USA > Connecticut > The trade of Revolutionary Connecticut > Part 18
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26
26 Johnson, pp. 162, 165. .
27Ibid., pp. 218-220 ..
28 General Jedidiah Huntington, Letters, I.
.
276.
sort of "family" affair. Business seems to have been poorer with the Army during the New York campaign, perhaps largely due to the misfortunes and frequent retreats of the American Army. On July 27, 1776 Jedidiah Huntington wrote from New York to his brother Andrew that the latter's rum had been sold, but not too well, as the market was too fluctuating for the writer to watch it and carry on his [military] duties. 29
Joseph Williams of Norwich also carried on a mercantile project at the continental camp in 1775 and 1776. Williams' main source of supply was William Coit of Norwich. Williams found a small shop available in Cambridge at which he sold goods. In his first week of business, he took in about 150 in cash, which he considered good. Williams' letters to Coit indicated very nicely what items the soldiers wanted. These included coffee, chocolate, tobacco, "orange and clove water," silk handkerchiefs, checked flannel for shirts, broadoloth, ribbon, leather breeches, thread, chest locks, paper, rum, lemons, shoes, sugar, flax, cheese, wine, butter, soap, and candles. Williams later accompanied the Army to the New York Area. Trade prospered for a time, . but the channels of trade were suddenly disrupted for Williams when the British appeared on October 22, 1776 and seized much of his brandy and rum. It is not surprising that on November 9 Williams announced his intention of leaving camp as soon as he could sell out what Coit had sent and settle his accounts. 30
5. Connecticut commissarios
The number of persons directly involved in the supply business as
29 Ibid., II.
SOW. G. Lane Collection.
1
277.
commissaries was largo. This list taken from the Archives is suggestive on this score,
List of Commissaries for the State of Connecticut
Town
Classification31
Shubael Abbo
Windham
P
Samuel Abbott
Windban
P
Ebenezer Barnard, Jr.
Hartford
S
John Bains
C
Stephen Barns
P
Daniel Bennet
Stratford
3
Ithamen Bingham
c
Ezra Bronson
Waterbury
P
Handley Bushnell
John Caldwell
Hartford
P
John Caulfield
P
Henry Champion
Colchester
P
Israel Champion
P
Jabez Clark
3
Hanry Daggett
How Baven
8
Silas Davenport
Stamford
P
Elias Durming
P
Joshua Elderkin
Windhan
c, 8
Thomas Fanning
P
Royal Flint
c
SazDel Fox
P
Thomas Goodman
Hartford
P
Wait Goodrich
P
Samuel Grosvenor
Ponfret
P
Abel Hino
How Milford
c, S
Noudrish Hooker
Farmington
P
Elijah House
Lebanon
P
Elijah Hubbard
Middletown
P, C, S.
Andrew Huntington
Norwich
C
Mfles Johnson
P
William Little
c, S
Eliphalet Lockwood
S
Shadrack Osborn
New London
S, P
Jabez Parkins
How London
S, P
James Robinson
P
-
31p-provisions; 3-supplies; C-clothing.
278.
31
Namo
Town
Classification
James Rogers
P
Moses Seymour
P
Seth Smith John Squier, Jr. Samuel Squier
New Hartford
P
P
S
Nathan Wales
Windham
S
James Watson
S
Chauncey Whittlesay
Middletown
s. C
Samuel Wolcott
East Windsor
P32
6. The coming of the French Army to New England
A now and very important chapter in Connecticut's supply efforts began in July of 1780 with the arrival of the French naval and military forces in Rhode Island. The coming of the French more than compensated for any easing of demands upon Connecticut which had resulted from the shift of the center of fighting to the South. For the remainder of the war period, Commectiont kept supplies flowing in three main directionss (1) to Washington's army on the Hudson; (2) to the large French forces in Rhode Island; and (3) to the militia units on duty within the State. This section will be concerned with the problems involved in supplying the French allies, and the interrelations with the other supply services.
