Salt Work Laborers and Militia Exemptions

As noted in prior articles, the shortage of salt in America sparked a new salt-making industry along the Jersey shore at the start of the American Revolution. By 1777, Monmouth County had at least nine salt works. These salt works needed laborers to cut wood, boil salt brine, and transport salt. But most salt works were far from population centers and they generally paid wages in low-value Continental money.

Labor Problems at New Jersey’s Salt Works

Labor problems were continuous at New Jersey’s salt works. John Van Emburgh of Middlesex County co-owned a salt works near Toms River, and he managed them. A dozen of his letters from the second half of have survived. The letters details that uneven productivity of the salt works, and his complaints about salt work laborers:

July  12, 1778

“No salt making on the shore, scarcely since the last alarm… the people who belonged to the Country… will not work & they has been idle for two weeks.”

Salt Produced: None

Sept. 13, 1778

“The sooner you can forward the wagon & horses, I think the better … we are short of casks provided for salt”

Salt Produced: Two wagon loads

Nov. 7, 1778

“No salt at the works - sent you a load this morning by Mr Jobs which is all they have made.”

Salt Produced: One wagon load

Nov. 15, 1778

“I send you 19 bushels of salt from the works which Is all is all they have.”

Salt Produced: 19 bushels

Nov. 26, 1778

“They go on very slowly.”

Salt Produced: 59 bushels 

Nov. 18, 1778

“Now on his errand to get hands [workers] which, if he fails, then the works will stop. Even could we get hands here, the prices is such that the works will not defray the charges.”

Salt Produced: None

Dec. 27, 1778

“The late storm has proved fatal to us in a very considerable degree. The people have been obliged to leave the works.”

Salt Produced: 9 bushels of salt

Dec. 30, 1778

“The men to whom we have rented the salt works have quit them, as nothing can be done along the shore in that way for some time now.”

Salt Produced: None

In December 1778, Van Emburgh gave up directly managing the salt works and focused on managing ships based at Toms River. He rented them and then re-rented them to a local man, Samuel Bennett, in May 1779. Bennett agreed to run the works and provide one third of the salt to Van Emburgh as rent:

I have left the salt works to Sam Bennett who is to have them during his pleasure, find his own wood, & every other necessary. as such materials as possibly belong to the works & delivers us ... 1/3 of the net proceeds & at the expiration of his time in them, the works be returned in as good order as he received them.

Van Emburgh purchased fifteen bushels of imported salt at an auction that same month and sought to purchase 150 more—further evidence that the salt works were not consistently productive.

Thomas Hopkins, manager of the Friendship Salt Works in Gloucester County also frequently complained that his "wood-cutters refused to cut" and “said they would work no more as the weather was so hot & the mosquitos so thick." Sometimes they took his tools and ran off: "the 3 wood cutters eloped before day & stole an axe and loaf of bread,"; "no wood cutters at work this day. Thomas Savadge, managing the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River, had similar complaints.

One salt works laborer, Benjamin White, of Tinton Falls, recalled: “I left [home at Tinton Falls] and came to Shrewsbury, and went to making salt by boiling seawater." But White soon “returned to my native soil… with but little money of value, it being Continental and old Jersey money.” 

White also complained that as a Quaker (whose religious principles did not permit militia service) and as a salt works laborer, he was "often fined for not doing militia duty.”

New Jersey Government Considers Militia Exemptions for Salt Works

Wage and working conditions aside, the need for salt work laborers clashed with New Jersey’s militia law which mandated service every second month. The New Jersey Assembly first considered this tension in September 1776 when it read a request from the Pennsylvania Council of Safety to grant militia exemptions to "persons employed in manufacturing, entrenching tools and carrying on salt works." The Pennsylvania government was sponsoring a large salt work at Toms River and was hearing about labor shortages from Thomas Savadge, the manager of the salt work. John Hart, on behalf of the New Jersey Assembly, declined Pennsylvania’s request:

The malitia [sic] ordinances of this State have subjected malitia to certain fines for non-attendance, -- The assembly are of the opinion that particular exemptions, at this time, will be injurious to the public and greatly retard the marching out of the malitia.

Hart suggested that salt work wages be adjusted to compensate laborers for paying militia fines.

Near concurrent requests were made from Pennsylvania leaders and the Continental Congress to exempt salt workers from militia service.  Yet, these same bodies requested local militia to “guard the salt works near Toms River.” These conflicting requests may have rankled New Jersey’s leaders. On the one hand, the state of Pennsylvania was requesting militia exemptions; on the other hand, they asked for a high-functioning militia to guard the salt works (at a time when the shore township militias were largely dysfunctional).

