The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > George Taylor and Nathaniel Scudder Report the Arrival of the British Army by Michael Adelberg A massive British fleet passed Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Harbor on June 30, 1776. Monmouth County’s George Taylor and Nathaniel reported the event. - June 1776 - At the end of June 1776, a massive British fleet began arriving at Sandy Hook, the peninsula at the entrance of New York that was taken by the British navy two months earlier. This massive British fleet numbered 120 sails on June 29. It carried 25,000 soldiers—the largest European army ever sent to the Americas. Long before the fleet’s arrival, Monmouth Countians worried that they could not protect Middletown and Shrewsbury townships, oppositive of Sandy Hook. In April, for example, Joseph Throckmorton, the Shrewsbury Township Magistrate, wrote the New Jersey Provincial Congress about his county’s weakness. He worried that if the British found New York “strongly fortified and garrison'd” they would naturally turn their attention to the “defenceless country” opposite Sandy Hook with “the necessary refreshments and supplies they may so easily obtain.” Throckmorton assessed the Monmouth County militia facing Sandy Hook, particularly in light of recent recruiting by David Forman to enlist “Flying Camp ” to augment George Washington’s Army: As to our strength to defend ourselves, it is much weaken'd by ‘listing of men for the Continental service, and this last supply of men and arms, if not soon recall'd or other ways supplied, may render us incapable of defending ourselves from becoming an easy prey to any invaders, which at this time very much dispirits the inhabitants of this County to be left In so defenceless a condition. Throckmorton furthered worried that “the sending of fifty Jersey muskets to supply part of Col. [William] Maxwell's Battalion and the late draft has took a considerable part of our best Arms.” In June, the Monmouth County militia camped opposite Sandy Hook on the Navesink Highlands. Commanded by Colonel George Taylor, they were the first rebelling Americans to see the British fleet, and it was their responsibility to report on the critical event. James Bowne, serving under Taylor, recalled: The company consisted of about sixty privates - besides the officers - they were quartered at a house on the Bay shore near the upper part of the Highlands where they could see from their quarters the enemy shipping and had a fair view of Sandy Hook, where the enemy lay. On June 29, Colonel George Taylor of Middletown reported the first of the British fleet was arriving. The New Jersey Provincial Congress recorded receiving notice from Taylor that "45 sail is now in sight & 19 sail are at the Hook, & a party of men already landed at the Light House & some light horse." At the same time, Taylor assessed his own vulnerable position. He pessimistically predicted: "The party of men and Light Horse [at Sandy Hook], I have no doubt, will pay us a visit as soon as convenient for them. Our guard is very weak , and not sufficient to make any stand." Taylor’s assessment is corroborated by militiaman George Smock, who recalled that the British landing put “strict terror in the hearts of all." Indeed, on Sandy Hook, the British were receiving reports on the weakness of local defenses. James McFarlane, a Loyalist who enlisted in the British Army a few days after the fleet arrived, reported that “there was nobody on the other side of the Island [Sandy Hook] but a parcell of Jersey rascals.” McFarlane told that the British that “500 [British troops] would drive them all.” John Covenhoven of Freehold, a delegate in the Provincial Congress serving as the body’s Vice President, immediately forwarded Taylor’s report to the Continental Congress. Covenhoven noted steps taken to supply Taylor’s militia and then appealed for help: We have taken steps to move forward a considerable number of arms & ammunition, lead & powder... We rely on your care and protection from every part of the Continent, and doubt not that the most vigorous steps have been taken for our general safety. On July 1, the majority of the British fleet passed Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Harbor. At this critical moment, Nathaniel Scudder, a Committeeman and Lt. Colonel of the Monmouth militia, rode through the night to deliver word to the New Jersey Provincial Congress. During the night he heard booms that he mistook for cannon-fire from the British ships of war (probably thunder). He arrived at the Provincial Congress on July 2 mistakenly believing that the invasion of New York was already underway. Understanding the exceptional vulnerability of Monmouth County, Scudder called for the Monmouth militia to be exempted from duty outside its boundaries. The men should "not be prevailed upon to march to New York and leave their wives and children to fall prey to the enemy, if they should be repulsed at New York, or to be murdered by the Tories in their absence.” John Covenhoven immediately passed Scudder’s report to the Continental Congress along with his own letter: We have this moment undoubted information, by Lieutenant Colonel Scudder, from Monmouth County, that about four o' clock yesterday afternoon, he observed nearly the whole of the enemy' s fleet in motion, and at half past six in the afternoon, saw about one hundred and thirty sail in the channel from the Hook to New York ...that he left Middleton at eleven o' clock last evening; and at about four this morning, being at the high land between Upper and Lower Freehold, heard a very heavy firing of cannon. Covenhoven also reported on events in his home county: We also received, by Colonel Scudder, a letter from Colonel [George] Taylor, of Monmouth, dated yesterday, informing us of that County being so exposed to the enemy without, and the Tories among themselves, that he apprehends the Militia will not be prevailed on to march to New York, and leave their wives and children to fall either a prey to the enemy, if they should be repulsed at New York, or be murdered by the Tories in their absence, who are embodying themselves, and a considerable number already encamped at the Cedar Swamps. Covenhoven concluded by asking the Continental Congress to "send forward all the assistance in your power." However, the greatest threats to the Continental cause in Monmouth County would not come from the British Army, but from Monmouth County’s own Loyalists. Some of these men were already in insurrection against the new government while others were forming into companies that would soon join the British Army at Sandy Hook. Related Historic Sites : Independence Hall (Philadelphia) Sources : Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p137; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - James Bowne; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 6, pp. 1133-4; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 82, item 68, #155, 159; John O'Connor, "Nathaniel Scudder's Midnight Ride," New Jersey Historical Commission Newsletter, vol. 6, n. 3, November 1975, p 2 & 7; Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v1: p 1-2; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - George Smock; Journal of H.M.S. Chatham , Captain John Raynor, June 29, 1776, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Admiralty 51/192. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; "The Examination of James MacFarlan a Soldier belonging to the 55th Regiment, July 5, 1776, Washington Papers, LC. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; Joseph Throckmorton at Shrewsbury to Azariah Dunham, April 4, 1776, Lloyd W. Smith Collection, MNHP. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The First Loyalist Raids Against Monmouth County by Michael Adelberg Thomas Seabrook’s home on Raritan Bay was vulnerable to attack. One of the first Loyalist raids against Monmouth County was an attempt to take him. His son was bayoneted in the raid. - March 1777 - December 1776 was the highwater mark for Monmouth’s Loyalists. The British Army had pushed Washington’s Continentals out of New Jersey into Pennsylvania and victoriously set up camp in Trenton. Across the interior of New Jersey, but especially in Monmouth County, Loyalists rose up. In three coordinated insurrections in Upper Freehold , Freehold-Middletown , and from Shrewsbury down the shore, Loyalists gained control of most of the county. The Monmouth militia melted away; hundreds signed British “protection” papers. But the tables turned quickly. Monmouth County was opened up to an advancing Continental Army after the Battle of Trenton, and a regiment of Pennsylvanians promptly routed Monmouth Loyalists at Freehold on January 2, 1777. Over the next month, the Pennsylvanians pushed east and broke up Loyalist associations in Middletown and Shrewsbury. More than 200 Loyalists were captured and jailed; hundreds more fled behind British lines as Loyalist refugees . Some joined the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers while others sought to make a living and extract revenge on their own terms. Loyalist Raids Begin It is arguable exactly when Monmouth County’s first Loyalist raid occurred, but the first clear evidence of Loyalists plundering their former neighbors appears to be an action on March 11. In a March 12 report to Congress, General Israel Putnam, commanding the Continental Army in central New Jersey, mentioned that "a fortnight before, 17 horned cattle and 37 horses were taken in the evening by a parcel of Provincials, on the account of the troops landing in Monmouth." If the first plundering raid occurred on March 11, the first capture and arson occurred a month later. David Forman warned the Continental Army of the coming raid, prompting a response from General Israel Putnam on April 11: “Should the enemy attempt to march to Middletown, you will have it in your power to annoy them & impede their march.” That raid occurred on April 13, Forman reported, “a party of British troops were discovered making the Hook to Middletown -- I shall immediately put myself in their way & attempt to attack them -- at present I am very weak here, my numbers do not exceed 160 rank & file." But neither Putnam nor the Monmouth militia under David Forman, reeling from defeats at the Battle of the Navesink and Sandy Hook , offered any resistance. The British-Loyalist party landed on the Raritan Bayshore and marched to Mt. Pleasant, west of Middletown. There, they took Reverend Charles McKnight prisoner and burned the Presbyterian church. He was put on a prison ship and denied the parole commonly offered to “gentleman ” prisoners. Fatally ill in January 1778, McKnight was released home only to die days later. George Taylor’s Raids In June, George Taylor, the former Monmouth militia colonel who was commissioned colonel of a non-existent Loyalist militia , led a string of incursions into Monmouth County. On June 1, Taylor led a party toward Shrewsbury, but was engaged by a militia party and driven back with two dead and one captured. On June 10, Taylor led another incursion, this time near Middletown, where he was met by a party of Middletown militia; in the ensuing skirmish both parties had one man wounded. On June 16, Taylor led a party that landed on the Raritan Bayshore. Their likely target was Major Thomas Seabrook, who had signed a British loyalty oath during the December insurrection but was now leading militia against his oath. The Loyalists entered Seabrook’s house, but he was not there. According to antiquarian accounts, the Loyalists noticed a sag in the ceiling boards and surmised that Seabrook was hiding in the loft. A Loyalist thrust his bayonet into the sag and hit someone. Stephen Seabrook, a private in the militia and son of Thomas, was bayoneted. The raiders carried off 200 lbs. of pork gathered for the militia and £31 of various household items. The young Seabrook was badly wounded but survived. After this incident, the Seabrook family moved inland for safety. George Taylor returned to Middletown again on June 21 in an attempt to bring out recruits allegedly waiting to be liberated. Taylor’s party skirmished with the militia; four men were wounded. Three days later, Taylor went inland into Freehold Township, perhaps looking to capture David Forman. He skirmished with a militia party likely led by Forman—two men were captured, one was killed and one was wounded. The Pennsylvania Packet printed a report this skirmish that was likely written by Forman: I laid the bait last Saturday to break up the plundering of Coll. George Taylor; it so far succeeded that I was within an ace of taking the whole; we took one white man and one Negro. While the rest were swimming toward a boat that was coming to take them off, we fired upon them, and killed one wounded another, who were both hauled into the boat. It is noteworthy that raiding parties before and after Taylor’s incursions frequently accomplished their missions without alerting (and then fighting) the Monmouth militia. In contrast, Taylor’s parties always seemed to draw a response from the local militia. Taylor lingered at least once to visit with his father, Edward Taylor, who assisted Taylor’s party with their withdrawal another time. Also, Taylor’s parties—whatever else their objective—were continuously recruiting for the New Jersey Volunteers and Taylor’s own meager Loyalist militia. In order to do so, Taylor had to speak with people—some of whom inevitably alerted neighbors who formed the militia and clashed with Taylor. There is no reason to believe that Taylor’s June incursions yielded many recruits. While the Monmouth militia performed well against Taylor’s incursions, the succession of raids struck fear into the Whigs living near Sandy Hook. The Loyalist New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury reported: We hear that Mr. Forman, with about 400 of the Rebel Army, has abandoned Shrewsbury and is gone to Middletown, about 12 miles distant. Many of the Committeemen and other hot people have followed Mr. Forman's example, being apprehensive of a visit. The decision of vulnerable Whigs to move inland to safer environs is discussed in another article. As for Taylor, his relatively mild incursions would soon be eclipsed by the larger, punishing raids from British regulars and stealthier, crueler attacks from more desperate Loyalist partisans. Related Historic Site : Seabrook Wilson House Sources : Israel Putnam to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I159, Letters of General Officers, p 67; Israel Putnam to David Forman, Neilson Family Papers, box 1, folder: Rutgersania, Rutgers University Special Collections; Israel Putnam to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I159, Letters from General Officers, p67; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 393; Munn, David, Battles and Skirmishes of the American Revolution in New Jersey, (Trenton: Bureau of Geology and Topography, New Jersey Geological Survey, 1976) p 139; Howard Peckham, The Toll of Independence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) p 35; John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v4, p247-8; Monmouth County Historical Association, Articles File: "Letter from Freehold"; Howard Peckham, The Toll of Independence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) p 35; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 1, pp. 399-400; David C. Munn, comp., Battles and Skirmishes of the American Revolution in New Jersey (Trenton, N.J.: Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Geology, 1976) p 42; Monmouth County Historical Association, Articles File: "Letter from Freehold"; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 156; John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v1, p 306-14; Richard Harrison, Princetonians: 1769-1775: A Biographical Dictionary (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014) vol. 2, pp. 156-9. Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County, New Jersey (Philadelphia, 1885), pp. 522-3. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > New England Privateers Prey on Shipping at Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg The Connecticut privateer, Oliver Cromwell, was one of a few dozen New England privateers to capture British/Loyalist ships off Sandy Hook. These privateers took at least 20 prizes in 1779 alone. - June 1779 - As discussed in prior articles, privateering along the New Jersey shore blossomed in the spring of 1778 when the British naval presence weakened, making ships coming to New York City vulnerable . In 1778, most of the privateers along the New Jersey shore were small Philadelphia vessels and boats manned by New Jersey militia . Privateers were, by nature, opportunists seeking the greatest possible prize at an acceptable level of risk. In New England, ship captains embraced privateering and went long distances to prey on British ships in Europe and the Caribbean. It was inevitable that New England privateers would prey on British ships bound for New York as well. New Jersey historian, Franklin Kemp, counted the ships taken off the New Jersey shore during the Revolutionary War. He counted 194 prizes (of which 24 were shipwrecks taken by militia). Kemp’s tabulations are the most complete accounting of New Jersey’s Revolutionary War maritime events, but he did not review New England newspapers or have access to Internet-privateer datasets—rich sources of maritime incidents. So, Kemp’s work, while admirable, undercounts the number of captures and particularly undercounts New England privateer activity. This article seeks to fill that gap. New England Privateers at Sandy Hook, 1777-1778 A few New England privateers were active off Sandy Hook as early as 1777; two maritime events are documented. Thomas Dunbar of Stonington, Connecticut recalled boarding the 14-gun privateer, Revenge , under Captain William Jager, and taking “the schooner Experiment , bound from N. York to Halifax & sent her into Mystic." However, the Revenge was soon captured by a larger British ship. Captain Timothy Shaler of Connecticut, sailing in the Lion , was also active off the New Jersey shore in 1777. On April 17, he captured a supply ship, Hazard , with a cargo of coal, off Sandy Hook and towed the prize toward Egg Harbor. However, a British frigate, Mermaid , was dispatched from Sandy Hook and pursued Shaler. The privateer and her prize grounded in the shallows north of Egg Harbor (Stafford Township) where the Mermaid destroyed both vessels. In May, the Pennsylvania Journal advertised the sale of “the remains of the brigantine Hazard … captured by Captain Timothy Shaler" with 6 swivel guns, small arms and equipment, food stuffs. The Pennsylvania Evening Post advertised the sale of the wrecked Lion , "her hull and some spars & c. now lie on Long Beach" including, "eight excellent double fortified four pounders” and other combat-related materials. In 1778, as in 1777, New England privateers were occasionally on the Monmouth shore. Captain Nathan Post sailing in the Revenge (probably a different vessel from Captain Jager’s above) captured two prizes near Sandy Hook in June 1778. One was carrying cargo of indigo and the second a cargo lumber—probably a London Trading vessel from New Jersey. The capture of these vessels was important enough to merit a report from General Philemon Dickinson, commanding the New Jersey militia, to George Washington. Dickinson wrote: Two valuable Prizes were sunk into Toms River, two days ago, by a small New England Privateer, part of the Cargoes, consists of one hundred & fifty hogsheads Rum—this small Privateer within five weeks past, has taken Prizes, to the amount of, One hundred & fifty thousand pounds. The other documented incident involving a New England privateer in 1778 is the confusing case of the sloop, Active , commanded by Gideon Olmstead. Olmstead captained a Connecticut sloop that went to Egg Harbor before sailing for Sandy Hook. On its way, it was intercepted and taken by a larger Loyalist vessel, Tyrol . However, Olmstead led an uprising against the four-man prize crew and claimed that he re-took his vessel. According to one of his men, Thomas Clark: “They succeeded in securing the [Loyalist] captain crew under the deck, and intended to run the sloop in Egg Harbour." However, because Active was still flying British colors, the Pennsylvania privateer Convention took it before she could reach Egg Harbor. The Pennsylvanians brought Active to Philadelphia as a prize. Olmstead and Captain Houston of the Convention engaged in years of litigation over the fate of the vessel. Solomon Drowne, sailing on the Massachusetts privateer Hope , recalled capturing a snow loaded with rum from Jamaica as it neared Sandy Hook (the year of the incident is not stated): She sails very heavy and Captain Munro is very sanguine in the belief we shall make a prize of her. There seems to be something awful in the preparation for an attack, and the immediate prospect of an action. She hauls up her English colours. I take my station where I remain not long before I hear the huzza on deck in conveyance of her striking [surrender]. Send our boat for her Captain and papers. She sailed from Kingston, Jamaica, upwards of 40 days since, in a fleet, and was bound for New York, Captain William Small commander. She has ten men on board and four excellent 4 pounders. Hope towed the prize toward Egg Harbor, but then lost the prize: "About sunset, sail seen from the masthead which excites no small anxiety. Cast off the snow [to escape]." New England Privateers at Sandy Hook, 1779 Starting in June 1779, a half-dozen of Connecticut privateers began regularly “cruising the lanes” into Sandy Hook. The New London privateer, Beaver (65 crew, 12 cannon) was the most prolific, taking seven prizes in 1779. Twice, Captain William Havens of the Beaver teamed up with other privateers to capture larger prizes, including the Otter on July 1 with a valuable cargo of Caribbean rum. In 1779, New England privateers, including vessels from Massachusetts and Rhode Island, took at least twenty prizes off Sandy Hook. Their activity was greater in 1779 than any other year. See c hart 3. The largest prize taken in 1779 was the 16-gun Belona , taken by the pairing of the Beaver and the Hancock . Three other times, two or three privateers combined to take a prize. But tandem attacks did not always work. On June 5, 1779, the Hancock (80 crew, ten cannon) teamed up with Oliver Cromwell , with a crew of 140 men and 18 cannon. They attacked the HMS Daphne 20 leagues from Sandy Hook, a vessel about the size of the Oliver Crowell . The privateers shot down one of Daphne ’s masts, but the battle was then joined by two Loyalist privateers, Union and Delaware , which crippled and took the Oliver Cromwell . The Virginia Gazette reported: The ship Oliver Cromwell, owned by the state of Connecticut, and the privateer Hancock, were cruising some leagues south of Sandy Hook, they fell in with three British cruising ships and a brig; one of the ships was a very fast sailor, and coming up with the Oliver Cromwell, they engaged for near two hours, in which time the Oliver Cromwell shot away the main top mast; but the other ships coming up she was obliged to strike [surrender] after making a gallant defence. The Oliver Cromwell mounts 20 guns and had about 130 men. The Ship which engaged her appeared to be larger, but her force we did not learn. Massachusetts privateers also prowled the lanes into Sandy Hook. The Jason , under Captain Manley (120 men, 18 cannon) on June 23 came on the Hazard , a 16-gun Loyalist vessel approaching Sandy Hook. After a two-hour battle, Jason had one dead, three wounded; 30 were killed or wounded on the Hazard . A sailor on the Jason, Joshua Davis, recalled: The Captain ordered the helm hard-a-port, which brought us alongside. Our Captain said 'fire away boys'. We gave them a broadside which tore off her side very much & killed & wounded some of them. The rest all ran below, except their Captain who stood on deck like a man amazed. Our Captain ordered Lt Frost to go out on the driver boom and get on board her, and send the Captain on board of us, and keep the prisoners below. Captain Manley sent the prize back to Boston and then captured another vessel, Adventurer , immediately afterward, which it towed home. Davis described taking this second prize: When we got disentangled [from the Hazard], we bore away for the other privateer that began to run from us. We gave her a few shot from our bow chasers... Our Captain told them to come aboard, they answered 'Our boat won't swim', our Captain answered 'Then sink in her. You shall come on board or I will fire into you.' They then came on board. The surge of captured vessels fed the growing rift between Loyalist and British leaders. William Smith, Chief Justice of the Loyalist government in New York, wrote on August 14, 1779: “How scandalous is the conduct of the [British] Administration and the naval officers under them? The [Loyalist] privateers' business languishes and owners are selling out at a rate of six vessels in a week." He wrote of the New England privateers off Sandy Hook: "The rebels make this their cruising ground, and send several armed vessels in concert, there is a want of naval strength there." By October, privateering off Sandy Hook lightened due to worsening weather and fewer vessels coming in. The Boston Independent Chronicle reported on the Beaver spending three weeks off Sandy Hook with “blowing weather almost the whole of the time,” but taking no prizes. The one opportunity to take a vessel was fouled by weather. Beaver “brought to a schooner which had been taken by the enemy, but it being very windy, and a large sea going, they could not board her." New England Privateers at Sandy Hook, 1780 through War’s End The first prize taken off Sandy Hook in 1780, was by Captain William Treen of Rhode Island. Sailing in the Black Snake , Treen captured the vessel Dispatch and towed her into Egg Harbor. However, on his next voyage, Treen was chased by the Royal Navy’s frigate, Galatea . Black Snake grounded on a sandbar off Deal. As the frigate sent a boarding party, Treen’s 33 sailors crowded into a boat that overset in the rough water. One account claims the men drowned; another claims the men made it to shore where they were taken by a guard of New Jersey Volunteers. The British took the vessel. Treen returned to Sandy Hook later in the war in the galley, Skunk , and took a number of small prizes. The demise of the Black Snake was part of a larger campaign by the British navy to re-assert control of the sea lanes to Sandy Hook. On May 1, the Loyalist New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury , reported on "the following prizes were brought in by his Majesty's ships Iris and Delaware , taken last week within a few leagues of Sandy Hook." This crackdown included taking at least seven privateers, including three with crews of 100 or greater. However, the crackdown (the subject of another article ) did not last. On May 17, the Royal Gazette reported that "a large ship from London for New York was captured off the Hook, after an obstinate action for four hours, by two New England privateers." Two days earlier, the Gazette & Weekly Mercury reported that privateer sloops were cruising the Sandy Hook lanes again and had taken at least one prize. Some of the prizes taken in 1780 were remarkable—as when Captain Elisha Hart, in the Connecticut privateer Retaliation , captured a small sloop transporting a company of Loyalist soldiers to Sandy Hook. However, 1780 was the only year of the war where New England privateers lost more engagements (11) than they won (9). New England privateers were never again as successful as they were in 1779—though they continued to capture vessels into spring 1783, a year and a half after the British surrender at Yorktown “ended” hostilities. The New England privateers were not alone. Philadelphia privateers were also active around Sandy Hook and the exploits of Yelverton Taylor and Stephen Decatur are discussed in other articles. Privateers from Baltimore and southern ports were also involved in a few actions off Sandy Hook. Raritan Bay privateers , such as William Marriner and Adam Hyler, also took several small prizes , as did Monmouth County militia. New England privateers were also visitors on the Jersey shore. They purchased provisions and, on a few occasions, teamed with local militia in actions against London Traders and Pine Robbers . As discussed in other articles, Revolutionary War privateering changed the Jersey Shore Region—creating boomtowns at Little Egg Harbor and Toms River —and bringing people and capital to the shore as never before. New England privateers played a significant role in raising up this formerly sleepy and poor region. Related Historic Site : Connecticut River Museum Sources : Franklin Kemp, The Capture of Enemy Vessels by Ground Troops in New Jersey (-----) pp 16-7; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Dunbar of CT, www.fold3.com/image/#18457531 ; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/pl/Br/British%20Prizes%20April%201777/Experiment%20%5bunknown%5d%20%5bunknown%5d.html Pennsylvania Journal, May 14, 1777; PA Evening Post in William Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1970), vol. 9, p 179; Philemon Dickinson to George Washington, Philemon Dickinson to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, pp. 371–372; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, pp. 207-8; The Case of the Sloop ‘Active’, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 16 (1892), pp. 387-8; The Journal of Gideon Olmstead. Edited by Gerard W. Gawalt and Charles W. Kreidler. (Washington, DC: Library of Congress) p 58; Thomas Clark, A Naval History of the United States (Philadelphia: M. Carey, 1814) vol 2, p59-60; Franklin Kemp, The Capture of Enemy Vessels by Ground Troops in New Jersey (-----) pp 16-7; Thomas Collier, An Account of the State Cruisers (New London: New London Historical Society, 1892) p14; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, p 107; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/H/Hancock%20Connecticut%20Sloop%20%5bChester%20Hinman%20Richards%20Champlin%20Richards%20Chester%5d.html; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 1, pp. 85-6; Charles O Paullin, The Navy of the American Revolution (Chicago: The Burrows Brothers Co., 1906) pp. 370, 390; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, pp. 54-5; Connecticut Journal, June 30, 1779; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/B/Beaver%20Connecticut%20Sloop%20%5bDodge%20Havens%20Scovell%5d.html; and http://www.awiatsea.com/pl/Am/American%20Prizes%20April%201779/Hunter%20Sloop%20%5bRobert%20McLarty%5d.html; The Journal of Gideon Olmstead. Edited by Gerard W. Gawalt and Charles W. Kreidler. (Washington, DC: Library of Congress) pp. 77-8; Virginia Gazette, July 10, 1779; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/R/Revenge%20Connecticut%20Sloop%20%5bConkling%20Post%20Parker%5d.html ; Gardner Allen, Naval History of the American Revolution (NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1913) p408; Independent Ledger (Boston), July 5, 1779; Joshua Davis, Journal, Gardner W. Allen, A Naval History of the American Revolution (1912, 1940, reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), pp. 409-10; Independent Ledger (Boston), February 8, 1779; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) pp. 154-8; Connecticut Gazette, August 25, 1779; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 64-5; Gardner W. Allen, A Naval History of the American Revolution (1912, 1940, reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), p 414; The Journal and Letters of Samuel Curwen, An American Refugee in England from 1775-84 (NY: C.S. Francis, 1842), p592; Connecticut Gazette, October 20, 1779; Independent Chronicle (Boston), October 28, 1779; Independent Ledger (Boston), November 29, 1779; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 65; William Nelson, Austin Scott, et al., ed., New Jersey Archives, 1901-1917, (Newark, Somerville, and Trenton, New Jersey, 1901-1917) vol. 3, p 616; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of Thomas Dunbar of CT, National Archives, p6; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, p 338; The capture of the Black Snake is discussed in William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 70-1; British captures are summarized in William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 72; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, p 343; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/Y/Young%20Cromwell%20Connecticut%20Schooner%20%5bWattles%20Hilliard%20Wattles%20Buddington%20Hilliard%20Reed%20Cook%5d.html; and http://www.awiatsea.com/pl/Am/American%20Prizes%20October%201781/Betsey%20Schooner%20(John%20Robinson).html ; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, p 394; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, pp. 364, 370. William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 74; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, p 384; Connecticut Gazette, May 26, 1780; Christopher Prince, Autobiography of a Yankee Mariner (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2002), p234; Thomas Collier, An Account of the State Cruisers (New London: New London Historical Society, 1892) p16; Independent Ledger (Boston), June 5, 1780; The battle between the Trumball and the British vessel is discussed in William S. Hornor, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold, N.J.: Moreau Brothers, 1932), p 74; Virginia Gazette, June 28, 1780; The captures made by the Retaliation are discussed in Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, pp. 205-6; The capture of the Hazard is discussed in William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 74; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; The capture of the Otter is discussed in Records and Papers of the New London County Historical Society, vol. 1, p20; Thomas Collier, An Account of the State Cruisers (New London: New London Historical Society, 1892) p17; American Journal (Providence), July 26, 1780; Narrative of the sloop Retaliation in Thomas Collier, An Account of the State Cruisers (New London: New London Historical Society, 1892) p18-19; Solomon Drowne, Journal of a Cruise in the Fall of 1780 in the Private-Sloop of War, Hope (Berkley: U of California, 1872) pp. 11-2; The action of the Viper are in American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/V/Viper%20Massachusetts%20Ship%20%5BWilliams%5D.html ; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, pp. 194-8; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, p 181; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/R/Raven%20Connecticut%20Schooner%20%5bOlmsted%20Hollister%20Buckland%5d.html ; American Journal (Providence), May 12, 1781; Providence Gazette, August 25, 1781; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/V/Viper%20Massachusetts%20Ship%20%5BWilliams%5D.htm ; Journal of Christopher Vail, Library of Congress, Series 7E, item 146, reel 54; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, pp. 87-9; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; The attack on the Polly is discussed in William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 78; The voyage of the Rainbow is in Thomas Collier, An Account of the State Cruisers (New London: New London Historical Society, 1892) p24 and Massachusetts Spy, September 6, 1781; Fair American’s prize noted in American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/F/Fair%20American%20Connecticut%20Brigantine%20%5bChamplin%5d.html ; Providence Gazette, September 8, 1781; American Journal (Providence), October 18, 1781; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, pp. 246-9; Providence Gazette, May 25, 1782; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, pp. 214-6; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Nathaniel Prentice of CT, www.fold3.com/image/# 25868821; Norwich Packet, August 15, 1782; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post; William Treen discussed in Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 53-5; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/M/Modesty%20Rhode%20Island%20Sloop%20%5bArnold%20Brown%5d.html ; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Middlebrook, Louis, History of Maritime Connecticut during the American Revolution, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1925) vol. 2, p 232; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Privateer Captain William Gray Clashes with London Traders by Michael Adelberg While dozens of privateers took British ships near Sandy Hook, they mostly ignored the Loyalist gallies that rowed or sailed in their midst. William Gray, however, took two Loyalist boats in 1782. - January 1782 - As noted in prior articles, in 1779, large numbers of privateer vessels from New England began “cruising” the sea lanes to and from Sandy Hook, capturing vulnerable British/Loyalist shipping. While there is a great deal of documentation of the larger prizes they took and their periodic showdowns with British naval vessels, there is little documentation about the encounters between these privateers and the Loyalist boats that sailed the same New Jersey shoreline and violently clashed with local militia. Dozens of small Loyalist vessels carried out the so-called London Trade , bringing the farm goods and lumber of disaffected New Jersians to British buyers at Sandy Hook and New York. Yet there is almost no documentation of the interactions between New England privateers and London Traders. Perhaps the privateers were more interested in larger prizes than small trading vessels, but it is also likely that there were actions that simply went undocumented because the prizes were small and they were taken into small inlets where nobody wrote up a report for a newspaper. Captain William Gray Attacks London Traders For this reason, the actions of the Massachusetts privateer, Dart , captained by William Gray, is unusual. Gray’s capture of two vessels, and attempted capture of a third, in January 1782, is well documented. On February 6, 1782, the New Jersey Gazette reported that on January 19: Arrived at Toms River, the schooner Dart privateer, from Salem, Captain William Gray, and brought in with him a sloop prize taken from the Black Jack, a galley belonging to New York; and the next day his boat, with seven men, went in pursuit of a brig which was near the bar, but neither boat nor men have been heard of since. The final piece of the New Jersey Gazette report is noteworthy: “The next day his boat, with seven men, went in pursuit of a brig which was near the bar, but neither boat nor men have been heard of since.” According to antiquarian sources, which vary on the details, Gray went to Dillon's Island in Barnegat Bay and gave chase to a London Trading boat owned by William Dillon, though Dillon was not in it. Gray captured the boat, Lucy, when it grounded outside Cranberry Inlet. They brought it into Toms River. The next day, Gray, with eight men in a whaleboat pursued a Loyalist brig, which was, ironically, being piloted by William Dillon. Gray’s boat and the London Traders kept up a running fire all the way to Manasquan. Despite being outnumbered, Gray attempted to board the brig. In the resulting melee on the deck of the brig, Gray and six of his men were captured. Gray was jailed in New York for four months (another source claims six) before being exchanged. (Note: One antiquarian source suggests that Gray was victorious in this third encounter with London Traders.) A New Jersey Admiralty Court announcement from Abiel Aiken (the court’s agent at Toms River ) advertised that a court would be held on March 16 at the house of James Green in Freehold to hear Captain William Gray’s claim (in absentia) on the sloop Lucy "taken on her voyage from Egg Harbor to New York" with a cargo and "a Negro man named York." The claim was against William Dillon. Before the war, Dillon was a boatman from Toms River. He was convicted of treason and sentenced to death at the 2nd Monmouth Court of Oyer and Terminer in 1778, but was pardoned. Dillon returned to Toms River and rowed out to a British party later that year when it raided the port to reclaim the vessel, Love & Unity . While Dillon had a role in capturing Gray, he lost his boat and slave. He may have desired revenge for the losses and prior abuses. Dillon returned to Dover Township two months later as a guide for a raiding party of Associated Loyalists that razed Toms River . This is the subject of another article. It appears that Gray exacted revenge on Monmouth County Loyalists after his release. Thomas Brown of Dover Township was the son of Captain Samuel Brown, one of a half-dozen Monmouth County militia officers who blurred the lines between militia service and privateering. Thomas Brown recalled an action against the Pine Robber gang of William Davenport in June 1782. His Dover militia company, in the row vessel named Civil Usage, planned to attack William Davenport’s Pine Robber gang at Clam Town (present-day Tuckerton). The Dover militia used themselves as a decoy by rowing through Little Egg Harbor and lured a Pine Robber galley to attack them. Gray's privateer brig then closed on the Pine Robbers. Brown recalled: "The vessels engaged. Captain Davenport and eight or nine of his men were killed by the first broadside of the privateer... and was immediately taken possession of by Captain Gray and sunk." Davenport and the defeat of the Pine Robbers at Forked River is the subject of another article. Other New England Privateers along the Disaffected Monmouth Shore With the exception of Gray, it is remarkable how little documentation exists of New England privateers clashing with local disaffected and Loyalists on the lower Monmouth shore. This is despite the fact that New England privateers would have come in contact with the disaffected residents of this region dozens of times as they came into New Jersey’s inlets for supplies or to escape storms and British warships. Privateers towing prizes into Chestnut Neck (the inland village up the Mullica River from Egg Harbor) or Toms River would have routinely passed small clusters of cabins and boats used by London Traders and Pine Robbers. Yet it appears that an informal détente existed much of the time between privateers and disaffected shore residents. Privateers and disaffected were on different sides in the war, but both were fundamentally opportunists. There apparently was little to be gained from hostilities. The experience of the Rhode Island sloop, Providence , at Clam Town in November 1779 is telling. The ship’s surgeon, Zuriel Waterman, recalled coming into Little Egg Harbor on November 4, where he: "went on shore at Foxborough Isle.” The island and the disaffected family living there did not impress Waterman: It has but one wretched house upon it, being mostly a marsh spot of rising ground where the house stands; it is 7 miles distant from a little village called Clamtown and fronts the entrance of the [Egg] Harbor. The house is inhabited by one Moses Mulliner, his wife, 2 daughters and a son. Waterman spent two days on the island, during which time nine crew deserted. On November 6, Waterman "went to Mulliner's to get some rum... came to anchor at Mulliner's house." After purchasing what they could from Mulliner, Waterman and other officers went to Clamtown. They "stayed and drank chocolate and played checkers, delaying some time until after dark." On November 9, the officers re-provisioned their vessel, while noting that "articles are very scarce and dear." Waterman took the time to write down the exorbitant prices the privateers were charged for purchasing in Continental dollars . The New Englanders paid: gallon of rum - $80, pound of sugar - $7, pound of coffee - $7, pound of gunpowder - $40, bushel of potatoes - $12, pair of shoes - $60, 1 turkey - $15. Waterman further noted the exchange rate of $1 of specie for $30-40 Continental dollars. However, the privateer officers found some solace on November 12 when they "sold our runaway [sailor's] clothes at vendue, amounted to above £100." Despite spending more than a week in the epicenter of the London Trade and the lair of a large Pine Robber gang, no shots were fired between the privateers and the disaffected locals. The Providence left Little Egg Harbor on November 13. Related Historic Site : Cedar Bridge Tavern Sources : William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 79; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties, (Bayonne, N.J.: E. Gardner and Son, 1890) pp. 80-84; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930, February 6, 1782; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 79-80; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930, February 13, 1782; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 79; William MacMahon, South Jersey Towns (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1973) p 305; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p91; John C. Dann, The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts of the War for Independence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) pp 143; Zuriel Waterman, Rhode Islanders Record the Revolution: the Journals of William Humphrey and Zuriel Waterman (Providence: Rhode Island Publications Society, 1984) pp. 73-7. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Alarm Beacons Constructed in Monmouth County by Michael Adelberg Fired beacons could speed news of a British incursion into New Jersey. The chain of 23 beacons across New Jersey included three in Monmouth County, but the Monmouth beacons were short-lived. - April 1779 - In 1779, the British, believing the South was filled with Loyalists, sent an Army to invade Georgia. In the North, they replaced major campaigns with raids into New Jersey. George Washington camped inland near Morristown and relied on riders to inform him of British incursions. But riders were sometimes unreliable, and messages took several hours to deliver under even the best circumstances. In 1778, Continental and New Jersey leaders discussed establishing beacons which, when fired, could be seen by men attending the next beacon—lighting a chain of beacons could, in theory, speed word of a British attack. Beacons were not a new idea. For centuries, they had been used on the continent of Europe to spread news of enemy attack. In New Jersey, the nascent state government’s Council of Safety, at its first meeting on January 10, 1776, recommended the construction of a set of warning beacons along the shore. Three months later, George Washington forwarded a plan to the New Jersey Provincial Congress for constructing beacons between the Navesink Highlands and Woodbridge. The beacons would alert New Jersey militia and the Continental Army of a British landing or a fleet arriving at Sandy Hook, but it is unlikely that beacons were constructed in 1776 amidst other competing priorities. Monmouth County’s Warning Beacons The plan to construct beacons across the parts of New Jersey most exposed to attacks reached fruition. in March 1779, George Washington wrote Governor William Livingston of a plan developed by General William Alexander (Lord Stirling) to construct 23 beacons from the Watchung Mountains southwest to Amwell and east through northern Monmouth County. Of the first eight beacons, Washington wrote: “I will have them erected.” For the rest, Washington requested that “Your Excellency [Livingston] will be pleased to give the order." This meant that fifteen beacons would be built and maintained by New Jersey militia. Stirling’s description of the hoped-for beacons included this instruction: Each of the beacons are to be of the following dimensions: at bottom, fourteen feet square, to rise in a pyramidal form to about eighteen or twenty feet high, and then to terminate about six feet square, with a stout sapling in the center of about thirty feet high from the ground. According to a list compiled by Baron Johan DeKalb – the last three beacons would be in Monmouth County "on Carter Hill in Monmouth" (near Freehold); "on Middletown Hill" and "on Mount Pleasant." A fourth beacon near the Navesink Highlands was not included in Stirling’s plan based on the advice of Joseph Holmes, one of Monmouth County’s legislators – presumably it would be impossible to defend . An April order discussed that the Monmouth beacons were to be fired when "the enemy invades Monmouth County or any part of Middlesex south of Raritan, or on the first appearance of the enemy going up Amboy Bay." On April 12, General Nathaniel Heard of Middlesex County, commanding the Monmouth militia, wrote to Colonel Asher Holmes, commanding the Freehold and Middletown militias. Heard’s detailed direction included instruction that "these fires should be made of logs intermixed with brush squares at the bottom, about sixteen feet high and to diminish as they rise like a pyramid, and should be 18 or 20 feet high." Heard’s orders reveal that he was more concerned with battling enemy raiders than getting word to Washington. He ordered beacons further forward than Stirling and he required that the beacons serve as militia rallying points. He wrote: I have received orders from General Dickinson [Philemon Dickinson] to execute and erect beacons for your militia in case of alarm… you will immediately order the officers commanding to have their men attending the firing of these beacons. When the beacons fired militia were ordered to muster at each of them: 1. companies of Michael Sweetman, John Walton, David Gordon, William Van Cleaf were to meet at the beacon at Bray's meeting house (south of Middletown); 2. companies of John Schenck, William Schenck and Samuel Carhart were to meet at the beacon on Vanderbelt's Hill (near Middletown); 3. companies of John Stillwell, Barnes Smock and Theophilus Little were to meet at the beacon on Ruckman's Hill (near Navesink). The militia’s Light Horse company was to "be divided in three divisions, each of which to repair to each of the three posts, that they may forward intelligence from one post to the others." Holmes would oversee the construction of the beacons and would be compensated for expenses directly related to their construction: “You must keep an exact account of expenses attending to the fixing of these beacons which you will be pleased to transmit regularly." The Loyalist officer, Elisha Lawrence, formerly of Upper Freehold, compiled a map of Monmouth County in spring, 1779. The map was likely to assist raiding parties and illegal traders . The map showed the location of beacons on Garretts Hill (west of Navesink Highlands); a beach on Highlands marked "watering place" (fresh water well); and on the Middletown shore opposite Horseshoe Bay on the Sandy Hook Peninsula. The map also showed the location of four companies of Benjamin Ford’s Continental troops in Monmouth County, one at Middletown, two more at Eatontown, and one at Tinton Falls. The map, if correct, showed that beacons were constructed far closer to the British base at Sandy Hook than Stirling had suggested and slightly closer than Heard had ordered—but it is possible that Lawrence’s map was incorrect. Short Life of Monmouth County’s Beacons What became of the beacons is unclear. Perhaps they were never fully constructed or perhaps they were fired once and not rebuilt. If they were as close to Sandy Hook as Lawrence’s map suggests, then the men firing those beacons were in great danger of capture . At least in Monmouth County, there is no reason to believe the beacons were long-lived. A May 1780 list of New Jersey militia rally points had the Monmouth militia assembling at South Amboy “along the shore towards Middletown” and at Deal. Beacons go unmentioned in the order. In the three northeast townships (Freehold, Middletown and Shrewsbury), militia used “signal cannon” to indicate alarm and summon the militia. As early as September 1778, there is a documentation that militia “went on the boom" of the cannon, and men were fined for not turning out when the gun was fired. The booms of this cannon were likely effective at alarming the militia because a Loyalist newspaper particularly called out the disabling of the Middletown militia signal cannon in its report of the June 1780 raid that captured Captain Barnes Smock of Middletown. In post-war veteran pension applications, six Monmouth militiamen from the Northeast townships mention marching at the boom of signal cannon, but none mention marching at the firing of a beacon: John Aumock recalled mustering on “a general alarm (which was announced by the firing of the alarm gun kept by Colo. Holmes), and then all the militia were called out together." John Carhart remembered,” under a signal from the alarm gun, the militia of the neighborhood, whether out under regular duty or not, repaired with all speed to the place of rendezvous.” Garrett Jeffrey recalled he would “repair immediately to all points of attack on the discharge of the alarm gun.” John Matthews also recalled mustering at the firing of a signal cannon: “the militia immediately laying aside all business at the report of the alarm gun & repairing to the place of rendezvous.” Koert Schenck recalled "all the militia were called out on the firing of the alarm gun.” Derrick Sutphin marched at the alarm gun, including a boom just after his wedding: “was called out the same week as the wedding, after the marriage, the alarm gun firing at Colo. Holmes’.” There are no accounts of the Monmouth militia responding to an alarm via the lighting of a beacon. Riders continued to be used to alert George Washington on events along the Monmouth shore and Sandy Hook through the end of the war. Related Historic Site : Beacon Pole Hill (Rhode Island) Sources : Bob Rupert, The Blue Hills Beacons, Journal of the American Revolution, April 29, 2015, https://allthingsliberty.com/2015/04/the-blue-hills-beacons/#google_vignette ; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 4, pp. 660, 662-3; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 1165; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and Council of Safety of New Jersey (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009) p 327; 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. 14, pp. 281-3; Elisha Lawrence, Map, U. of Michigan, Clements Library, Map 237, Monmouth County; James Raleigh, "Beacon Bicentennial--1779," Monmouth County Historical Association Newsletter, vol. 7, n2, 1779, p1; Nathaniel Heard to Asher Holmes, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 5, folder 3; Cherry Hall Papers, box 1; John Clayton to Asher Holmes, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 5, folder 9; John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v3, p341; George Washington to John Neilson, May 1780,” Founders Online, National Archives http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-01952, ver. 2013-09-28); National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Matthews of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23666685 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Garrett Jeffrey of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#24630193 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Derrick Sutphin; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Carhart; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Aumock; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Koert Schenck. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > David Forman Seeks Passport for Mrs. Prevost by Michael Adelberg In 1782, Col. David Forman of Monmouth County sought to send Mrs. Prevost, wife of a Loyalist, to British-held New York. After weeks of wrangling, she was allowed to go to the garrison city. - February 1782 - A prior article discussed the messy matter of permitting people to cross enemy lines. The process and permissible circumstances for granting passports shifted frequently during the war, but trended toward ever greater restrictions. Restrictions aside, the military frontier line between Monmouth County and British-held New York remained porous due to the long shorelines, lures of lucrative illegal trade , and family connections across enemy lines. Yet, despite the difficulties of crossing legally and relative ease of crossing illegally, local leaders in Monmouth sought passports from time to time. The case of Mrs. Prevost is a good case study because it is particularly well documented. Before the war, John Prevost was a merchant at Middletown Point (present day Matawan). Based on the testimony of an informer, William Sands, John Prevost was in the Loyalist association led by the wealthy and openly disaffected Kearney family. John Prevost went behind British lines some time in 1777 but, as with many Loyalist families , John’s wife stayed home—likely an attempt to maintain the family estate. The wife was either Mary Prevost or Ana Prevost, both of whom appear in the Middletown tax rolls (showing that they did, in fact, keep at least some of the family estate). Advocacy to Send Mrs. Prevost to New York Colonel David Forman of Manalapan was George Washington’s best source of intelligence on British naval movements at Sandy Hook. His reports during the Yorktown Campaign in fall 1781 were circulated among civil and military leaders in the Continental government. This likely raised Forman’s stature with national leaders, despite his leadership of an extra-legal vigilante society and past disputes with New Jersey leaders . With his value demonstrated, Forman proposed a scheme to give a passport to Mrs. Prevost to visit her Loyalist husband in New York. Passes were previously granted to allow the families of captured soldiers to visit their kin and exile Loyalist women to New York. But allowing a woman to visit her Loyalist husband in New York and return was highly unusual and fraught with risks. The woman might carry valuables to New York and might provide intelligence on local defenses to an vengeful enemy still launching raids into Monmouth County. For Forman, sending Prevost was not an act of mercy. He would require Prevost to make contact with one of Forman's informants in New York and pay the informant for past and pending services. It would also be an opportunity for Prevost to settle an old debt and bring valuable British currency out of New York into New Jersey. In one of his intelligence reports to George Washington, on February 23, 1782, Forman made his pitch: Application has been made to me for assistance in procuring a permission for a lady [Mrs. Prevost] and her friend to go into New York for the purpose of receiving a large sum of money that has lately been left to her and is in the hands of David Matthews, Mayor of New York. I objected to the Gentleman who [was] proposed to go in with her, and proposed one whose character I am well assured of, and from whose acquaintance with New York and abilities I think considerable advantages may be drawn from him when he returns. Forman then requested the passport. The sensitivity of the request was underscored by Forman deliberately omitting the name of Prevost’s proposed travel companion: If your Excy thinks proper to grant the permission, beg it will be for Mrs. Prevost and Mr. [---blank---] to go into New York and settle Mrs. Prevost's accts with David Matthews, Esq., and to return with such sums of money as she may receive on settlement. Your Excy will I hope excuse my leaving a blank for the gentleman's name. I will be answerable for this person and he shall in wise not operate against the interests of any of these United States. Of course, I would have them go off & return by way of Elizabethtown Point. On February 28, Washington deflected Forman’s request to Governor William Livingston: I have made it an invariable practice not to give permissions for any citizens to go within the Enemy's lines without liberty first obtained from the Executive of the State to which they belong. I must refer the persons mentioned in your letter to the civil authority for that purpose. Upon thus obtaining such permission, there will be no difficulty in getting passports to pass & repass our guards on the lines. Forman promptly went to Livingston, but Livingston also turned down Forman’s request. He cited the poor track record of New Jersians previously sent to New York to recover funds. The Governor wrote: As to Mrs. Prevost, the rule I have been obliged to prescribe to myself from experience, & which fidelity of the State I am obliged to abide by is to refuse passes to all persons who apply to go into the enemy's lines on pretense of obtaining money due to them, unless I am previously satisfied by probable evidence that they will succeed, which I believe not one in twenty ever did. Livingston also worried that passports issued to disaffected persons frequently abetted illegal trade across enemy lines—a topic discussed at the end of this article. Despite his suspicions, Livingston left the door open to concurring with the passport if Washington supported issuing it as a military matter. So, Forman wrote Washington again on March 5. This time, Forman stressed the military intelligence value of sending Prevost: Had I considered it a mere matter of civil resort, I should not have inserted myself so considerably in obtaining permission. Neither would I have given your Excy trouble on the occasion had I not the fullest assurance of being able to obtain a very good acct of the enemy's situation and intentions from the gentleman who shall be engaged to attend Mrs. Prevost. Forman also explained why he was troubling Washington with the request again after being directed to Livingston: “The Governor, in his answer, says it is a matter of military resort and refers me to your Excy." Interestingly, Forman alluded to a more permissive time when he was apparently given several blank passports. He wrote that he had "formerly been granted [passports] with blanks for the names to be filled in.” Forman “had not been informed of these being disallowed at this time." Washington remained unconvinced, writing on March 7: Exclusive to the objection I have to the establishment of a precedent for granting passports to citizens without the interference of the authority of the State to which they belong, I think the circumstance of my deviating from a fixed rule might in the present instance be an occasion of suspicion to the enemy & frustrate the ends you have in view. I cannot therefore consider it advisable or consistent with the line of conduct I have addressed to grant the passport in question. However, Washington did not want to disappoint Forman, on whom he relied for important intelligence. So, he made a conciliatory