top of page

David Forman Sends Intelligence Reports to George Washington

by Michael Adelberg

David Forman Sends Intelligence Reports to George Washington

In 1777 and from 1780 into 1782, Monmouth County’s David Forman provided intelligence reports to George Washington about the movement of British ships and troops at Sandy Hook.

- June 1780 -

From spring 1777 onward, George Washington sought intelligence on the movement of British ships and troops coming in and out New York Harbor via Sandy Hook. Monmouth County, and the Navesink Highlands-area in particular, provided the best views of Sandy Hook. Starting in 1777, Colonel David Forman of Manalapan, leading a locally-raised Continental Army regiment, provided intelligence reports to Washington. But Forman lost his command in early in 1778 and apparently stopped sending reports.


After the Battle of Monmouth and the arrival of the French fleet in America, the need for regular intelligence on British movements took on new importance. Starting fall 1778, reports were provided by Continental officers who were temporarily stationed in northeast Monmouth County, starting with Major Richard Howell and Captain John Burrowes in summer 1778. After that, Washington sent regiments of Continentals in Monmouth County and relied on Colonels Caleb North (January-February 1779), Moredcai Gist (March 1779), and Benjamin Ford (April-May 1779) for intelligence reports. When Ford left Monmouth County, it appears that Washington lacked an officer who could be held accountable for regular intelligence reports.


In addition to the men mentioned above, on July 27, Washington requested Middlesex County’s Colonel John Taylor (not the Monmouth County Loyalist of the same name) to provide “immediate notice of any embarkation, the sailing of any troops out of the harbor or of the arrival of any in it, or the departure or arrival of any Vessels, whether they have troops on Board or not.” He noted that “it would be extremely useful to have look outs in Monmouth County and at the town of Amboy to keep an exact account of all Vessels coming in and going out and make daily reports to be transmitted to me.”


However, Taylor did not emerge as a regular source of intelligence. In September, two officers in the Monmouth County state troop regiment, reporting to Colonel Asher Holmes, sent intelligence reports on the movements of the British. For example, Major Elisha Walton reported:


Yesterday afternoon came a fleet consisting from sea consisting of seven men of war, forty-five square rigged vessels; we are informed by some of the Refugees that made a descent upon our shore that it is the 2nd division of Arbuthnot's fleet with troops from England, but what number we could not learn. We are informed by a deserter that came over yesterday.


Lieutenant Jacob Woolcott, “commanding at Shrewsbury,” also sent a brief report on a British fleet leaving Sandy Hook on September 23. A week later, David Forman, for the first time in three years, was observing the British fleet at Sandy Hook from the Navesink Highlands. He noted the diminished size of the British naval squadron and concluded the British "are reduced to a position more to be pitied than feared." He pledged to join the Continental Army on an anticipated Franco-American assault on British positions in New York.


David Forman’s Intelligence Reports, 1780

In June 1780, a string of punishing “man-stealing” raids into Monmouth County and talk of vigilante reprisals re-raised affairs in Monmouth County to the attention of Continental Congress and Army leaders. Washington also learned that the French fleet had left the Caribbean and Sandy Hook was a likely destination. For both reasons, Washington re-established contact with David Forman and charged him with assisting the cavalry officer, Major Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, in linking up with the French. Washington also asked Forman to report on the movement of British ships at Sandy Hook.


On June 12, 1780, Forman sent Washington a note that a British flotilla had crossed the channel north of Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Bay. Washington valued this intelligence because he wrote, on June 14, to the “Commanding Officer” of the Monmouth militia about the need to support Forman:


As General Forman will probably, in the course of some months to come, have occasion to transmit me intelligence of a very interesting nature from the County of Monmouth, you will be pleased, whenever required by him, to direct one or more Light Horsemen of the County Militia to attend him and bring forward his dispatches to me. By doing this, you will render a very essential service to the public.


The unnamed commanding officer was Asher Holmes, the colonel of the largest Monmouth militia regiment and colonel of the regiment of state troops defending Monmouth County. Holmes and Forman had many disagreements. Washington’s camp knew Holmes (who had twice marched militia to support the Army); it likely was a snub to leave Holmes unnamed on the order to support Forman.


Forman lived in Manalapan and was deeply involved in founding the Association for Retaliation, a vigilante society soon enmeshed in violence. So, Forman only occasionally went to the Highlands to personally observe the British fleet. He hired Captain Joseph Stillwell of Middletown to perch himself in the Highlands (Garrett’s Hill most of the time) and send near-daily observations.