The New Jersey Assembly continued to hear requests for militia exemptions. Richard Brown of Stafford  Township petitioned the Assembly on February 15, 1777, "praying an exemption for 15 men in the militia to be employed in carrying on the whale fishery in this State.” The Assembly rejected this petition but re-started deliberations about militia exemptions for salt work laborers.

On March 14, the Legislative Council heard a bill to grant 10 militia exemptions to laborers at the Union Salt Works at Brielle. The bill passed unanimously on March 17. David Forman, Colonel of a Continental Army regiment and Brigadier General of the New Jersey militia, was the majority owner of this salt work. The preferential treatment of Forman’s Union Salt Works was noticed.

Tensions between New Jersey and Pennsylvania over Militia Exemptions

Just two weeks after Forman received the militia exemptions, James Mott, a member of the New Jersey Assembly, political rival of Forman, resident of Toms River, and creditor to the Pennsylvania Salt Works, wrote Governor William Livingston:

Mr. Thomas Savadge of the Pennsylvania salt works at this place hath not been able to complete the same by reason of his workmen being frequently called out in the militia, he lately made application to Gen. Putnam, who gave a protection to his workmen, who were just got to work when they were called out again… If he cannot keep his workmen, he must be obliged to drop the whole [project], to the great loss of the owners and much damage to the public in general, for if the works were completed, he expects to make at least one hundred bushels of salt a day, and as salt is so much wanted, I make no doubt of your Excellency granting him such power.

Mott’s letter suggests that Savadge had received militia exemptions from General Israel Putnam of the Continental Army. However, Putnam, as a Continental Army officer, lacked the authority to direct the affairs of the New Jersey militia. That responsibility belonged to Governor Livingston.

The disparate treatment of the salt works was also noticed by Clement Biddle of Pennsylvania’s War Office. Biddle wrote the Continental Congress on April 4:

This State has been at very considerable expense in the erecting of a salt works at Toms River in the State of New Jersey, under the management of Thomas Savadge; he informs the Board that they would have begun salt making before this time had the work men not been called out in the service of the militia. As the works are likely to be of great public utility, we think the work men should be exempted from military service. His Excellency, Governor Livingston, refuses to grant any such exemptions unless it be recommended by the Congress. We therefore recommend that you would give a few lines to the Governor to that purpose.

On April 8, Congress debated a "motion from Pennsylvania for recommendation to the Governor of New Jersey to excuse [from militia service] 40 persons employed by Pennsylvania at the salt works.” The minutes of Congress noted the outcome of the debate:

After much debate the amendment was agreed. -- Resolved that it be recommended to the Governor and Council of the State of New Jersey not to call into the field such part of their militia, not exceeding forty, who are necessarily employed in the salt works, now erecting in their state by the government of Pennsylvania, provided it be not inconsistent with the laws of the state.

Congress’s resolution was toothless. The militia exemptions were plainly “inconsistent with the laws of the state.” Members of Congress likely knew this because most states had militia laws that required universal service, similar to New Jersey’s militia law.

On April 12, Governor William Livingston's replied:

The exemptions above recommended is inconsistent with the militia laws of this State, but if the Government of Pennsylvania will carry on said works with the inhabitants of their own Commonwealth, care shall be taken to have them exempted as above.

Thomas Savadge continued to suffer labor shortages and continued to blame militia service for his labor problems. On July 8, he complained about “the tediousness and delay of erecting the works arises from not getting a [militia] exemption of my people for military duty in the militia.” He also noted the burden of recruiting workers: “It takes half of my time riding about the country looking for fresh hands, and when I have had them two weeks, the militia takes them away."

By late 1777, a compromise was emerging. In September, Gov. Livingston wrote Thomas Wharton of the Pennsylvania Council of Safety acknowledging that the loss of salt work laborers “is extremely vexatious." He foreshadowed that "our Legislature is about to revise our militia law... doubt not the reasonableness of the exemptions you desire; it will be provided in the new Act."

On October 7, the New Jersey Assembly unanimously passed "An Act to Encourage the Making of Salt at the Pennsylvania Salt Works." It allowed that "the manager of the salt works for the time being may cause to be enrolled any number of men that may need to be employed" with militia exemptions as long as the manager notified the militia captains of the men. The salt workers would function as their own militia unit: "the men so enrolled will be disciplined in arms by being regularly mustered and officered.”

The Limited Impact of Militia Exemptions

The New Jersey law came too late to save the Pennsylvania Salt Works. With the British invading Pennsylvania, the state’s government soured on the grandiose but non-productive project on the Jersey shore. On November 6, Wharton declared them: “long in the hand and altogether fruitless.” The state ceased underwriting them and eventually sold them.

The failing Pennsylvania Salt Works did not dampen the interest of New Jersians in salt-making or their desire for militia exemptions. On November 13, Nathaniel Scudder petitioned the New Jersey Assembly on behalf of himself and other salt work investors "soliciting an exemption from militia duty for a number of men said to be carrying on a salt works, erected by them." David Knott petitioned for militia exemptions at his salt works two weeks later.

The Assembly initially dismissed these petitions. But then, on December 11, the New Jersey Legislature passed an act granting militia exemptions to the laborers at salt and gunpowder works (exemptions for iron workers were also granted in a separate act). But, for salt-making, the exemptions were explicitly tied to production -- "one man at the salt-works for every 500 gallons the boiling vessels hold."

The exemptions did not last. On March 28, 1778, the salt-making exemptions were repealed: "the great number of private [salt] works erecting, as well as already erected, promise an ample supply of salt." The legislature was likely influenced by scandals surrounding both the Union and Pennsylvania Salt Works and by the expected arrival of foreign salt in American ports (enabled by France’s entry into the war). An October 1778 bill to reinstate the exemptions failed by a 9-16 vote in the Assembly.

Few surviving documents provide information about the Monmouth Countians laboring at the salt works. The financial papers of the Pennsylvania Salt Works show that the labor force fluctuated significantly but do not list the names of the laborers. An October 1778 militia delinquency fine against Peter Hulsart was “remitted & entirely set aside” at the Court of General Sessions in Freehold because he “labored at a salt works.” It is the only document of its kind that still exists.

Two militiamen, in their post-war pension applications, recalled missing service due to laboring at a salt work. John Hulsart recalled being excused from militia service because he labored at the salt work at Mosquito Cove (north of Toms River): "Those who were thus engaged in the boiling of salt, from the great scarceness, were exempt from military duty." David Cooper recalled missing four to six months of militia service because “I was exempted under the laws of New Jersey from militia service” by laboring at a salt work. “It was considered the same as doing militia duty by those who were engaged in it."

The British also took an interest in the Monmouth shore’s salt works. In April 1778, they attacked and destroyed several of them.

Caption: This sketch of a boiling house presents an idealized picture of the hot and dirty labor at a salt work. Finding reliable laborers was a common problem at the salt works along the Jersey shore.

Related Historic Site: National Guard Museum of New Jersey 

Sources: “Journal of Thomas Hopkins of the Friendship Salt Company, New Jersey, 1780,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 4 (1918), pp. 46-61; Benjamin White’s narrative is in Judith M. Olsen, Lippincott, Five Generations of the Descendants of Richard and Abigail Lippincott (Woodbury, N.J.: Gloucester County Historical Society, 1982) pp. 159-61; Library of Congress, J. Turner Coll., Folder - John Hart, September 2, 1776.; Journals of the Continental Congress, November 5, 1776, p925-6 (www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html); The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, February 15, 1777, p 67.; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p69, 73; Library of Congress, J. Turner Collection, folder: John Hart; The Library Company, Acts of the General Assembly of New Jersey, pp. 6-7, 47; James Mott to William Livingston in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 303; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 83, item 69, vol. 1, #355; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23389962; Thomas Savadge to Pennsylvania Board of War in Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, pp. 418-9; James Mott to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 1, #55, 58; William Livingston to Thomas Wharton in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, pp. 69-70; William Crispin to PA Council of Safety, William Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1970), v10, p306, 419; Journals of the American Congress, April 8, 1777 (Washington DC, 1823) v3, p83. Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 6, p 554.; Pennsylvania Council of Safety, Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p92, 193-4; Carl E. Prince, ed., The Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick, N.J., 1988), vol. 1, p 303; Thomas Savadge to Pennsylvania Board of War, Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, pp. 418-9; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p117-8; “An Act to Encourage the Making of Salt” discussed in Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Phila: Joseph Severns, 1845) vol 5, p745; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 13, 1777, p 17; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p24; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 28-29, 1777, p 33-34; William Livingston to Assembly in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, p 126; Harry B. Weiss, The Revolutionary Saltworks of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1959) p 39; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, March 27, 1778, p 92; Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 228National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Morris of KY, www.fold3.com/image/#25351861; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 8, 1778, p 203-204; Peter Hulsart, Court Paper, Rutgers University Special Collections, Holsart Family Papers, folder: A2; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1778) p10; Mark Lender, “The Enlisted Line: The Continental Soldiers of New Jersey”(Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, 1975) p 48; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, David Cooper of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#12873752.