gesture to Forman: “I have written to Governor Livingston on the subject.” The general promised to go along with Livingston’s decision “if there are no particular reasons of policy operating against it." A note in the published George Washington Papers suggests that Livingston approved the plan for Mrs. Prevost on March 8 and the Continental Army presumably let Prevost and her companion pass to New York. The results of Prevost’s trip to New York are unknown, as are Forman’s full motivations for advocating so diligently to send her. The Connection between Passports and London Trading Livingston’s concern that Prevost’s trip would contribute to illegal trade was well grounded. John Prevost was active in illegal trading between New York and Middletown Point in 1777 before he went over to New York. And, while the Governor could not have known it when he wrote Forman, John Prevost remained involved in illegal trading while in New York. In a clandestine letter between New York and Monmouth County, William Hartshorne, a disaffected Quaker , discussed Prevost to “John Steady” (likely an alias). Hartshorne wrote that a London Trader operating under the alias “Thom Druid” had brought valuables across enemy lines from "Burke, Prevost & c.” Hartshorne wrote with satisfaction that “we find it has happily got over, we congratulate you thereon." Livingston’s concern over a passport enabling illegal trade can be seen in his handling of another Monmouth County passport request a month earlier. In January 1782, the Governor exchanged letters with Monmouth County’s three delegates to the Assembly (Thomas Henderson, John Covenhoven, and Thomas Seabrook). They wanted Livingston to grant a passport to Major John Cook of Toms River whose brother, Thomas Cook, had been held prisoner since 1777. Cook wanted to bring his brother a variety of goods lacking in New York including foodstuffs that fetched a high price from British commissaries. Livingston noted that Continental officers were granted passports for similar reasons: “Those under the direction of the Continent go often." He granted Cook a passport: In virtue of your recommendation of him as having been of humane & beneficent to our prisoners, I have cheerfully given him a pass for his family, with all their apparel and hard money they may bring. But he denied the request for Cook to bring provisions, "I cannot think it my duty to oblige Mr. Cook in a permission to bring over those goods.” It must be wondered if Forman had an unstated ulterior motive for sending Prevost to New York. If Prevost returned from New York with money owed her, might Forman have stood to benefit in some way? Perhaps she owed him money that could only be paid if she recouped money from New York. In 1783, Forman proposed a scheme to extract specie from New York via illegal trade; perhaps Prevost’s trip had a similar, unstated purpose. Related Historic Site : Fredericton Region Museum (Canada) Sources : David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence, February 23, 1782; George Washington to David Forman, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence, February 28, 1782; William Livingston to David Forman, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 16, February 29, 1782; David Forman to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, p 384 note; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence, March 7, 1782; John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 24, pp. 46-7 notes 63-5. Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 83, February 3, 1782 and March 5, 1782; George Washington to David Forman, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence, March 7, 1782; William Hartshorne to “John Steady” (alias?), Hartshorne Family Papers, MCHA, box 2, folder 19; William Livingston to Thomas Henderson, John Covenhoven, and Thomas Seabrook, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 367-8; Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, unpublished manuscript at the Monmouth County Historical Association. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Mission to Disable the Sandy Hook Lighthouse by Michael Adelberg Maj. William Malcolm of New York was dispatched to Monmouth County to disable the Sandy Hook Lighthouse. He was accompanied by Col. George Taylor of Middletown. - March 1776 - In early 1776, American leaders learned that the British were preparing to invade New York. The lighthouse at Sandy Hook, including its keeper, Adam Dobbs, and its pilot, William Dobbs (brothers), played important roles in guiding British ships into New York Harbor. They had already stopped at least one British ship from reaching New York. While the Sandy Hook lighthouse was a great source of pride for Americans, sober leaders understood that it now had to be disabled. On March 4, the New York Provincial Congress dispatched Major William Malcolm to New Jersey to disable the lighthouse. His orders read: You will endeavor to take the glass out of the lantern, and save it if possible; but if you find it impracticable, you will break the glass. You will endeavor to pump the oil out of the cisterns into the casks and bring it off; if you should be obstructed in your task by the enemy, you will pump it on the ground. In short, you will use your best discretion to render the Light House entirely useless. Malcolm’s complete order is in the appendix of this article. He landed at Middletown on March 7 and met with Middletown’s Committee of Observation. He was soon joined by Colonel George Taylor, the township’s senior militia officer. Malcolm and Taylor reached the light house on March 8 and acted. The New York Provincial Congress recorded: Mr. Hobert informed the Congress that Major [William] Malcom, who was sent to dismantle the light-house, was returned and had executed that matter effectually, with the assistance of Col. George Taylor and some of his men; that Major Malcom found it impossible to take out and save the glass, as well as for want of tools as by reason of the time necessary for that purpose, and was therefore obliged to break it; that Major Malcom had delivered the lamps and oil, two tacklet falls and blocks, removed from the light-house to Col. George Taylor and taken receipt for the same, which was read and file. Colonel Taylor was left with the taken items, and he provided Major Malcolm with a receipt: Received from William Malcom eight copper lamps, two tackle falls and blocks and three casks, and a part of a cask of oil, being articles brought from the light-house on Sandy; Hook;, and which I will deliver to him, or to the order of the Provincial Congress of the Colony of New- York, when called for. – George Taylor, Colonel On March 12, the New York Provincial Congress reported to George Washington about the Malcolm-Taylor mission: Major Malcolm, who was sent to dismantle the Light-House, he was returned and had executed the matter effectively, with the assistance of Col. George Taylor and some of his men; that Maj. Malcolm found it impossible to take out and save the glass, for want of tools and by reason of the time necessary for that purpose, and was therefore obliged to break it; that Major Malcolm had delivered the lamps and oil, two tackle falls and blocks, removed from the Light House, to Col. George Taylor and taken receipt of the same. A week later, the New York Provincial Congress asked Taylor to deliver the oil to Malcolm, which was presumably done. But Taylor remained in possession of the hardware taken from the lighthouse. Curiously, no surviving document about this action mentions Sandy Hook’s resident pilot, William Dobbs, his brother and lighthouse keeper, Adam Dobbs, their servant, or the boats at Sandy Hook maintained to row out to ocean-going vessels in need of his guidance. At first blush, the Malcolm-Taylor expedition achieved its objective without any difficulties. But, based on future events, the expedition can only be regarded as a failure. While they had the chance to truly cripple the lighthouse, Malcolm and Taylor only removed a handful of replaceable parts and supplies, and they apparently did nothing to the pilot house, outbuildings, or boats that were all necessary to stationing men on Sandy Hook. Perhaps the timidness was because the Americans envisioned using Sandy Hook for their own purposes soon again or perhaps they were reluctant to destroy American property. Either way, the Malcolm-Taylor mission was not sufficiently destructive. Only one month later, the British Navy landed on Sandy Hook and occupied it for the rest of the war—the British would hold Sandy Hook into 1784, longer than any other piece of the rebelling Thirteen Colonies. The light house remained unusable at least through the end of April. The British constructed a beacon 1,000 yards from the lighthouse and burned fires nightly until the light house was repaired. A naval officer at Sandy Hook wrote on April 29 that "the lantern was totally destroyed by the Rebels on the 10th of March, which rendered the Light House useless to navigation." The lighthouse was in reasonable repair by the time the British invasion fleet arrived at the end of June. An attempt to drive the British from Sandy Hook failed . George Taylor, who would turn Loyalist toward the end of 1776, returned the taken hardware to Sandy Hook later that year. Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Appendix: William Malcolm’s Orders to Disable the Sandy Hook Lighthouse To Major Malcolm: SIR-The Provincial Congress of this Colony having appointed us a committee to concert measures for carrying into execution their resolve of the 5th inst. for the dis- mantling the light-house at Sandy-Hook; we, reposing especial trust and confidence in your abilities and zeal in the common cause, have made choice of you for the execution of that important enterprise. We enclose you a certified copy of the resolve for the purpose, and desire you will conform, as nearly as may be, to the strict letter thereof. You will please call upon the committee of Middletown, or such other place in New Jersey as you shall judge proper, for the assistance you think necessary. Upon your arrival at Sandy Hook, you will endeavour to take the glass out of the lantern and save it if possible; but if you find it impracticable you will break all the glass. You will also endeavour to pump the oil out of the cisterns into casks and bring it off; but you should be obstructed by the enemy, or not be able to procure casks, you will pump it on the ground. In short, you will use your best discretion to render the light-house entirely useless. –Pierre Van Cortlandt, Abraham Lott, John Sloss Hobart Sources : Anonymous, "Sandy Hook Light-House," American Historical Record, vol. 3, 1874, p 510-1; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 4, pp. 194-5; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 4, pp. 307-8; Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the state of New-York : 1775-1777, 2 vols., (Albany : Thurlow Weed, printer to the State, 1842) v. 1, item 348, 354, and 367; Lopez, John. “Sandy Hook Lighthouse.” The Keeper's Log, Winter, 1986, p 5; Peter Force, American Archives, v6: 1416. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Pine Robbers Defeat Militia at Cedar Creek by Michael Adelberg On December 27, 1782, Burlington County militia were attacked by Pine Robbers at the tavern at Cedar Creek. After a bloody skirmish, the militia retreated. But they would return four days later. - December 1782 - In December 1782, the Revolutionary War, as a military event, was over in most of the United States. However, the Jersey shore between Toms River and Little Egg Harbor was a glaring exception. Illegal trade with the British continued to flourish and conflicts occurred when London Traders and privateers came upon each other. More violent was the Pine Robber gang of John Bacon, which killed and wounded 21 militia in nighttime attack on October 25 and then seized a vessel and skirmished with privateer sailors on December 15. Earlier in the war, Bacon and his colleague, William Davenport, commanded parties as large as 70 as men, but it appears that the size of Bacon’s gang had dwindled to less than half that size by late 1782. However, Bacon operated along the lower Monmouth shore (Stafford Township) and Little Harbor Township of Burlington County where he was generally supported of disaffected locals . With local assistance, his smaller parties remained capable of defeating local militia. The “Battle” of Cedar Creek in Newspapers and Letters On January 8, 1783, the New Jersey Gazette reported on Bacon’s skirmish with Burlington County militia. The “battle” occurred at Cedar Creek in Stafford Township on December 27: Captain Richard Shreve of the Burlington County light-horse and Captain Edward Thomas of the Mansfield militia, having received information that John Bacon with his banditti of robbers were in the neighborhood of Cedar Creek bridge, collected a party and immediately went in pursuit of them. The report stated that Bacon's men had "the advantage" of holding better ground, but the militia bravely attacked anyway: It was nevertheless determined to charge them, the onset of the part of the militia was furious and opposed by the refugees with great firmness for a considerable time, several of them having been guilty of such enormous crimes as to have no expectation of mercy should they surrender. They were nevertheless at the point of giving way when the militia were unexpectantly fired upon from a party of inhabitants near that place who had suddenly come to Bacon's assistance. This put the militia in some confusion and gave the refugees time to get off. The militia had one man (William Cook) killed and one more (Robert Reckless) fatally wounded. Bacon’s party lost one man (Ichabod Johnson). Bacon and three other Pine Robbers were wounded. Seven locals were taken prisoner for assisting Bacon and lodged in the Burlington County jail. The militia also took a "considerable quantity of contraband and stolen goods in searching some of the suspected houses and cabins on the shore." The New York Gazette printed the same report. Colonel Israel Shreve, leading the Burlington County militia, wrote Governor William Livingston on the skirmish at Cedar Creek the day after it occurred. His report mirrors the newspaper account, but provides additional information on militia party: This evening a party of horse and foot returned from several days search for Bacon and party. Our party consisted of six horsemen and twenty foot... The party returned by way of Cedar Creek Bridge in Monmouth County. Shreve also noted that it was Bacon’s men who showed themselves to the militia, ready for a fight: “While refreshing at a tavern, Bacon and his party appeared at the bridge.” The “Battle” of Cedar Creek in Veteran’s Pension Applications A handful of militiamen submitted veteran’s pension applications that included narratives of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Benjamin Shreve recalled the battle and his return to Cedar Creek in January: This affirmant was engaged in the Battle of Cedar Creek on the 26th of December 1782, in which battle William Cook was killed and Robert Reckless mortally wounded, of which wound he did on 8th day of January 1783. This affirmant had his horse wounded in the neck, his pistol butt broken, and the flint knocked out of his carbine. After this engagement, he returned home, procured another horse and with 18 of his company returned immediately to Cedar Creek, which was about 40 miles distant, there to take care of the said Robert Reckless and guarded him from the Tories and refugees about that neighborhood. While out raising provisions for his guard in January, Shreve observed that “the