The French Army, in general, experienced much less difficulty in procuring supplies than did the Continental Army, because the French had available plenty of "hard" money for their purchases. 33 The De
Stp provisions; S-supplies; C-olothing.
32A. R. W., XXXV, Index.
33 An exception to this occurred at the start when K. de Cornay, French commissary, requested a loan of 120,000 upon the same conditions as under a similar loan from Pennsylvania. The Council "cheerfully" camplied with this request on June 20, 1780. S. R. III, 110. Many. observers commented upon the ready cash which the French possessed. Davis, "Trials of a Governor," }'.H.S. Proceedings, XLVII, 140; Johnson, p. 174; Clinton Papers, VI, 182 .
.
279.
dealt chiefly with M. de Cornay, commissary for the French army, and M. Holker, commissary for the French naval contingent.
Samuel Huntington, as President of the Continental Congress, wrote on June 5, 1780 to Governor Trumbull that M. de Cornay was the head French commissary and that it was thought desirable that he employ the same currency for his purchases as did the Continental purchasers so as to prevent competition. 34 Unfortunately, this excellent suggestion was not followed. In fact, it scarcely could be expected that the French, well stocked with specie, would refrain from using as much of it as was necessary to obtain needed supplies. The impact of French buying upon American procurement was felt quickly and harshly. Ephraim
Blaine, as Commissary-General, in September, 1780, reported that his department never had experienced so much difficulty in obtaining supplies as in the past six weeks because the French agents were using hard money
for their purchases. 35 Thus, the French buying apparently had caused shortages for the Continental Army in less than a month after the French arrival at Newport. 36 In many cases Continental commissarios nevor even got a chance to bid on the goods, as Connecticut farmers preferred to profiteer by sales to French agents. 37
7. Large profita for Wadsworth and others
A large number of the most skilled commissaries in Connecticut
34 A. T. P., XI, Doo. 240.
- 35 Johnson, p. 174.
36 The French arrived at Newport, July 10, 1780.
37 Johnson, p. 143. Oliver Wolcott reported as follows: "The large Demands for Provisions for the French Fleet and Army at Newport, and the alluring Pay which they make induce great Quantity, of fine Beoff, to be sent there." Oliver Wolcott to John Laurens, December 27, 1780, Burnett, V, 502.
280:
flooked into the French service. Within a few months after Jeremiah Wadsworth resigned as Commissary-General, ho signed contracts to provide the French forces with forage and horses. He formed a partnership with John M. Carter of Newport, Rhode Island; and they carried on a very large and profitable business. The contracts were of such size that Wadsworth employed a number of agents and subcontractors including Peter Colt, Nehemiah Hubbard, Oliver Phelps, Ralph Pomeroy, David Trumbull, James Watson, and Benjamin Tallmadge. 38 Apparently, Carter received the supplies at Newport and Providenoe, and delivered thom to the French. 39 Some conception of their transactions may be obtained from . these excerpts from Wadsworth's accounts. 40 .
-
38 East, p. 92; Jeremiah Wadsworth, Account Books; Boef, mutton and flour were especially important in the contracts. They asked for one-third hard money for use in purchasing and thought that would be enough if there was not competitive buying. J. Wadeworth Letter Books, 1778-1783. Hall, p. 84. The firm bought supplies directly from the Huntingtons of Norwich and James Lloyd of Fairfield County.
39 Before the partnership was formed Royal Flint represented Wadsworth in Rhode Island. East, p. 89.
40 All excerpts are from Jeremiah Wadsworth, Account Books (2).
.
281.
Rood of Capt. Nehemiah Hubbard, & put on board Capt. Peter Cattle to be deliverd at Now Port, 8 Caska of Wheat Flour ... [a description follows]
Rood of Capt. W" Bull and put on board the Sloop Sally James Look Master - 65 Bushells Corn
53 Bushell Ryo
July 13, 1781 to Cash Paid Ralph Pomeroy For 32 Scythes for the Army of France @ 1/ 1,12:0
July 14
to Wm. Bull
For 57 Bushels Cats @ 3/6
9:1916,
242
Corn
6
60:10:0
156
. Ryo .
