“I do Strict Justice to the Precinct”: Local Governance, Central Authority, and Supplying the Army in a Time of Revolution

^{Header image: Cornelius Bogart to John Bancker, March 6, 1779}

“I am sorry to Inform you that I cannot Get any Waggons to Ride wood,” wrote Cornelius Bogart in March of 1779.* The recipient, Captain John Bancker, Barracks Master at the Fishkill Supply Depot in the Hudson Valley, could not have been happy to receive the note. Like many mid-level officials during the Revolutionary War, Bancker found himself in the unenviable position of being stuck between keeping the army supplied on the one hand, while simultaneously maintaining amenable relations with the local inhabitants who provided those supplies on the other. In the winter and spring of 1779, Bancker failed to do both in stunning fashion, leading to a formal investigation into his conduct by a military “Court of Enquiry,” and his unceremonious removal as Barracks Master.

But was Bancker to blame? Neither Bancker nor Cornelius Bogart thought so, and they assured the Court they had done everything within their power to obtain the necessary supplies for the army. If that was true, then who was at fault? Bogart had the answer: “the fault certainly must be in the Justices [of the Peace].”

This particular case comes from the Nathanael Greene Papers held by the American Philosophical Society. As a David Center for the American Revolution Short Term Fellow, I was able to work through these papers, along with complementary materials such as the Papers of Alexander McDougall (Mss.DLAR.Film.432) and the Early American Orderly Books (Mss.DLAR.Film.42). What I found were numerous accounts like the one described above; accounts filled with complaints and the difficulties faced by Greene’s subordinates when trying to extract resources from localities in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Reliant on the cooperation and assistance of local Justices of the Peace, these papers provide a glimpse of the often-heated confrontations between central and local authorities. Even more remarkably, these papers also contain the voices behind local resistance. As one Justice of the Peace explained, while the Army’s needs were great, his obligation was to “do Strict Justice to the Precinct” in which he resided.** Here, the local concerns of a tiny “Precinct” trumped centralized directives and a wider general welfare of state and nation.

This is one of many examples I found this past summer that highlight the conflict and tension that defined governance during the era of the American Revolution. In my larger project, I examine the struggle that existed between local, state, and national-level officials over supplying the army, and the role that these struggles played in early American state formation. Between 1779 and 1780, a central dilemma for the revolutionary states reached an inflection point: who would be supreme? Would the local Justices and other officials whose discretionary powers thwarted centralized agents (like John Bancker) to obtain supplies define revolutionary governance? Or would a centralized administration capable of crushing such localism emerge?

Works Cited

* “Cornelius Bogart to John Bancker,” March 6, 1779. Nathanael Greene Papers, Series II, Box 7, Folio 8a, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA.

** “Thomas Storm to John Bancker,” March 10, 1779. Nathanael Greene Papers, Series II, Box 7, Folio 8n, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA.