Talk:New York and New Jersey campaign

New York and New Jersey campaign has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

New York and New Jersey campaign is the main article in the New York and New Jersey campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 23, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
April 28, 2010	Good topic candidate	Not promoted
December 17, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted
May 30, 2020	Good topic removal candidate	Kept
Current status: Good article

Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

New York (state): Hudson Valley Mid‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Mid-importance).

New Jersey High‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Initial remarks

The New York Campaign is not a subject or title that is generally known to historians. Unlike the Saratoga Campaign, which is generally accepted and widely used, there doesn't seem to be any universal term used here. The U. S. Army history calls this the Battle for New York. The British, on the other hand, refer to it as the Occupation of New York City. Several history books I've checked have a heading or chapter title, but they all seem to invent something else. I've chosen this one from the introduction to a group of chapters in Ward's The War of the Revolution, but alternative suggestions would be welcome. Please add remarks or questions to the bottom of the page. Thanks, Lou I

This is a work in progress. I'll keep current a current status note here, and remarks at the bottom of the page. Current work is to get stubs and article titles in place for major events and biographies. Lou I 20:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Title and scope of article

I think that the New York and New Jersey campaigns should be split into two different pages, they were different events after all. --YankeeDoodle14 00:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they were components of the same campaign -- Howe & Washington's campaign of 1776. In those days, an army campaigned from spring to winter, and then went into winter quarters, which is the time span covered in this article. Washington fooled them by extending the campaign a bit further into the winter than expected, but otherwise it was a continuation of the campaign that started in New York City. David Hackett Fischer's Washington's Crossing (book) begins the story of Washington crossing the Delaware with the battle for New York, of course, since to do otherwise would be to start the story in the middle. Since we link from this article to all the individual battles of that campaign season, there's no need to split this main overview. At some point, someone might want to split off a "daughter" article or two—like perhaps the "occupation of New York", covering civil/military events in the city—but a single overview of the 1776 campaign will always be useful. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However this is not an article about the campaigning of the year 1776, otherwise it would have to also contain the Boston Campaign (ended in 1776), the Canadian Campaign, and the Battle for Charleston. In the American Heritage Book of the Revolution, and even in David McCullough's 1776 (focusing on Washington's army), a clear distinction is drawn between the New York and New Jersey Campaigns. --YankeeDoodle14 21:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doodle. While Boston did end in 1776, the campaign "season" begins in spring, which is when this article picks-up--Shoreranger 04:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are agreeing with me rather than Doodle--that a campaign season runs from spring to winter was my argument, not his. His reply to me about Boston, Canada, and Charleston was off the point, of course, since we're talking about Washington and Howe's main armies and their campaign "season" from the spring to winter of 76-77. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 06:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me. You are correct, I am in favor of keeping this page intact, and therefore do not agree with Mr. Doodle.--Shoreranger 15:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is indeed about campaigning of the main two armies during the campaigning season of '76 then it should be renamed so that its title would reflect this. However if it is only about New Jersey and New York, as the current title and content appear to reflect, then I think that these two subjects should be separated. --YankeeDoodle14 05:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the intro to make the intended scope of the article clearer. There's much to be done here for interested editors: the Staten Island peace conference, the disobedience, capture, and possible treason of General Charles Lee, etc. —Kevin 05:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unwitting

I have a questions about the adverb "unwittingly" in the sentence "He unwittingly violated a cardinal rule of warfare and divided his troops about equally in the face of a stronger opponent." Was he not aware of the size or location of the British forces? Or was the division unintended?--Molozonide (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original writer meant that GW did not realize he was doing so. This seems somewhat unlikely. GW's hands were somewhat tied by Congressional insistence that NYC be defended, something that was probably militarily impossible under the circumstances. I can't find anything to support it, so it's going to go. Magic♪piano 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some correction might be needed

Why does it state 'United States' in the infobox? The country known as the United States of America was recognized after the Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War. Shouldn't it be Thirteen Colonies? Also the article continuously refers to the Patriots as 'Americans'- were the Loyalists not considered American? Hoodinski (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Treaty of Paris, the United States had already been recognised several times, starting with the Treaty of Amity and Commerce of 1778; but more importantly it had declared itself extant at the beginning of July 1776, (just) before the New York campaign started. That the North ministry and the Continental Congress would have disagreed over whether or not the United States existed is not a reason for Wikipedia to side with the North ministry 250 years later. You're on firmer ground objecting to American to mean Patriot; erasure of the Loyalists, except for when they're specifically needed as a foil for the heroism of the Patriots, happens often and even experts in the topic sometimes clearly proceed under the (false) assumption that the Revolutionary War was a question of siding with Britain or America, and that the Tories were therefore lesser as Americans than the Patriots. There's only so much one can do about this from Wikipedia, of course, since we don't get to disagree with actual scholars, but if someone were to take the time to go through and make sure that the article only says "Americans" when it actually means "Americans," and says "Patriots" or possibly "Continental" when it means "Patriots" or "Continental," I don't see how that would be a problem. Binabik80 (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwallis portrati

I'd like to suggest a more appropriate portrait of Lord Cornwallis be used than that chosen, which dates from 1795. During the AWI, rather than the portly old soldier shown there, he was a vigorous active officer, which made him one of the more effective commanders of the British troops in America.

Equally, the print of General Howe, is based on a portrait from the Seven Years War period and shows him as a younger man than he was in 1776.

JF42 (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New York and New Jersey campaign. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]