left leg of the affirmant’s pantaloons which was quite bloody.” He recalled: Upon examination, this affirmant had by some means unknown received a wound immediately below the knee pant from which the blood was freely flowing. Doctor Swain, the physician, who had charge of the wounded soldier, put a plaster on the wound which became so much inflamed that this affirmant was unable to perform military duty. When Reckless died on January 8, Shreve’s party returned home with the dead man’s body. William Potts also recalled the battle at Cedar Creek vividly: We were attacked by the Refugees on a long, open causeway with a deep morass on each side. The enemy was posted in the thick woods and brush at the far end of the causeway. They fired on us and shot down two young men who were mounted, one dead, and the other mortally wounded. We brought them off and retired on the count of the disadvantage of our position, leaving them (the enemy) in the possession of the ground they occupied. Like Shreve, Potts reported on the return to Cedar Creek in January: In one week afterwards we returned with a strong re-enforcement, and secured the woods and swamps from Egg Harbor to Toms River, but could find no trace of them - We took about twenty of the disaffected (not in arms) prisoner, and lodged them all in jail at Burlington for trial. William Sutton recalled additional details about the skirmish, stating that, in addition to Cook and Reckless dying, a handful of militiamen were wounded: “Thomas Salter, Thomas Cook and Samuel Beakes and others from the militia were wounded." Four days later, Sutton was back on the shore where he "assisted in capturing Thomas Bird, who was a very desperate and active refugee who had been a terror of the countryside" and also captured some of Bacon’s men, "Holmes and several others." Sutton stated that his company was "kept in a constant state of alarm" by Bacon whose "daring and cruelty" and leadership of "numerous bands of Wood Rangers, Tories and Refugees" terrorized the shore from "Burlington [County] to Toms River." Bird’s capture is discussed in the appendix of this article. Abner Page wrote of marching “from Slawtown through Burlington County into the pines of Monmouth County in pursuit of the Tories and refugees, came upon them at Cedar Creek Bridge.” He recalled: Here we had an action in which we lost one man killed, Sergeant Cook, one mortally wounded, Robert Reckless, who died shortly after. Bacon, the leader and commander of the enemy, was wounded but got off, was sometime after killed and fell into our hands. I still continued under Captain Shreve, scouring the Pines and along the shore, in pursuit of the enemies, refugees & robbers who were constantly committing depredations on the inhabitants - burning, robbing & stealing horses and driving off their cattle. John Salter recalled that, “He marched with the said company to the head of Wood Swamp in the County of Monmouth to arrest some London Traders.” Shortly after that, he went out again: He again went out with the said troop under Captain Richard Shreve to Monmouth County to repel an incursion made by the Tories and refugees, and at a skirmish at Cedar Creek Bridge between the Jersey militia composed of a company commanded by Captain Edward Thomas equipped both to act as cavalry and infantry. William Newberry briefly recalled that he was at Cedar Creek and that "the skirmish lasted about two or three hours and night came on, so that the refugees got to go to their boats." Perspective David Fowler, who comprehensively studied Bacon, notes that after the skirmish at Cedar Creek, colonels Israel Shreve of Burlington County and David Forman of Monmouth County exchanged recriminations. Shreve charged that the Monmouth militia should have long since disarmed the Tories of Stafford Township; Forman countered that Shreve was unable to control the land that his militia was assigned. In reality, neither the Monmouth nor Burlington militias were negligent. Pine Robbers were comprised of and supported by disaffected locals in a region that had never been effectively-governed by or supportive of the Continental cause . Pine Robbers laired in salt marshes that negated land approaches from horse and artillery. Defeating the Pine Robbers and quelling unrest in the lower shore region posed formidable political and military challenges for New Jersey’s leaders. These challenges could not be overcome by the occasional marches of militia companies from outside the region. However, Bacon’s attack at Cedar Creek was a Pyrrhic victory for the Pine Robbers. They lost several men (killed or captured). Bacon was wounded and two of his key comrades, Ichabod Johnson and Thomas Bird, were killed. While the Pine Robbers won the day on December 27, militia returned a few days later and faced no opposition when they did. Bacon would never again have the strength to stand against a militia party. Historians disagree about when and where the last battle of the American Revolution was fought. Yorktown was the last formal battle between the Continental and British armies; battles between Great Britain and France continued to be fought on other continents for nearly a year after Cedar Creek; skirmishing between American frontiersmen and Native Americans continued well into 1783. But some historians have pointed to the fight at Cedar Creek as the last battle of the Revolutionary War. A reasonable argument can be made that it was. Related Historic Site : Cedar Bridge Tavern Appendix: The Capture of Thomas Bird Historian David Fowler, who studied the Pine Robbers exhaustively, concludes that Thomas Bird and his brother, Richard Bird, were both notorious Pine Robbers. Richard Bird, served in the New Jersey Volunteers early in the war. He was stranded at Barnegat (likely while London Trading), and was apparently captured and jailed for a year. Antiquarian sources suggest that he lived in a cave near Cedar Creek late in the war and escaped capture more than once. According to an antiquarian source, Richard Bird was killed while in a cabin with a woman. The woman may have set him up, as she was "rifling the dead man's pockets within seconds of his death." Postwar veteran’s militia narratives do not corroborate these details about Richard Bird’s death, but do establish that he was Pine Robber hunted down by state troops in 1781. Court records provide a more documentation of the robberies of Thomas Bird. He was indicted before Monmouth County Court of Oyer and Terminer for grand larceny in October 1782 (along with Elisha Bennett). The indictment read: “Thomas Bird, late of the Township of Dover, laborer, and Elisha Bennett, late of the same, laborer, with force of arms" took "one certain whaleboat of the value of three pounds and the goods and chattels of one John Chadwick" which Bird and Bennett "did feloniously steal, take and carry away." Bird and Bennett pled not guilty. Thomas Bird either escaped from prison or was paroled prior to sentencing. We know this because he committed another robbery on November 15, 1782. According to David Fowler, Bird was captured in a combined Burlington and Monmouth militia campaign to take Bacon in January 1783 (following the Battle of Cedar Creek). The militia also captured one of Bacon’s trusted boatmen, Jo Crumill, during this campaign. Bird was indicted for an additional robbery at the next Monmouth County Court of Oyer and Terminer, in July 1783 and again pled not guilty. The indictment read: "Thomas Bird, late of the Township of Dover" on November 15, "with force of arms… in the dwelling house of Abraham Platt… feloniously did make an assault" on Platt "and endanger his life." In addition, Bird "did feloniously put one watch chain of the value of four schillings, one blanket of the value of five schillings, and one small whaleboat of the value of three pounds.” There is no record of Bird’s sentencing. Sources : Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, January 15, 1783, reel 2906; New Jersey Gazette, January 8, 1783, reel 1930; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p212-3; Howard H. Peckham, ed, The Toll of Independence: Engagements and Battle Casualties of the American Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), p 98; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Newberry; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Benjamin Shreve of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 16273690; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Potts; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of William Sutton of NJ, National Archives, p37-9; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Abner Page of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 25889537; Contained in: National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Salter of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 14666904; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 265-7; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) pp 169-70 and 268-9; Kobbe, Gustav, The Jersey Coast and Pines. (Gustav Kobbe, 1889) p 70; Signed by Grand Jury Foreman -- Monmouth Court of Oyer and Terminer, NJ State Archives, #33983; Elisha Walton, Foreman of the Grand Jury, Monmouth Court of Oyer and Terminer, NJ State Archives, #33980. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Monmouth Countians Capture British Ship by Michael Adelberg Contemporary photo of a beach at Barnegat. The British sloop likely grounded off of an uninhabited beach similar to this one. - October 1775 - Throughout 1775, a steady stream of British supply vessels sailed the Atlantic Seaboard with provisions for the British Army. The Monmouth shore, with its proximity to New York City and prevailing winds, became a common place for British ships to make landfall. These ships, made less agile by heavy cargoes and punished from storms, frequently grounded along the unmarked Monmouth shoreline and in its narrow inlets. It was one of these groundings that created the first opportunity for the Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) of Monmouth County to take their first clear action against the British military. On October 5, 1775, the HMS Viper , made landfall near Barnegat during “a gale of wind.” Warships were frequently accompanied by smaller vessels called “tenders” that ferried goods between the ship and shore. The Viper and its tender beached off Barnegat. The Viper ’s crew threw materials overboard in order to raise the ship and escape the shallows; its tender was not so fortunate. The Viper sailed away, along with most of the tender’s crew. Word of the stranded tender reached Freehold on October 7 and the Monmouth County Committee quickly ordered the militia to capture the tender and salvage the materials thrown overboard. Presumably the next day, a militia party co-led by James Allen of Dover and Asher Taylor of Shrewsbury townships arrived at Barnegat and captured the tender and its three remaining sailors. The New Jersey Provincial Congress recorded the capture on October 11: “A small vessel, supposed to be a tender of a Man of War, was taken near Barnegat with three persons on board… and said persons secured in some safe place in the County of Monmouth." On the 13th, the captured British sailors were deposed by Dr. Nathaniel Scudder of the Monmouth County Committee. Richard Symonds, the senior sailor, testified that the tender was blown off course. He "discovered land, entered Cranberry Inlet being unable to continue at sea on acct of the smallness of the vessel & badness of the weather." Symonds reported that the tender was boarded by Taylor and Allen, who, "finding he belonged to a man of war, insisted upon detaining him & his companions... demanded delivery of their arms, with which they complied and since remained in custody." Five days later, the New Jersey Provincial Congress read a report on the incident and resolved: That it be recommended to that Committee to publish an Advertisement in the Newspapers, describing the Sloop, so that the owner may know where to apply; and that the Men and Arms, found on board the said Sloop, be taken proper care of by that Committee, until this Congress shall give further order. The New Jersey Provincial Congress agreed to receive the three prisoners on January 2, 1776. But Monmouth County Committee Chair, John Burrowes, reported bad news on January 11: “The two lads have gone off, & Mr. Simmonds appears in a very uneasy situation.” Burrowes agreed to transfer Symonds and he is recorded as confined in Philadelphia (with a number of other captured British sailors from other ships) in a Continental Congress document compiled on February 21, 1776. The fate of the two junior sailors is not known. On February 1, the Monmouth Committee of Observation advertised the sale of the beached tender in the New York Journal . The sale would occur on May 1. The ship was described as a 30-foot sloop, tender to the frigate Viper. The Committee gave the rightful owner the option to recover it: "If the original owner shall apply, prove property and pay charges, any day before the first of May next, he may have her again in her present condition.” Absent that, the vessel would be sold. It can be safely assumed that the Monmouth County Committee knew full well that the British Navy would not demean itself by applying to a rebel County Committee (which it did not recognize) for the return of its vessel. With the capture and sale of the tender and detention of its crew, Monmouth County Whigs were now active participants in the still-undeclared Revolutionary War. Bolder captures would soon occur. Interestingly, the two men who led the capture, James Allen and Asher Taylor, would both turn Loyalist during the Loyalist insurrections that occurred a year later. Monmouth Countians would continue to prey on vulnerable British shipping for the next seven years, including captures in December 1775 and January 1776 . Related Historical Sites : New Jersey Maritime Museum Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Coll., State Library Manuscript Coll., #74, 76-77; Dennis Ryan, New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Chronology (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1974) p 24; Peter Force, American Archives, (Force and Clarke: Washington, DC, 1837) Series 4, vol. 3, P1287; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009) pp. 204-6; John Almon, The Rembrancer or Impartial Repository of Public Events, Part I (John Almon: London, 1776), p 339; "Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html ), v3: p 1221, 1227.); Christopher Marshall, The Diary of Christopher Marshall (Amazon Digital Services, 2014) p 48; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 3, pp. 577, 753; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I58, Papers of John Hancock, p 424. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Demise and Sale of the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River by Michael Adelberg Thomas Wharton was Pennsylvania’s Governor (called “President”) in early 1778 when the state determined the Pennsylvania Salt Works were a failure. The state sold the salt works in 1779. - November 1777 - As discussed in prior articles, because of the British blockade of American ports, there was an acute salt shortage in the fledgling United States. Salt was critical for preserving foods—without it, people would starve each winter. In 1776 and 1777, approximately twenty salt works started up along the Jersey shore. The most ambitious of these was the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River, financed by the Pennsylvania government. Though started in summer 1776, the Pennsylvania salt works were still not producing salt in 1777—as other salt works were at least modestly productive. In fall 1777, the British Army defeated the Continental Army at Brandywine and Germantown , and occupied Philadelphia. The Continental Congress fled west to York, Pennsylvania and Washington’s army hunkered down for the winter at Valley Forge. The British navy patrolled the Delaware River. Given the crisis in Pennsylvania and the lack of production at its salt works, it is not surprising that the Pennsylvania government lost patience with its grandiose project at Toms River. Pennsylvania Government Sours on Pennsylvania Salt Works Thomas Savadge managed the salt works. His letter of November 11 to the state’s Council of Safety proved a tipping point. He detailed his continued labor shortage. Specifically, he lacked six carpenters, one smith, one bricklayer, one wheelwright, three cart men, laborers, and two guards who “must go on day and night; one must always be on duty that nothing be embezzled” by untrustworthy laborers . Savadge had further obligated the Pennsylvania government ($3,500) to harvest wood from James Mott's land. And he informed the Council that he sent Daniel Griggs of Toms River to Pennsylvania to collect the funds. Finally, Savadge called for fresh troops to protect the works: “Capt. Sutter's people's time will be up the first of January… should be glad to know whether they leave their arms and ammunition here or not.” Before responding to Savadge, the Council asked Colonel John Cox of Gloucester County (stationed at Little Egg Harbor) to assist them: “We have at length employed the bearer, Mr. Davison, to visit the works and furnish us… with a distinct account of the matters there." James Davison was at Little Egg Harbor and would proceed up the shore to Toms River. Along the way, he could observe other works. Davison’s November 19 orders told him that, upon reaching Toms River, if the Pennsylvania Salt Works lacked salt, he should "purchase [salt], if in his power, from other salt works, as will make up the deficiency." He should also report back to the Council on why the salt works remained unproductive. Finally, Davison was told to keep the mission secret "lest the forestallers should get notice of it." That same day, Thomas Wharton, President (Governor) of Pennsylvania and Chair of its Council of Safety, informed Savadge of Davison's mission. Wharton said that Davison "has directions from the Council to inspect the books and papers relating to the works." Wharton put Savadge on notice: We had reason to believe you would have furnished this State long since with considerable quantities of salt, we have however been most egregiously disappointed and are almost induced to give up the matter and pursue some other method to furnish this State with that article. The Council of Safety next considered the Pennsylvania Salt Works in January 1778. Despite its misgivings, it ordered another detachment to protect its investment at Toms River. On January 16, Commodore John Hazelwood of the state navy was directed to send 30 men to the salt works. The Council wrote Savadge on the same day. Despite "unaccountable delays… it is not the design of the Council to sell the salt works." The Council reminded Savadge of his prediction that the salt works would produce 30,000 bushels of salt a year. It informed Savadge that he would now report to Davison: "he is empowered and instructed to do everything that may be effectual in attaining the much desired end." The Council sent corresponding orders to Davison, noting that the salt works have “not produced any salt, tho' a very considerable sum has been invested.” Davison should “go to the works, take up the management and direction of them as fully and amply as the Council would do were they present.” On February 5, Savadge complained to the Council. Hazelwood's men had not arrived; the works were unguarded. Further, "such men as Commodore Hazelwood could furnish are not the men I want, neither will I pretend to carry on the works with such men." Savadge threatened to quit, "I cannot think of carrying them on any longer, for it is only deceiving the public, myself and my family, and getting an ill name for what I have not deserved." And he was predictably unhappy with Davison: The appointment of Mr. Davison as an agent here can be of no use to me or the works, it will be an additional expense on them and there is no use for such a person here; furnish me with proper men and I will take care of the rest... I think, agreeable to my contract, I can have no superintendent over me, but the Council themselves. Savadge wrote again on April 4. He informed the Council that British-Loyalist raiders had just razed the Union Salt Works at Manasquan (the other large salt works on the Jersey shore). Savadge stated that the raiders were "expected here this morning, but am informed that ye are returned to the Hook, but intend these works a visit very soon." Savadge was still waiting on Hazelwood’s guard and noted that the "the militia under Col Forman [David Forman] were here today" but had left for Manasquan. He complained: I have but a few men at the works, and them going to leave me on the above account -- I have heard nothing of Mr. Davison since he left about two months ago -- am without the cash to pay the people or purchase provisions of which I have no kind, other than the bread & pork -- am not able to make any salt for want of hands. Savadge followed up two days later: "We learnt this morning that the enemy, after leaving Squan, went to Shark River and destroyed the salt works there." He pleaded for a guard: "I apprehend it should be done so immediately, as in all likelihood they will make an attempt to destroy them [the salt works] in a few days." The Council’s response was prompt and unsympathetic. As [for] guards being sent to defend the salt works under your care, there does not appear to be any propriety in it -- these works have been greatly long in hand, and been altogether fruitless. This greatly discourages the Council from pursuing the business any further until they are satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of something effectual being done. The Council would send no additional money until "they are satisfied of the propriety of the disposal of that already issued for that purpose. You are hereby directed to lay your accounts before the Council as soon as may be." Davison was sent back to the salt works in May 1778, and it appears that 20 bushels of salt (a modest amount) were produced that month. The End of the Pennsylvania Salt Works After May, there is a gap in surviving documents until November 25, 1778. Savadge had left Toms River and was in Philadelphia. He offered a weak excuse for not providing the Council with the requested financial records of the salt works: They were sent by a man who said he lived between Reading and Lancaster… [He] promised to deliver them with his own hand to the President [Wharton]. I do not recollect his name but have a copy of the letter I wrote him to the President, which I believe will give his name. On December 7, Savadge wrote to see if the Council might again invest in the salt works or, alternatively, reimburse him for past outlays: If the Council should think proper to carry the works into execution, it will be necessary that a further sum should be granted for that purpose... the sum of five hundred pounds should be sufficient to complete the five pans and carry them on so far as to satisfy your Honor... If on the other hand, the Council should decline carrying on the works any further, I beg they would inform me with whom I settle my accounts. Savadge likely met with the Council. He was again asked for his books and his original contract with the State. Savadge apologized: “I must confess with shame that I have used [the Board] extremely ill by inadvertently imposing a falsehood, by saying I had a copy of articles from Mr. Biddle, I cannot but with the greatest shame account for [them].” Savadge was similarly unable to produce the contract to harvest wood from James Mott. He called on the Council to “appoint a committee of judicious men” to consider “my character, my conduct and my accounts, respecting the works." On December 12, Savadge wrote the Council yet again: I beg your pardon for interrupting you so often, but necessity has no law. I have family in town, and I have not one stick of wood for them to burn nor money to buy any; I have been for almost seven weeks waiting to know when I am able to settle the ration bill and sundry other matters... I beg to know when I am to settle for my family cannot be wanting the necessities of life. It is not clear if Savadge’s account were ever settled; he was dead within the year. On November 5, 1779, the Council issued its last order respecting the Pennsylvania Salt Works: Whereas the Salt works belonging to this State in the State of New Jersey have been attended with great expense and no advantage to the Public, and the manager [Thomas Savadge] being dead, Resolved--that the said works be sold at public vendue. A few days later, the Pennsylvania Packet advertised: “To be sold at public vendue, the salt works belonging to the State of Pennsylvania on Barnegat Bay… These works have been erected on an extensive plan, calculated to produce a great quantity of salt.” They were purchased by John Thompson of Burlington for £15,000, and produced some salt until they were destroyed by Loyalist raiders in March 1782. Some financial records of the Pennsylvania Salt Works survived. They list expenditures for land, equipment, foods, and labor. The records offer no evidence of incoming revenues from salt sales. There are at least two substantial accounting errors noted (credits to Daniel Wilson and James Randolph). The Jersey shore salt works did not bring great wealth to investors. The two large scale works, the Pennsylvania and Union salt works, were less productive than hoped, and then destroyed by the enemy. Smaller salt works were more successful, but many of these were also destroyed. With the entry of France into the war in 1778, the British naval blockade weakened and salt returned to American ports. Salt prices fell; only a few salt works outlasted the war. Related Historic Site : State Museum of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, PA) Sources : Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 237; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, p 763-4; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 6, pp. 16-8; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 6, p 236; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 6, p 398; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 6, p 417; Orders to James Davison, January 16, 1778, in Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 6, pp. 181-2, 186; Thomas Savadge to Vice President Bryan, Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 7, pp. 96-116; Thomas Savadge to PA Council of Safety, Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 7, pp. 96-116; Thomas Savadge to PA Council of Safety, Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 7, pp. 96-116; Pennsylvania Historical Society, Pennsylvania Salt Works Account Books; Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 237; Pennsylvania Council of Safety, Instructions in Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 237; Library Company, Minutes of the Pennsylvania Council of Safety, vol. 12, p160; Minutes of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Theo. Fenn, 1853) vol. 12, pp. 160; The concurrent sale of the Union and Pennsylvania Salt works is in Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 234 and 238; Charles Thomson purchase is discussed in Harry B. Weiss, The Revolutionary Saltworks of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1959) p 44. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Shrewsbury Friends Struggle to Stay Out of War by Michael Adelberg From their meeting house in Shrewsbury, Monmouth’s Quakers struggled to remain pacifists and keep members from participating in the war. They disciplined 31 members, 16 of whom were expelled. - July 1781 - Of all of America’s religious denominations, none were rocked as profoundly by the American Revolution as the Quakers (Friends). The majority of Quakers were pacifists and therefore at odds with a new government that required militia service. A prior article discussed the drive of the Shrewsbury Quakers to abolish slaveholding among Quakers, but the challenge of maintaining their pacifism amidst civil war would prove a more fundamental problem. Most of Monmouth County’s Quakers lived along its Atlantic shoreline and in its western township of Upper Freehold. The Upper Freehold Quakers attended a sub-meeting at Arneytown that rolled into a meeting in nearby Burlington County; those in Stafford Township attended a sub-meeting at Barnegat that rolled into the meeting at Little Egg Harbor. The Atlantic shore Quakers north of Barnegat attended a meeting at Shrewsbury, which included a sub-meeting at Manasquan. Fortunately, the minutes of the Shrewsbury monthly meetings and annual meeting have survived; they offer exceptional information on the activities of the meeting and its members. Grievances Grow among the Shrewsbury Quakers Not every Quaker was against the Revolution (Nathanael Greene, for example, was the most important American general of the war besides George Washington, was born and raised a Quaker). However, it appears that the majority of Shrewsbury Quakers were disaffected by the Revolution. They lived on the military frontier line that separated Continental- and British-controlled areas. A member of the Shrewsbury meeting, Benjamin White, recalled the difficulty of living on military frontier line and the imposition of quartering Continental troops: We were so near the lines that in the fore part of the night we had the British and Refugees, in the morning the American troops. My brother was called a King's Man or Refugee and myself a rebel or friend of the Jersey troops. Col [Benjamin] Ford and Maj [Henry] Lee came. We had to find quarters for the Army. The dwellings for some distance around were occupied by soldiers. We gave up our kitchens and cellars. White’s store at Tinton Falls was sacked during a Loyalist raid, but a more frequent source of Quaker grievance with the New Jersey government was its mandatory militia service. For strict Quakers, even paying fines for non-attendance was tantamount to supporting warfare. As early as February 1776, the pacifism of the Shrewsbury Quakers put them at odds with their local government. At that time, the township committee (acting as proto-government) unanimously warned the meeting to “forebear to pass censure on any person or persons... for acting in conformity in their military stations.” A year later, George Washington complained to Governor William Livingston about "the Quakers and disaffected persons are doing all in their power to counteract our Militia Law." The Shrewsbury meeting compiled reports on Quaker suffering due to the war. An August 1777 report concluded that £207 in fines had been levied against them "chiefly for support of the war & fines for refusal of military service.” Fines were enforced by seizing the goods of Quaker families. A 1779 report totaled up £1040 in fines (and this is before militia delinquency fines spiked in 1780). Equally concerning, “diverse friends were imprisoned, some were discharged, one of which qualified [took Loyalty oath], three continued confined upwards of three months, were fined by the court (though not yet levied) & their persons discharged from imprisonment." Over the course of the war, 31 members of the Shrewsbury meeting were disciplined for participating in the war. This was about