Forman's Additional Regiment and Salt Works Scandal

In January 1777, David Forman was commissioned to raise an “Additional Regiment” of Continental Army soldiers for the defense of Monmouth County. After four months, Forman had raised about one hundred men. Forman’s regiment did not participate in Monmouth County’s two most important military events of early 1777—the Battle of Navesink and joining the Continental Army to shadow the British Army as it quit New Jersey. There is no evidence that the Additional Regiment was active in repelling Loyalist raids,either. This article discusses what the Additional Regiment was doing instead.

Americans were dependent on European salt at the start of the Revolution, and roughly twenty salt works sprung up on the Jersey shore in short order in 1776 and early 1777. Two of these salt works were bigger than the others—the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River and the Union Salt Works at Manasquan. While the Pennsylvania Salt Works never produced salt, the Union Salt Works did.

In fall 1776, Forman and co-investors purchased five acres of land slightly inland on the Manasquan River. The earliest mention of the Union Salt Works is a March 1777 law in which the New Jersey Legislature granted it ten militia exemptions—showing favoritism to this one salt work over the others. There was a great labor shortage, so the militia exemptions were a considerable asset to Forman. But ten laborers were not enough to construct a salt works on the scale envisioned. Forman lacked laborers at his salt works while commanding a hundred troops who needed to be kept busy. He co-mingled the two needs.

Forman’s Continentals Stationed at Forman’s Salt Works

The first evidence that Forman’s troops were laboring in a salt marsh in Manasquan is an August 1777 letter to Commissary Colonel Joseph Trumball:

The troops on this station are very sickly, the surgeon thinks it occasioned by their living on fresh provisions and the want of spirits - I have given the commissary an order for 60 barrels of salt beef or pork... and some kind of spirits, & 500 weight of soap.

There is no document that describes the Union Salt Works at their peak, but a description of the salt works exists after they had been razed. They consisted of: 1. boiling house, 90 x33, nine boiling pans, 2. storehouse holding 800 bushels of salt, 3. pump house with two pumps, 4. total land 160 acres (mostly marsh), but works congregated on five acres, 5. two-story house, 35 x 24, with cellar and fresh water pump, 6. smoke house and other outbuildings. Even at this diminished size, the Union Salt Works were still probably the largest operating salt works on the Jersey shore.

In September, the Union Salt Works were finished and Forman eyed another large salt works near Barnegat. But the war intervened. With the British Army bearing down on Philadelphia, George Washington called on New Jerseyans to help him defend the nation’s capital. David Forman assembled his regiment and the Monmouth militia and marched to Pennsylvania. Before doing so, on September 11, he petitioned the Continental Congress which recorded receiving “a memorial from David Forman, for himself and his partners, praying for a guard of one hundred men to protect a salt works, which, obtaining such a guard, they plan to erect.” Congress was unmoved, ordering “it be dismissed."

Forman tried again. He wrote about the "exorbitant price of salt” and proposed to enter a “solemn agreement to… immediately set about with the greatest spirit to erect a set of salt works." Forman requested a £20,000 cash advance and pledged to produce salt exclusively for the Army.  Congress, needing to quit Philadelphia for York, Pennsylvania, never acted. In February 1778, Henry Laurens wrote Washington that "General Forman's memorial on salt works remains unconsidered."

Forman’s Troops Descend into Scandal

Forman returned his troops to the shore in October where they continued to labor at the Union Salt Works and started on a new site near Barnegat. Trevor Newland, a former British Army officer, living as a neutral along the shore, complained about Forman’s troops under Captain John Combs:

A certain Captain Combs with a party of 24 Continental troops came to his house… and informed him that he had orders from David Forman… to quarter the said troops on said memorialist’s [land] and build a barracks on his plantation. The troops were accordingly quartered there where they yet continue, to the great disturbance of said memorialist and his family.

Newland said the troops were “destroying his fences and his forage, breaking his enclosures, destroying his cornfields and committing many other trespasses."  Newland questioned Forman’s use of troops for "private purposes" and said the troops were "very injurious to the public and oppressive to individuals."

As Forman continued using his troops as laborers, he also continued to lobby for his new salt works. On January 1, 1778, he wrote Washington that his works “when entirely completed… could produce at least two hundred bushels a day” for the Army. Forman and his partners then penned another memorial:

Your memorialist and his partners have begun to erect a salt works on Barnegat in the County of Monmouth, that has already cost your memorialist and his partners ten thousand pounds, and that your memorialist and company are determined to spend on said works twenty-five thousand pounds, should we see some form of encouragement as to be allowed a guard by your Excellency for their defence.

On January 20, Washington responded that he had not heard from Congress but he was allowing Forman to continue using 60 men and three officers to “guard” the salt works:

Till you hear further from me on the subject, you may retain a Captain, two sub-alterns and sixty men of the detachment of your Regiment in Monmouth for the purpose of guarding the works, the remainder to be pleased to send forward to camp.

Washington then wrote Congress about Forman’s salt work ambitions. He noted, “salt is a matter of such infinite importance, and if it can be accomplished, it is very much desired.” But Washington stopped short of endorsing the plan, “How far Gen. Forman may succeed in his experiments, I cannot determine." Congress recorded receiving Washington’s letter and Forman’s memorial, moved to postpone considering it, and never resumed the matter. However, two weeks later, Congress did permit its loan office to reimburse Forman for incurred expenses, while denying Forman’s requested advance.