6
46:16:0
100
.
Buak-" 4/6 wheat
21:13:4
138:18:10
Invoice of 272 Cask Flour Shipd by James Watson on Account of Jere Wadsworth, on Board the Sloop Carefull Sylvanus Waterman Master, for How Port, & Deliverd to John Carter Esq' Agent for the Army of France there .... [Description follows] [March 13, 1781]
. The firm of Wadsworth and Carter prospered greatly. Carter, a businessman in Newport, had important mercantile and social contacts which helped. Their profits were divided equally. In some cases, a commission as high as five per cent was paid; and very favorable terms were arranged in the matter of the form of payment; with bills on Paris especially desired."
Other Connecticut merchants also signed supply contracts with the French, but none compared in quantity with the contracts of Wadsworth and Carter. Several in Hartford County, including Josiah Blakely, woro involved in this work. 42
The French apparently obtained a large amount of supplies directly
41 East, pp. 89-91. All purchasing was carried on with hard money, or bills of exchange drawn on the French government. Ibid., p. 92.
42
A. T. P., XII, Docs. 126-127. East, p. 88.
.
282.
from the State, although not as a gift, as the Americans demanded full pay for everything supplied the French forces. These supply 43 requisitions in part were funnelled through Congress. In 1780 one finds such demands made upon Connecticut by Congress for the French as followst 1000 barrels of pork, and 1555 barrels of flour before May 1; - 500 or 44 600 barrels of flour to be placed with Thomas Munford at New London under Holkers' complete control. 45
An interesting and picturesque chapter in French relations with Connecticut is afforded by the cantonment of the Duke de Lauzun with four hundred hussars of his legion and two companies of foot soldiers at Lebanon from November, 1780 to June, 1781. The location was selected, probably, with an eye to the reputation of the neighborhood as an excellent supply center. 46 The relations between the soldiery and the local people were very good, and no real friction developed. Lauzun and his men found food and forage cheap and plentiful, and payment was made promptly. 47
8. Interstate ramifications of the French supply problems The problem of supplying the French definitely was an interstate
43 Blanchard, p. 107.
44A. T. P., XI, Docs. 80, 83.
40L. T. P., XI, Doc. 107.
46The general assembly picked the towns of Windham, Lobanon, and Colchester, or any one of them, as desirable site(s), and appointed Wadsworth, David Trumbull, and Joshua Elderkin to provide quarters for the troops. S. R. I, 187.
47 Stephen Bonsal, When the French Were Here (New York, 1945), pp. 52-63.
·
283.
one which involved importantly Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut, and to a smaller extent, New Hampshire. At the inter-stato conventions held at Boston in August, 1780 and at Hartford in November, 1780 some general recommendations were issued concerning French supplies. No detailed treatment was accorded to the matter. because the conventions were concerned chiefly with broader problems of prices, currency, embargoes, and supplies. pplies.48 The delegates at the Hartford meeting recommended that each state appoint commissioners to meet and work out jointly the contracts for provisioning the French Army and Navy. Meanwhile, on September 19, the Connecticut Council had appointed commissioners to confer with those of the other states upon "the most proper Mode" for furnishing the French forces with necessities.49 The attempts at interstate cooperation on French supplies finally culminated in the abortive Providence Convention of April, 1781. Only four delegates, including Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., of Connecticut, made an appearance. Since the French Army and Navy, Now Hampshire, and New York failed to send representatives, those at Providence, of necessity, adjourned in discouragemont and without any positive accomplishments.50
The French troops made their final appearance in Connecticut in the fall of 1782 when Rochambeau's army marched through the State on the return from the Yorktom campaign. The French had a series of cantonments in the State since it required considerable time to move
-
48 At Providence the body recommended that measures be taken to prevent frauds being practiced in selling provisions to the French. S. R. I, 561.
s. R. I. 263. The general assembly took similar aotion in November, 1780. S. R. I .; 237.
50S. R. I, 574-575.
284.
so large a force across the Stato. Careful preparations had been made for the French in accord with a resolve of the general assembly which directed the selectmen of the towns on the route to make all necessary arrangements for quartoring and supplies.51
9. Impact of the French supply business
In conclusion, it is obvious that Connecticut supplied the French foross stationed in New England with a very large proportion of their food and forage; and that the Connecticut citizens-contractors, subcontractors, and several thousand individual farmers-involved in supplying the French profited considerably from the business. Payment was made either in specie or in bills of exchange, both of which were greatly preferred to the sadly depreciated Continental and State currency. For geographical reasons, only those portions of the State readily accessible to Rhode Island profited greatly. These areas included much of southeastern Connecticut plus several of the Thames River, 52 Connecticut River, and Sound settlements. Ås has already boon demonstrated, an unfortunate rivalry developed between French agents on one hand, and Continental and State agents on the other, with the French agents generally getting the better of the argument. It was, of course, obviously foolish for excessive quantities of meat to be sent to the French while Washington's forces on the Hudson languished for want of meat. Yet this occurred upon several occasions. 53
61 S. R. IV, 291.
52 Governor Trumbull wrote Washington that the French in Rhode Island had received a largo part of their supplies by water from New London, & hazardous route. Trumbull to Washington, November 6, 1781, Jared Sparks, Correspondence of the American Revolution, III, 437.
53 Johnson, p. 174.
285.
Fortunately, this rivalry among purchasers seems to have been partially resolved in the later stages of the French stay due to the exertions of State, Continental, and French leaders aimed at preventing competitivo bidding.
10. Connecticut's lagging supplies for the starving "Continentals"
Perhaps the best available proof of the leading role of Connecticut as the "Provision State" lies in the frequency with which Washington called upon Governor Trumbull for help. An examination of Washington's letters reveals that he wrote Trumbull every week or two throughout most of the first five or six years of the war. Of particular significance was the great reliance Washington placed upon Trumbull's ability to obtain supplies when the Continental Army was in desperate need. This was especially noticeable in each period of winter quarters between 1777 and 1781.
The critical lack of food and olothing at Valley Forge requires no elaboration. Washington wrote Governor Trumbull on February 6, 1778 to the effect that the Army was in danger of dissolution and that no supplies were immediately available from the middle states. Hence, vital supplies had to come from the East. 64 st. 54 The Go The General followed this up the next day with a similar letter to Henry Champion. 55 As a result, Champion and Colt took $200,000 which the Council had authorized them to spend on cattle and proceeded to purchase live beef. The cattle were procured and driven in herda by Champion and his son to the camp at Valley Forgo. The first herd to arrive was eagerly dispatched in five days by
SEM. B. S. C., L, 110-111.
55 W. G. W., X, 425-27.
286,
the famished soldiers. 56
Actually, the food situation in winter quarters seems to have been about as critical in the winters of 1779-80 and 1780-81. For example, on December 19, 1779 Commissary John Fitch wrote Poter Colt that General Poor's brigade at West Point had been without flour thirteen out of the last fifteen days, and it was feared that the men would desert. On January 24, 1780 Fitch reported that not a single ounce of flour had arrived at West Point for five days. Seven weeks later, in March, Fitch wrote Nehemiah Hubbard that the Army around Fishkill had no meat at all, and that Colt was the only person in a position to get any to
satisfy the imperative demand. 57 7 Meanwhile, from headquarters at
Morristom Washington wrote repeatedly to Trumbull of the oritical lack of food. Washington referred to Connecticut as the chief source of meat, and emphasized the failure of the State to moet its quotas. In May ho ascribed Connecticut's backwardness, in part, to "the change of Commissaries and want of Money," but he still counted on Champion to send on the beef supply. The climax came later in May when mutiny induced by lack of food (chiefly meat ) broke out among two regiments of the Connectiout Line. Only strenuous efforts by officers kept the men from deserting. Washington wrote immediately to Trumbull, and also to Champion, about this unhappy event. 68 The w! The whole episode reflected no credit upon
56 Clark, pp. 284-285. S. R. I, 512.
57 Fitch Papers, Doos. 97-98, 130-131, 151.
58 Washington to Trumbull, January 8, 1780. W. G. W., XVII, 365-369. Washington to the President of Congress, March 17, 1780. W. G. W., XVIII, 121-122. Washington to Major General Robert Howe, May 5, 1780; W. G. W., XVIII, 333. Washington to Henry Champion, May 26, 1780; W. G. W., XVIII, 424; Washington to Trumbull, M.H.S.C., L, 365.
-
287.
Connecticut's supply efforts for that winter and spring.
After a very brief, early summer improvement in the supply situation the shortage became critical again before August was over. On August 22, 1780 Washington reported that the Army had subsisted without meat for the last day or two and that he was counting upon Trumbull for speedy .
relief. " For once Washington's confidence in Connecticut was misplaced, for by September 3 the situation had worsened. The General stated flatly that he considered Connecticut deficient in meeting the requisitions upon it, and that no cattle had come from Champion for five weeks. 60
11. No lack of good intentions
The bad performance of 1779-80 was not caused by lack of good intentions or of preparatory supply laws. An Aot of October, 1778 gare commissaries and selection sweeping powers for buying or impressing supplies for the Continental Army, Kavy, and Stato militia.º 61 In January, 1779 the legislature pushed through "An Act to compel the furnishing of necessary supplies and assistance to the Quarter-Master General and Commissary-General of Forage of the Continental Army. "62 As in the previous act, a warrant from the sheriff enabled commissaries to seize needed supplies from recalcitrant owners. In September, 1779 the Council, in accord with a resolve of Congress, resolved to undertake a thorough investigation into the work of the commissaries and discharge
69 "W. G. W., XIX, 427-428.
60 W. G. W., XIX, 499-600.
61S. R. II, 132-133. In May, 1779 Elijah Hubbard was appointed Stato Clothier to reside with the Connecticut Line to handle clothing problems. At the sme time Chaunosy Whittlesey of Middletown was made Purchasing Clothier. S. R. II, 277.
62S. R. II, 175-178.
288.
any unnecessary ones. 63 The Congressional resolve undoubtedly reflected the dissatisfaction of Washington and other Army leaders with the supply situation.
There was no slackening of legislative effort in 1780 either when 64 Captain James Watson was given charge of buying rum and hay. At the same time a very elaborate act was drawn up to assure the acquisition of the supplies of beef, rum, hay, and salt asked of Connecticut by the Congressional act of February 25. In April the general assembly appointed nineteen purchasers of beef, pork, flour, etc., and gave each one a specific area in which to work. For example, Shadrack Osborn was made purchaser within the town of Woodbury in Litchfield County; and Samuel Wolcott of East Windsor, for East Hartford, Bolton, East Windsor, Enfield,
Somers, Tolland, Stafford, and Willington. At the same time Henry Champion was given general superintendency over all food bought for the use of the Continental Army. In Yay, several comprehensive measures were onaoted which gave full powers and directions to continental and state commissaries for buying or impressing supplies. 65
The winter and spring of 1780-81 saw the provisioning of Washington's forces touch a new low. It would seem that after a good five years of warfare adequate supplies could have been kept flowing smoothly to the relatively small Continental Army in the North, but such was not the case. An ambitious state supply act was passed in October, 1780 which called upon every town to furnish beef, pork, and wheat flour to the value of
63 S. R. II, 395-396.
64S. R. II, 541.
65 S. R. II, 521-526, 529-531, III, 15.
289.
five pence per pound of assessed valuation. A deadline of December 15 was set for the beef, and of January 15 for the pork and flour with two-fold penalties for delinquency. 66 In November the general assembly raised the quota per town from fire pence to six pence per pound of assessment. On December 27 Oliver Wolcott wrote John Laurens "that this [supply] measure is carrying into the most cheerful and Vigorous execution .. 68
Unfortunately, the facts did not jibe with Wolcott's optimim. Washington on January 19 wrote Trumbull in these grave terms:
"If therefore the supply of Beef Cattle demanded by the requisitions of Congress from Your State, is not regularly forwarded to the Army, I cannot consider myself as responsible for the maintenance of the Garrisons below, or the continuance of a single Regiment in the Field."69
Matters went from bad to worse, if anything; and by April, 1781, the shortage of food was downright critical as salted provisions were exhausted. On April 10 Washington informed Trumbull that there was "no prospect of immediate relief, but from the salted provisions of Connecticut. .70 To follow up this plon, Washington, early in May, sont his second-in-command, Major-General Boath, to New England to give first-hand information upon the army's needs. Bo could be forceful in
65 S. R. III, 176. 67S. R. III, 238. 68 W. c. c., v, 502.
69 T. G. m., XX, 116-117. 70 Ibid., XXI, 442-443.
290.
2
his demands, for on May 10 there was not one day's meat supply at any army post along the Hudson. 71
Little was done by Connecticut in April beyond an order to the toms by the Council on April 12 to deliver meat collected under the October, 1780 Act to Ralph Pomeroy, deputy Quartermaster General. General Heath, however, seems to have secured action. By good fortune, he found the legislature in session when he reached Hartford. Bo outlined the pressing need for beef, and added that rum was so short 72
that "men on the severest fatigue had nothing but water to drink. . To many legislators, the latter shortage may have seemed the more distressing! -
The legislature did respond with several helpful acts. One thousand barrels of salt beef and pork, and twenty hogsheads of rum were ordered sent immediately and E3000 was appropriated to cover costs of the transfer. 73 In addition, L2000 was voted to Champion to purchase
beef cattle for immediato utilization by the Army.' 74 The final aot
provided that the toms west of the Connecticut River procure teams and transport their salted provisions to Fishkill or other designated places on the Hudson. 75 On May 15 Heath wrote happily to Washington that one hundred and sixty head of cattle were being forwarded immediately. 76
72 Washington to Trumbull, May 10, 1781, M.H.S.C., L, 236-237.
72H.H.S.C., Heath Papers, LIII, 196-197.
73S. R. III, 381. 74s. R. III, 383. 75s. R. III, 392. 76Sparks, III, 313.
291.
Despite these excellent measures, the slowness in delivering supplies was appalling. By July, Washington reported to Trumbull that since May 12 the following meager amounts of head of cattle had been received; from Massachusetts, 230; from New Hampshire, 30; and from Connecticut, 52. The army barely was keeping alive. Connecticut was seriously deficient in rum too. Fortunately, before the Army began its march to Virginia, it received plentiful supplies of food from the New England area.1º This was due in part to the interstate meeting at Providence on June 26-27, 1781 at which definite quotas of beef were fixed for the New England States along with a schedule for deliveries. 79 To hasten the raising of Connecticut's quota, the State furnished Champion with large sums in hard money, and some of the toms cooperated excellently.80
With the successful conclusion of the Virginia campaign, the urgency of the military and, therefore, the supply problems dwindled. There was a marked reduction of interest in all war efforts except the matter of peace negotiations. However, an army was kept in the field for most of two more years, 1782 and 1783. During this last period of "watchful waiting" supplies did not always come through from Connecticut, even though a supply organization was maintained. On May 4, 1782 Washington wrote Trumbull that the states were seriously in arrears on their quotas of supplies. 81 In the fall of 1782 Jeremiah Wadsworth and John Carter
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.