 months earlier had been a member of Washington’s military staff. In late February 1783, Hamilton wrote to Washington and warning him that the nation was in dire straits and faced bankruptcy by the middle of the year. Hamilton suggested forcing the states to compliance by refusing to disband the army but Washington disagreed.

Another disgrunted federalist was Robert Morris. Then Congress’s superintendent of finances, Morris was responsible for paying the salaries of the armies but with post-war trade slumping and the states unhelpful, he found himself unable to do so.

Washington responds

It was a clear threat of mutiny. The Continental Army had known mutinies before, particularly in the Pennsylvania and New Jersey regiments during 1781-2; however this was amongst high-ranking officers with influence over hundreds of men. If it escalated it could lead to an assault on the Congress itself. The officers’ petition found support from some individuals in the Congress, chiefly those nationalists who had long advocated a strong central government with the authority to tax. They saw this incident as a prime example of how the Confederation Congress was failing and were prepared to ‘use’ the officers’ plight – even at risk of a military coup – to expand the power of Congress relative to the states. As tensions increased, a meeting was scheduled with the officers, where Washington made a surprise appearance. He spoke to those present about the perilous economic state of the nation, the need to uphold civilian political authority, and the virtue of loyalty. With a sense of theatre he also took out his eye-glasses, saying “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.” Legend has it that the disgruntled officers were won over by Washington’s words and his visible self-sacrifice. The Newburgh conspiracy effectively ended in that room, although the issue of back-pay and pensions was not resolved for several years.

Assessment

Though nothing came of the talk at Newburgh, it was a potential turning-point where the revolution could have stumbled from a bold republican experiment into military dictatorship. America could well have ended up with a Napoleon rather than a Washington; peace might have given way to civil war; or the monarchy could have been restored. Instead, order was calmly restored and the goals of the revolution reaffirmed, apparently because of a fatherly talk by Washington himself.

“Behind the events at Newburgh in March 1783 lay a complex plot which involved not only certain leaders of the army, but of Congress as well. The willingness of these men to risk shattering the delicate bond of trust between the army and the American people, in violation of the deep-rooted tradition against direct military involvement in politics, and the long-standing warnings about the dangers of an army, revealed a flaw that would dog the Federalist party throughout its existence.”
Peter Karsten, historian

Citation information
Title: ‘The Newburgh conspiracy’
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/americanrevolution/newburgh-conspiracy
Date published: July 18, 2019
Date updated: November 24, 2023
Date accessed: March 29, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.