While Forman’s salt works ambitions were getting a cool reception in Congress, Forman was heading for trouble with the New Jersey Legislature (where his reputation was damaged by prior scandals). On February 1, the Legislative Council received the petition from Trevor Newland discussed above. The Council summoned Forman and Combs. After hearing testimony, Charles Petit of the Council wrote Washington that Forman and Combs "confined their evidences & arguments to the introduction & the use that have been made of sd troops, without any regard whatsoever to the title & possession of the lands."

Petit concluded: 1. "it does not appear that the troops are stationed at the houses and in the neighborhood of Trevor Newland...by proper authority"; 2. "it does not appear that the troops so stationed have been of any use to the public, but have been employed collecting private materials & erecting buildings to promote the interests of individuals"; 3. "keeping a body of troops for aiding the purpose of private interest is an unnecessary expense upon the public"; 4. "it does not appear that any salt has been made at the works"; 5. while "there is a dispute between David Forman and Trevor Newland… there seems to be the great impropriety to putting a body of troops under sd Forman."

Three days later, Governor William Livingston, an ally of Forman, wrote George Washington at Forman’s urging. Livingston acknowledged that "the stationing of some Continental troops at the salt works of Colonel Forman and company in Monmouth County" had caused trouble. But Livingston questioned Newland’s loyalty, "I have reason to think from depositions in my possession that Mr. Newland is not friendly to our cause." Livingston enclosed Forman’s deposition and acknowledged Forman’s prompting.

Forman also wrote Washington. He argued that the troops were needed on the shore because “the people in that part of the county are exceedingly disaffected” and troops are a check on illegal trade with the enemy. Forman claimed he was without “private emolument.” Then, Forman addressed Newland: “Sd memorialist is an avowed enemy of the American cause, and would do anything to prevent the manufacturing of that necessary & essential article - salt." Forman never addressed the charge against him – his men trespassed and took private property without authority or compensation.

Washington Acts Against Forman

On March 25, Washington wrote Forman and stripped him of command of his Additional Regiment:

The opinion of the Council of your State is so directly opposed to the continuance of the men at the salt works you are erecting that… I am induced to direct they may for the present join and act with Colo. Shreve's [Israel Shreve] regiment.

Washington also wrote Livingston about the decision, suggesting that Congress’s inaction (“I expected they would have decided on the matter soon after it was submitted.") forced him to honor the wishes of the state Legislature. Forman’s Additional Regiment was transferred to the New Jersey Line.

As for the Union Salt Works, they continued producing salt until they were razed in April 1778. They were partially repaired and operational in March 1779, when the owners advertised for woodcutters. They were advertised for sale in May but remained in operation. In April 1780, another Loyalist raid on Manasquan razed the works again. Forman’s second salt works near Barnegat were never built to the point of producing salt.

Related Historic Site: Colonial Complex (York, Pennsylvania)

Sources: Harry B. Weiss, The Revolutionary Saltworks of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1959) pp. 18-9; Natalie and Richard Holmquist, The Union Salt Works (Union Landing Historical Society: Brille, NJ, 2010); David Forman to Joseph Trumball, New York Public Library, Emitt Collection, reel 7, #7830; Journals of the Continental Congress, p733 (www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html); Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 8, p 733; David Forman, Memorial, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 23, item 13, vol. 1, #116 and reel 49, item 41, vol 3, #188; David Forman’s Memorial, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 46, January 1 and 20, 1778; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence; Journals of the Continental Congress, September 11, 1777, p733 (www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html); Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 15, p 560; David Forman’s Memorial, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 168, item 152, vol. 5, #279-81; George Washington to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 187, item 169, vol. 4, #160-2; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1778) p34-8; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 10, pp. 111-2; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, pp. 252-4; Charles Petit to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 47, March 11, 1778; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1778) p34-8; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 47, March 13, 1778; William Livingston to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 14, 1 March 1778 – 30 April 1778, ed. David R. Hoth. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2004, pp. 177–179; 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. 11, pp. 148-9; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 14, 1 March 1778 – 30 April 1778, ed. David R. Hoth. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2004, pp. 308–310; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, March 1779, reel 1930; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, May 1779, Pennsylvania Evening Post; New Jersey Gazette, March 31, 1779; Harry B. Weiss, The Revolutionary Saltworks of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1959) p 20; David Forman, Troop Return, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 48, March 28, 1778; Orderly Book, Valley Forge, PA, National Archives, Misc. Numbered Records, 3: 19; George Washington to William Livingston, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 11, pp. 256, 436;  Berg, Fred A., Encyclopedia of Continental Army Units: Battalions, Regiments, and Independent Corps (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 1972) p 43; Forman’s Additional Regiment returns, Revolutionary War Rolls, National Archives Microfilm Publication M246, Record Group 93, reels 126-129. Transcribed by John U. Rees; Capt. John Burrowes, Muster Rolls, National Archives, Revolutionary War Rolls, Coll. 105, p2-33; William S. Stryker, Officers and Men of New Jersey in the American Revolution (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co, 1967); Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 234 and 238.