Parts of Stillwell’s diaries have survived. Stillwell’s reports from June 16-20, 1780; July 1-8, 1780; July 16-20, 1780; November 5-11, 1780; December 12-14, 1780 were sent to Washington. There were other reports that have not survived. Most of these reports are short and concern information only on British ship movements; Stillwell often reports no activity or foggy weather preventing his view.


Other Topics in Forman’s Reports

Forman’s reports to Washington often included information on events in Monmouth County. Forman, an ambitious man who stretched the boundaries of decorum and his own authority, periodically sought Washington’s favor on topics well beyond British movements at Sandy Hook.


On June 17, for example, Forman discussed a privateer flying “English colors” that attacked “fifteen of the trading vessels from Shrewsberry to New York” while “they was on a general fish party on the banks of the Shrewsberry.” Forman then informed Washington:


My information, and I believe it is good, says that eleven or twelve of them was taken as the privateer immediately stood southward with her prizes. We are not informed who the prisoners are, we expect all are principal traders & plunderers of this Country - immediately on this information, I sent to Egg Harbor where I presume the prisoners are, if possible, to prevent there being paroled or discharged until their characters are fully known. Should they prove the gang we suppose they are, I hope it will be instrumental in restoring peace to this County.


Why did Forman tell Washington about captured Loyalists at Little Egg Harbor? Probably because Forman lacked any jurisdiction over these prisoners and his stature with Gloucester County officials was enlarged if he could invoke Washington’s name when making an appeal to detain the prisoners. Unfortunately, we do not have further documentation of Forman’s attempt to detain and interrogate the captured Loyalists.


On July 9, Forman lobbied Washington for troops to capture Sandy Hook. He discussed British plans to obstruct the expected French fleet “by interrupting the channel way at the point of the Hook & at the same time taking possession of the Hook with a body of troops and heavy cannon, they would make the passage almost impossible.” Forman predicted that bad weather or obstructions would “oblige the French fleet to put to sea." He then discussed the advantage of occupying Sandy Hook:


With possession of the Hook, every difficulty would be removed in a very short time - by landing a few pieces of heavy cannon, the troops could cover the French ships while they drew the sunk vessels out of the channel or until they could wrap their ships through them.


Washington did not respond to this proposal.


Spotty Intelligence from David Forman’s Informers

Forman continued sending intelligence reports in 1780 and intermingled information from these sources with Stillwell’s observations. On June 18, Forman wrote: “Yesterday afternoon, three frigates arrived within Sandy Hook. In the evening, a fourth ship was run in. The Tory report of this day is that Admiral [Marriott] Arbuthnot was on board.” Forman also wrote, incorrectly, that “this afternoon a large French fleet appeared, standing for Sandy Hook."


On July 30, Forman sent intelligence after interrogating a deserter from Sandy Hook. He wrote Washington that “I have it from a mate of a vessel in their service, yet I believe an honest man in his information." The deserter described plans to sink ships at Sandy Hook if the French fleet arrived: "They should sink their store vessels in the place they now lay, which will, I apprehend, for a time render the passage of large ships up to the Narrows impracticable." Forman then reported on British ships leaving Sandy Hook, adding that "informers from New York” said the ships were headed for Rhode Island.


On September 1, Forman again mixed Stillwell’s observations of British ships with word from informers in New York.


Accounts from New York agree that there has been an amazingly severe press there for some time past and still continues - that the people are very generally dissatisfied and dispirited - it was also said Sir Harry [General Henry Clinton] was embarking his troops for Rhode Island.


This last detail was false and Forman likely understood the mistake afterward. Two weeks later, Forman again reported based on an informer in New York. He reported that 5,000 troops were boarding transports. This time, Forman qualified his source, "this account my informant says may be relied upon.” And Forman went further:


Should I ascertain further information that the intelligence is in any way wrong, I shall correct it by finding an honest man as soon as I shall be better informed. Yet I would observe to your Excellency that I have hardly ever been deceived by accts through this channel.


Forman’s informer was spectacularly wrong six months later. In April 1781, Forman ignited a boomlet of excitement among the nation’s leaders by reporting a British invasion of the Delmarva Peninsula at New Castle, Delaware. He wrote on April 2:


By account this day rec'd from New York, I am informed that a large embarkation is now in forwardness for Delaware Bay, that Genl. Clinton will take command of it & take a post at New Castle. My informant says confidence may be put in this information -- in justice to his intelligence I have found him hardly to err.


Forman sent similar reports to Samual Huntington, President of the Continental Congress, and Governor William Livingston. Livingston forwarded Forman's report to Congress with a smidge of doubt, writing: "I know Genl. Forman's intelligence has been generally found true."


Other times, however, Forman’s human intelligence gave him early word—even word about top secret activity. On August 3, Forman interrogated "sixteen artificers of the French Army" and sent Washington word: "These men tell me that the whole of the French Army are on the march to this State.” This was correct, but Forman incorrectly guessed why the French were coming, writing “that New York will soon be invaded." Forman was not supposed to know the French were moving, and did not imagine that the French would link up with Washington and march for Virginia to capture the British Army at Yorktown.


Washington’s Reliance on Forman’s Intelligence

While Forman’s intelligence, particularly from New York sources, was sometimes inaccurate, there is no doubt that his reports were valued. On June 18, 1780, Washington wrote General Robert Howe that Forman "is entirely to be depended upon" (though this was before Forman conveyed incorrect information from informers). Even when there were gaps in Forman’s reports, such as a gap from August 23-30, Washington was typically polite to Forman:


I have not had the pleasure of hearing from you since your first favor of 23rd. inst. and I am informed from N York that a fleet with part of the Army of Lord Cornwallis arrived at that place last Friday. My anxiety will be well and early informed of the enemy's movements by water, induces me to wish to hear from you as often and as speedily as any material circumstance renders it necessary.


Washington expanded even Forman’s responsibilities to include commanding the cadre of pilots gathered at Basking Ridge under Captain William Dobbs—men to be mobilized on the arrival of the French fleet. Washington wrote Forman:


Immediately upon the appearance of a fleet near Sandy Hook, and you are satisfied it is the one we are expecting, you will please to give order to the pilots to repair down, where they may be at hand to be improved as occasion and circumstances shall require.


Even in May 1781, after Forman’s intelligence was proven incorrect a number of times, Washington was grateful to Forman for his services. He wrote: “I am exceedingly obliged by the distinct and full intelligence of the sailing of the British Fleet - I had not before been able to ascertain the matter, and I was very anxious to do it." Forman rehired Joseph Stillwell at Washington’s request.


It also appears that Congress valued Forman’s reports. On July 7, 1780, John Brown of the Continental Congress’s Marine Committee wrote directly to Forman to request intelligence reports:


We would be much obliged to you if you would employ some suitable person to observe the motions of the enemy ships as they go in to and come out of New York, and transmit the number of guns and the condition, together with their movements.


Brown informed Forman that he would be compensated for "any reasonable expense." Congress had even sent Forman a gift to assist him in reporting on British movements: “The Board are informed that an excellent spy glass was sent to your quarters by the Navy Board last year for the purpose of observing the motions of the Enemy from the Highlands." Forman’s reports to Congress have not survived.


Perspective

Whether Continental or British, Revolutionary War leaders were starved for information about the enemy. Whatever his flaws, Forman was George Washington’s best source of early intelligence on the movement of British men and ships in and out of New York. This made Forman valuable despite the inaccuracies in some of his reports. Savvy individuals like Washington and Livingston may have understood that Forman’s information from Stillwell could be trusted while the information from informers was suspect.


Forman was also diligent in reporting his difficulties in gathering intelligence (see Appendix) and these difficulties, coupled with the value of his reports, earned Forman the goodwill of Continental and State leaders. Forman would need this goodwill as he was, simultaneously, leading a vigilante society, the Association for Retaliation, into lawless and violent acts.


Related Historic Site: Hartshorne Woods Park


Appendix: Difficulties Gathering and Sending Intelligence Reports


On June 17, 1780, Forman boasted to Washington about the outposts he established to gather intelligence to Washington. He wrote, "I have established different posts for upwards of fifty miles of seacoast, that I think it will be impossible for any number of ships to be on the coast without my immediately being informed of it.” But his sentries proved unreliable and, at times, bad weather made observation difficult.


Just two days after his boast, a frustrated Forman reported that foggy weather prevented useful reports from his posts. Therefore, he would go to the shore himself. "By daylight,” he wrote, “I will myself be on the Highlands of Middletown." Forman returned to the Highlands on June 29, writing Washington, "I rode down to the Highlands of Middletown - the day was rainy and dull as to prevent any particular observation." He went to the shore again on July 17, "I rode down to Shrewsbury yesterday, but the weather being too foggy to make any critical observation."


While at Shrewsbury, Forman met with Major Lee and his cavalry. Forman informed Lee that he had to leave Monmouth County “on business” and needed Lee to provide intelligence reports in his absence. Lee might have disagreed and Forman might have complained to Washington. On July 19, Washington gave Lee a stern order:


I depend on you for information of every occurrence, which will save General Forman the trouble of a business which I could only with propriety request the favor of him... For the future, you will make the report every two days, of the appearance at the Hook in which the more detail the better.


Forman returned to Monmouth County in time to report again on August 11. He noted the arrival of British ships at Sandy Hook and promised to return to Shrewsbury for more information. He reported again from Shrewsbury on August 13, noting that he was in dangerous country "with only a small guard." Forman also noted that foggy weather hampered his intelligence; he was back in Freehold on August 16 and sent his next report.


On May 21, 1781, Forman apologized to Washington for subpar intelligence reports due a family tragedy:  "My whole time has been so entirely engaged with the distress of my family, loss of my little son, that I have not been of intelligence so as to form of an opinion on the destination of the fleet." He did, however, note that three deserters claimed a British fleet was heading for the Chesapeake. He also asked Washington about whether or not to rehire Stillwell. Washington promptly replied:


I shall very willingly consent to take a man into pay at the rate you mention as the heights of Monmouth are the only ones from whence the movements of the enemy fleet in and out of the Hook can be clearly discovered.


Stillwell was re-employed; the May 29 report included observations from Stillwell.


Forman also ran into problems getting his reports delivered. An attempt to communicate via warning beacons had failed a year earlier—forcing Forman to rely on express riders. Forman wrote with frustration on July 9, 1780: “There is so few militia horse ordered out and so much use for them that in many instance I cannot be furnished with one in twenty four horses, and never until I send 15 or 20 miles for them." Washington was aware of Forman’s difficulties maintaining express riders. In August, when there was a break in regular reports, he wrote Forman, “I am very fearful that you have met with more trouble in establishing the Chain of Expresses than was expected.”


Forman had to finance his horses and riders to carry reports. In 1782, Colonel John Neilson wrote that he and Forman were frustrated by having to make outlays for horses and riders:  "If this mode is to be continued, it will be necessary to establish a fund to defray the expenses of that business, for no person can be prevailed upon to do it without being paid their traveling charges." Neilson also expressed frustration with Forman for taking one of his horses, “He has disappointed me, and is possessed of a horse which I am doubtful of his being entitled to."


Sources: George Washington to John Taylor, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, July 27, 1779, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw150526)); Elisha Walton to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 157, item 147, vol. 2, #496; Jacob Wolcott, letter, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 157, item 147, vol. 2, #489; David Forman to George Washington, Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 4, p 428; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post, July 1780; David Forman to George Washington, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 171, item 152, vol. 8, #603 and vol. 9, #179; George Washington to New Jersey Militia Officer Commanding the Monmouth County, 14 June 1780,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-02093, ver. 2013-09-28; David Forman to George Washington, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, p 29; Forman’s letter noted in Thomas Fleming, The Forgotten Victory: The Battle for New Jersey - 1780 (New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1973) p 223; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 67, June 29, 1780; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 67, June 30, 1780; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 223-4; David Forman George Washington, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 93, item 78, vol. 9, #319; John Brown to David Forman, National Archives, Collection 332, reel 6, #260; David Forman to George Washington, Monmouth County Historical Association, Diaries Collection, box 2, John Stillwell's Diary (photocopy); George Washington to David Forman, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, p 183; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 68, July 17, 1780; George Washington to Henry Lee, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, p 214 note; George Washington to David Forman, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw220484)); David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 80, August 11, 13, and 16, 1781; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 70, September 1, 1780; David Forman to William Livingston, U. of Michigan, Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, box 151, folder 42; David Forman to Congress, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Gratz Collection ALS; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 78, May 17, 1781; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 78, May 29, 1781; Personal Correspondence: David J. Fowler, Letter: David Forman to ?, August 3, 1781; John Neilson to Timothy Pickering, National Archives, Misc. Numbered Records, 85: 24782.

bottom of page