Chapter 14 - A Concluding Commentary
Conduct of the Populace
It was characteristic of the populace in the American Revolution to be extremely suspicious of any supply officer engaged in procurement for the Continental Army. Regardless of whether the procurement officer was paid a salary or collected a commission on his purchases, the citizen was convinced that he was growing wealthy at the expense of the public. This attitude likely reflected the fact that many of the purchasing agents were merchants who continued to conduct their private businesses. Sharp practices by merchants in the past had not been unheard of, and few colonial citizens could believe that merchants, were not using public business to promote private interests. As pointed out by Robert A. East, "the colonial mind was predominantly agrarian" in many respects. When Arthur Lee bitterly attacked Silas Deane, the insinuations and accusations against Deane, Morris, and their commercial and land-speculating associates that emerged in speeches and publications divided Congress itself into bitter camps and confirmed most colonists in their agrarian prejudices and hostility to merchants.16 The sufferings of the inhabitants living in the path of the armies, both British and American, as they marched and countermarched through the land destroying crops and impressing whatever they needed, undoubtedly generated further hostility and a determination to outwit supply officers. The perception of waste in the Continental Army also promoted a conviction that more was taken than what was needed, while the prosperity of some supply officers only deepened the suspicions of the citizens.
The sharp practices of some of the citizens themselves perhaps also accounted for their ready acceptance of charges of corruption on the part of all supply officers. Cobblers used green leather in producing shoes for the troops; tailors skimped on cloth in making uniforms; farmers used false bottoms in measuring and selling forage to the Continental Army; and millers turned out flour that was deficient in quality and short in weight per barrel. So prevalent was the abuse in the supply of flour that it was proposed that each barrel be marked with the brand of the miller who had produced it. Not a few citizens also traded with the enemy when it was safe to do so.
Pilferage was common on the supply lines and at magazines. Government-owned clothes, tents, shovels, picks, axes, and horseshoes; as well as vinegar, salt, and other provisions, were found in the hands of private citizens. Wagoners on the supply lines helped themselves from the cargoes they carried. Citizens appropriated any government supplies left unguarded. At times supplies expressly placed in their care because of a breakdown of teams or wagons or because of the bad condition of the roads were never again reported by them. From government-owned muskets placed in the hands of militia when they were called into service to government-owned horses and cattle delivered to farmers to be pastured, all were readily converted to private use; few people had any regard for public property rights. So widespread was pilferage that the Continental Congress recommended that the legislatures enact laws imposing heavy fines or other penalties on those who did not deliver government-owned supplies on the demand of the proper officer or who failed to report such supplies to the executive power of the state in which they resided.
Poor products, outright theft, and diversion of government-owned articles diminished the supplies available to the Revolutionary soldier. Citizens, however, felt justified in retaining government-owned supplies because the supply departments often failed to pay for the work done for them. A warrant to impress was the only resource the purchasing agent had for obtaining badly needed supplies during the last years of the war. Citizens soon accepted certificates only under duress. The deteriorating financial situation largely explains why manufacturers refused to complete contracts for various products ordered by quartermasters and why farmers were reluctant to sell their produce to purchasing commissaries.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment