Thursday, December 17, 2009

Supplying the Troops at Valley Forge

In the movie version of Steinbeck’s East of Eden, Cal, played by the incomparable James Dean, wants to know if growing beans will make money when America is in World War I.

Question: Is war good for business?
Answer from a family business acquaintance: The best there is!

Generally, business prospers in war. Included are contractors, suppliers, manufacturers. It isn’t just for obtaining food, but all kinds of commodities that people want and are in short supply.

The winter of 1777 that our troops spent at Valley Forge certainly made money for some people, but not the soldiers. They were literally starving. But many people in the supply chain made lots of money, particularly contractors. These worked in a state of confusion and avarice. It was very difficult to find competent administrators for the quartermaster corps. Both the army and Congress despaired of ever finding an honest contractor.

In the Revolutionary War, nobody wanted to fight in the winter. Harsh weather, impassible roads, and a lack of supplies had Washington convinced that he didn’t want to “winter” his troops at Valley Forge, 25 mile northwest of Philadelphia. He just wanted to leave the whole area. But in 1777 the Pennsylvania Assembly wanted Washington’s troops to remain as a defensive maneuver. So the soldiers marched into a frozen wilderness. What they found was no shelter, no winter clothing, shortage of food and water, no sanitation, and constant threat of disease. A more unsuitable location could not have been found.

Washington’s first priority was bringing some rough shelter into the camp, and a basic food supply. Washington now had to rely on contractors, who knew every trick in the book.

As for delivery of food, critical from the beginning, much of it was of poor or downright dangerous quality. Some food was blatantly traded to the British, who paid in hard currency rather than accepting paper money. Attempts to install price controls only drove prices to below market value. Some farmers would not trade with the army at all; they found better markets at other locations to be far more lucrative.

With administration in confusion, constant inefficiency, and contractor dishonesty, it was no wonder that soldiers were starving. The whole situation was a disaster. It was a miracle that troops tolerated the conditions throughout this winter. It wasn’t even that severe, just normal for the time of year.

Contractor problems have always persisted. In all fairness, it’s got to be remembered that a lot of the quartermastering had to be done very quickly with little supervision. The supervisor has to ideally be a combination manager, accountant, and often engineer; above all, a wheeler dealer. Who is trained for all that?

In the current Iraq war, we have heard many times about Cheney-Halliburton contract problems. Private business suddenly working in a military setting creates special problems.

How many four-star generals come from a background of the quartermaster corps?

Fifty years ago, Blake Edwards cast Cary Grant and Tony Curtis in a light, very amusing movie, Operation Petticoat, set in the Philippines in 1941. Everything is confused; everyone is trying to deal with supplies the best way they can, which is generally no way at all. But junior officer Curtis has a flair for quartermastering. He is clever and at times quite dishonest. He delivers one line which suits his role perfectly: “In confusion lies profit”.

Washington needed the skills of a Tony Curtis character desperately at Valley Forge. Curtis would have outsmarted every contractor hands down. Probably he would have stolen enough money, and not the paper kind either, to obtain enough food and labor to make the soldiers’ lives more tolerable. For him, enemies were those who wouldn’t trade what he needed. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

Friends of 1776 Holiday Wish List

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Shays' Rebellion

I apologize for the interval between this post and the previous one, Pulaski, due to a personal emergency. So now I have to make up for this gap with more posts of interest to you. But I won’t tell you the subjects; they should be a surprise.

Just a year before our Constitution (1787), the new United States had a rebellion. The insurgents were farmers in Western Massachusetts. Where else? Massachusetts was always in a state of unrest and rebellion during the period of our revolution. The leader of this rebellion was Daniel Shays, a farmer of modest means, and it took everyone by surprise and alarm. The fact that it occurred at all was believed to be a major reason that our Constitution was put in place.

Shays' Rebellion was about money and debt.

The war had created a lot of profit for some in Massachusetts, particularly in Boston. There were also a lot of debts. Some of the successful investors bought a lot of the mortgage notes of the hard-working farmers. The investors had also lent a lot of money to the state. When the occasion arose, they expected to be paid, and not with worthless paper currency. They also had powerful interests in the Legislature.

However, the farmers weren’t doing so well. Harsh taxes, a depressed business climate because the war was over. That awful word, foreclosure, was facing a lot of them. They had vigorously petitioned the Legislature for relief, and got nowhere. It was time for strong action.

Shays and his followers (500 – 1000, the number is not quoted consistently, with wildly inflated rumors), many putting on their old Continental uniforms, went on the march. Destination, Hampshire County Court. This plan was quite practical. Since foreclosure was a legal process, if a courthouse was essentially shut down, that would delay any proceedings.

The farmers got little if no support. Instead, reaction was swift, punitive, and entirely hostile. Washington declared that the campaign of the farmers was disgusting. Even Sam Adams, that perennial supporter of revolt, did a complete about face and called the rebels traitors.

Hancock sat out all the trouble. Militia hounded the farmers, imprisoned them, labeled them traitors. Shays had fled Massachusetts for safety, but was declared a traitor in absentia anyway and sentenced to death.

The rebels’ cause, which seemed so hopeless, did take a brighter turn. The next Massachusetts legislature was far more sympathetic to the farmers. Some remedies at least were started. Hancock was governor again and pardoned Shays.

But the impact of their rebellion persisted. The rich were frightened; the new country was very fragile. It’s good we had the bold ideas and practical applications of an Alexander Hamilton. Financial problems continued to persist.

I think farmers have always been treated harshly, all over the world. It’s a very hard occupation, 24 / 7, with disaster just around the corner: weather, precipitation, pests, and some very hard government policies, such as estate taxes, land taxes, and regulations. Today, we have a lot of large farming conglomerates, which has given the industry much more bargaining power and political influence. These huge operations have been blasted for all kinds of reasons, but they keep our food supply steady and available. I think we have the best of both worlds today. We have the huge inventory at the local supermarket, and a growing local supply, often organic.

Growing food yourself is not easy. Your crop of tomatoes, lemons, and vegetables is not exactly cheap. There are problems from nibbling rabbits to every pest known to man. The only remedy is a green thumb. I envy people who have one.

So, zucchini ladies, your home-grown bounty is well-received by me. I like to eat. We all know that a home-grown tomato beats a conglomerate version hands down.

I don’t think the rich Bostonians appreciated their Shays farmers at all. – Renata Breisacher Mulry

December Deals of the Day - Save up to 50%!