| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Connecticut Farms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Knyphausen's Plan -- "Invasion" ?
editAs a resident of Union ("Connecticut Farms") in the 1960's & early 70's and a fan of the local Revolutionary War events, I have some familiarity with the history. I raise a "Neutral Point of View" objection to the word "invasion" in the following sentence: "Knyphausen had also been led to believe that the war-weary people of New Jersey would give little resistance to his invasion." I suggest it be replaced by the phrase "to his troops' advance".
There is a historical plaque in the area commemorating the battle which was placed during the 1976 Bicentennial. It originally used the same phrasing as the article "invading British troops". Shortly afterwards, folks from Britain pointed out the historical inaccuracy: at that time the troops were suppressing a rebellion in there own colonial territories, and thus were not "invaders" (except to the rebels). But while it is true that the Hessian troops were regarded by the local colonists as "foreign invaders", this was of course due to anti-german bigotry ("foreigners"), the troops were considered by Britain as British Army auxiliaries. [Ref: the Wikipedia article for "Hessian_(soldier)".] The commemorative plaque wording was eventually corrected by the local historical society.
I think there might also be an overlooked point not considered by the offending sentence. Sorry I do not have the time to provide a reference, but as I recall from reading the local historical records of the battle, the Brit's somewhat expected to be greeted as a "legitimate authority come to restore order" and protect those loyal to the Crown from the colonial "rebel terrorists". Recall that the Brit troops were making their mainland incursion from State's Island (modern Staten Island), where most colonial loyalists were forced to flee under extreme duress after the revolution began.
NOT trying to start a debate here - I just want to see the article avoid the bias of a pro-American POV.
-- jhayas.biz@gmail.com (aka "ersatz.nobogus")