`   Thanks for trying to clarify your material. I would REALLY appreciate attention to the 'Newburgh' section by anyone who would consider their knowledge of Hamilton or early American history 'decent' or higherincluding (believe it or not) you.   Since you seem to enjoy American History as much as I do, you may find the following letters interesting and/or helpful. They are the April 4, 1783 letter of Washington you quote indirectly about ``playing`` with the army comments (the 'incendiary' part is actually a slight misquote by your source)[to Washington - April 4, 1783 Letter to Hamilton], and the two letters (sent simultaneously) from Hamilton to which Washington's April 4th letter was a response. Hamilton sent Washington a letter on (March) 25th which introduced and enclosed another writing on the situation of the unpaid soldiers/Newburgh Conspiracy [25th Correspondence from Hamilton to Washington](The second, attached letter Hamilton mentions in his first letter can be read by clicking the hyperlinked 1 on the web page containing Hamilton's first letterit says how on the webpage).  I wish you would read these sources, not to add original research to the article, but just to ground this situation/your addition to the article currently states in reality/context.  Where I am coming from: Every book I have ever read on the period mentioning Hamilton essentially seems to agree that Hamilton's willingness to let Congress believe the soldiers were closer to armed insurrection as a means getting them their back pay was a bad idea.  Further, they seem to agree that Washington thought it was important to keep even a bluff of a military uprising out of the whole situation, and told Hamilton of this (much to Washington's credit). But they also generally agree (and Hamilton states this clearly in his correspondence) that Hamilton was working against the actual threat of armed uprising, and that both men wanted to get the soldiers some form of back pay without violence.   As I say, I don't have your American Biography Dictionary, or access to JSTOR, so I have no idea what those sources say, or what the context of your quotes are.  Just, please, please read those primary sources, review Chernow or any other significant, relatively up-do-date bios (of which Hamilton is the PRIMARY subject) and see if you think that section is still accurate and its statements in proper context as the article now stands.  Finally, I REALLY would like to get other peoples' input on this paragraph's accuracy.  ANYTHING.  This has gotten way too personal. If anyone else reading this has access to these books, or access to JSTOR, take a whack at the section, only good can come from it.  I am going to stay out of this article, except to label it as disputed just so that more people will have a look the Newburgh section, contribute based on reliable sources and historical consensus. Sorry for the long response.  Thanks for reading.  Good luck.   `