one third of the 98 members disciplined during the war. In total, 78 men and 20 women were disciplined for a variety of offenses including marrying outside the faith, drinking alcohol, not attending church, and refusing to free slaves . Summary information on the 31 disciplined men is in the appendix of this article. Offenses related to participating in the war included serving in the militia and otherwise bearing arms, but also included less direct means of participation such as hiring a militia substitute and paying fines militia delinquency. Men were even disciplined for paying money for the return of property that was confiscated as a punishment for militia service. The Shrewsbury Friends did not distinguish between Whig and Loyalist when meting out discipline—members were disowned for supporting either side. Examples of Shrewsbury Quakers Disciplined for Participating in the War In September 1776, John Parker was reported at the Shrewsbury Meeting for “bearing arms.” The meeting sent Joel Borden to counsel him. Parker apologized, but his apology was rejected for “not being so full” and Parker committed a new offense by paying a fine for militia delinquency. Parker offered a second apology in December 1776, which was accepted. In June 1777, the meeting reported that "Parker doth acknowledge that he did hire a man to serve in his place for one month, but does not pretend to justify his conduct and seems disposed to make satisfaction.” In December 1777, Parker apologized for paying militia delinquency fines and hiring a militia substitute. Despite his many transgressions, Parker remained in the meeting. (A second John Parker was also disciplined.) In April 1777, Jacob Woolcott was brought before the Shrewsbury meeting and issued an apology: I hereby acknowledge that I did once ride in company with some military men who was on the business of taking prisoners & collecting arms, for which conduct I am really sorry, and do fully condemn the same. A year later, in June 1778, Woolcott again ran afoul of the meeting. It was reported: "Jacob Woolcott paid a sum of money for a man to go into military service, and since that matter has come against him for playing cards." Yet again, in August 1778, he was reported for "leaving his home for military service." Woolcott was given the opportunity to apologize, but apparently declined to do so. In January 1779, he was disowned by the Shrewsbury Friends. He went on to serve as a Lieutenant in the state troops . John Lawrence (son of William) went down the same path as Woolcott. In January 1779, he came before the Shrewsbury meeting: "I consented that a man should purchase my property when taken for a fine for not going into military service." In March 1780, Lawrence was again reported for "fighting formally and has bore arms in a hostile way, has left his habitation and gone where he cannot easily be treated." In March 1780, Lawrence was disowned by the Shrewsbury Meeting. In December 1779, and again in January 1780, the Shrewsbury Friends moved against three Pine Robbers who had previously been members of the meeting. In December, it was reported that: John Worthly and Joseph Hulletts have left us, and been concerned in bearing arms in a hostile manner, and as such practice is directly contrary to our principles & our profession, we think that for the reputation of our Society to disown them from being members. Another Pine Robber, Reap Brindley, was reported to the meeting in January 1780: "Richard [Reap] Brinley has bore arms & continues to do so, is profane in conversation and frequents places of deviation." Obadiah Tilton was sent to counsel him. In May, Tilton reported that his counseling had “no effect” on Brindley. Reap Brindley was disowned. In July 1781, the Shrewsbury Friends moved against three members concurrently. At a prior meeting, it was reported that James Tucker "has taken up arms, and [is] frequent in using vulgar and corrupt language." In July, it was reported that Tucker was still “bearing arms”; he was disowned. At the same time, Wiliam Corlies was disowned for bearing arms. However, a third member of the meeting, Richard Lawrence apologized to the meeting: "I am sensible that I have done wrong in traveling without a certificate, in bearing arms in the militia, and in committing fornication with a woman who is now my wife." He was permitted to remain in the meeting. Shrewsbury Friends Struggle to Comply with New Jersey Law In addition to disciplining individuals for not turning out for militia service. The Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meetings tracked the fines accrued by members. The first such report was compiled in July 1777; at the time, Friends had incurred L416 in fines "chiefly for not bearing arms & paying taxes for supporting a war against the Government." The report also noted that three members had been jailed. In January 1780, a committee of Edmund Williams, Robert Hartshorne and William Smith considered petitioning the New Jersey Assembly with respect to accumulating militia fines. The committee concluded: We do not at present find any matter wherein we can apprehend we can be useful - the laws, we think, is not so vigorously executed as heretofore, therefore [it is] our opinion that an application to those in power will not be of any good purpose. In October, a new committee comprised of Benjamin Woolcott, Jonathan White, William Tilton and George Parker reported that, "they have drew up a remonstrance against the oppressive conduct of those in power & presented it to the Assembly, who informed the Committee that the principal law discussed in their remonstrance expired at the close of the last session of the Assembly." The petition is noted in the minutes of the New Jersey Assembly, which recorded on November 8: Setting forth that the militia bill now in force, more especially that passed sixteenth day of June last, proves very grievous in the manner they have been executed against some of the persons belonging to the meeting, and praying relief. Loyalty oaths posed another problem for Quakers, whose religious principles made the act of taking an oath impermissible. So, the New Jersey government permitted Quakers to take an affirmation instead of an oath. Affirmations commonly included qualifying language such as "as far as consistent with my religious principles.” By 1778, all New Jersians were required to take an oath or affirmation to the New Jersey government; those who had not taken a Loyalty oath or affirmation (or signed the Continental Association before that) were barred from voting and officeholding. The Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meeting also considered the difficulties associated with Friends crossing enemy lines into New York and returning in Loyalist parties that robbed and plundered . On October, 1781, the combined meetings recorded: As there is a number of young people belonging to the Friends, removed from the verge of this meeting to New York, Long Island & Staten Island, some of whom have been privately returned back & committed acts inconsistent with our peaceable principles & thereby occasioned public scandal on our society, it is desired that Friends should consider whether such persons ought not to be publicly testified against. The outcome of their deliberations is unknown, but the willingness of devout Quakers to testify against former members linked to Loyalist raiding may show a desire to move closer to the New Jersey government toward war’s end. As the war wound down in July 1782, the Shrewsbury Friends finally agreed to pay taxes that supported the military. The Freeman's Journal (of Philadelphia) reported: We hear from Shrewsbury in New Jersey that the society of Friends, who are very numerous in those parts, have lately had a meeting to consider and provide against the ruinous tendency of being distrained on for taxes, as they have been these six years past. They are now consented to pay voluntarily to collectors, as other subjects of that State do. The Letters of the Hartshorne Brothers Letters sent to Richard Hartshorne (living on Rumson Neck) from Loyalist brothers, William and Lawrence, give insight into the views of a prominent Quaker family. In a March 20, 1778, William Hartshorne, in New York, wrote Richard Hartshorne to complain about his private letters being opened: The freedom that has been taken with the private letters of friends, however inoffensive they may be, has deterred me from attempting to convey one to you, but I can no longer refrain from endeavoring to have the satisfaction of hearing from you… At the same time, I seriously declare that I mean not to say one word that may do injury or give offense to any people on Earth. William Hartshorne further worried that he might suffer when his letter was read: The probability of this letter falling into the hands of people who may put meaning to words different from what I write – thought to convey, makes me very careful of what I say and not so particular in mentioning my own affairs as I wish to be. William Hartshorne wrote Richard Hartshorne again on September 19, 1778. This time he cautiously expressed hope of visiting the family. He also discussed affairs in New York and on Sandy Hook: “There has passed some compliments of a cordial sort between the commanding officer at S.H. & shore. I think there would not be much difficulty in procuring permission for being at home a day or two.” He also discussed a debate in New York about withdrawing from Sandy Hook (which would make contact between Loyalists in New York and disaffected in Monmouth County much more difficult): “Have found out that a great Revolution in politicks has been brought about in many little principalities in this neighborhood – from western to eastern – that poor S.H. must be given up.” In March and April 1779, Thomas Meadows (probably an alias used by Lawrence Hartshorne) wrote to R.H. (Richard Hartshorne) about the risk of sending letters to Shrewsbury. He also lampooned the Continental government and Colonel David Forman of Manalapan, a vigorous enemy of the disaffected: As there is considerable risqué in conveying letters, you will not hear from me in that way so often, however, I will sometimes attempt it and, in spite of all the lawmakers and lawgivers from Congresses down to Black David [David Forman], [I] will never call writing my brother corresponding with the Enemy. I think we may write to each other in a way that would not bring either of us into any disagreeable scrape even if they should unluckily fall into the hands of those heroes who, as volunteers, are sworn out to guard & protect or, in other words, to break open & plunder the dwellings of their neighbors. He also wrote of the anguish felt by brothers unable to visit family living across enemy lines: My brother would sometimes in a little boat visit his native shore and perhaps steal home to bless his aged parents with the sight of their son, but, of late, guards very frequently patrol the place of landing, so that my brother cannot without danger of being shot from behind the bushes and other skulking places where the guards often conceal themselves… Is it treason to warn him of this danger? His parents are in terror when they hear of his coming and although they long for nothing so much as to see him, could it be done without distressing his life? Lawrence Hartshorne also insulted unnamed Whig leaders: “I always make it a point to adhere to the spirit of the law immutable and to disregard the vile twistings of knaves & idiots.” As for Richard Hartshorne, he was the Monmouth militia paymaster through much of the war, but his warm contacts with New York Loyalists were discovered and he eventually became a Loyalist refugee himself. Perspective The author’s prior research demonstrates that more than a dozen Monmouth County Quakers served in British forces and even more served in the New Jersey (Whig) militia and state troops. Dozens more likely committed acts that, if detected, would have triggered disapproval from the Quaker meeting. These include assisting armed parties and participating in robberies. The war substantially intruded into the everyday lives of Shrewsbury Quakers. For example, the Shrewsbury Friends celebrated seventeen marriages between 1773-7, but only three from 1778-1783. The number of “witnesses” at these weddings also dropped from an average of 42 before the war, to 32 during the war. The pacifism of strict Quakers placed them squarely at odds with the laws of the State of New Jersey that mandated, among other things, militia service and fines for missing militia service. But in neighborhoods that were mostly ethnic-English, militia laws often went unenforced. This allowed many Quakers to ignore the law without penalty into the 1780s. Ultimately, the government of New Jersey made some concessions to Quaker principles and most Quakers evolved their principles to accommodate New Jersey law. Historian Richard McMaster argued that the requirements of the Revolutionary governments (militia service, loyalty oaths, taxes) pushed devout Quakers toward disaffection. These Quakers did not necessarily support the British, but they could not support a Revolutionary government with policies directly opposed to their principles. McMaster termed these Quakers "passive Loyalists" (to distinguish them from “active Loyalists” participating in the British war effort). Neutrality was the position of these passive Loyalists, as nicely stated by the Yearly Meeting of the Maryland Quakers in 1778: We believe it our indispensable duty to abstain from all wars and contests which have tendency to destroy the lives of men... we cannot, consistent with our religious principles, join with either of the contending parties, being thereby equally restrained from entering into solemn engagements of allegiance to either. Related Historic Site : Shrewsbury Quaker Meeting House Appendix: Shrewsbury Friends Disciplined for Participating in the War (see table 15 ) Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #3792; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel MR-PH 51; 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; Proceedings of the Committees of Freehold and Shrewsbury, Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, First Series, 1846, p 195; George Washington to William Livingston in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, pp. 331, 335. New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 4, May 7, 1777; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Freeman's Journal (Pennsylvania), July 12, 1782; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, Reel MR-PH, 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Letter, William Hartshorne at Edenton, NC, to his brother Richard Hartshorne in New York, March 20, 1778, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Letter, D. B. to Richard Hartshorne, September 19, 1778, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Letter, “Thomas Meadows” to R. H. dated “13th of the 4th Moon 1779. Possibly a pseudonym being used by Richard Hartshorne’s brother William, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Anonymous letter, addressed to R. H., dated “20th of the 3rd Moon 1779.," b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 8, 1780, p 20-21; Information on the marriages of the Shrewsbury Friends is in John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v1, p 306-14; Richard McMaster, "The Peace Churches of the American Revolution", Fides et Historia, v9, Spring 1977, p 8, 20. . Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > British and Loyalist Attack Monmouth County Salt Works by Michael Adelberg Reenactors march in the original green uniforms of the New Jersey Volunteers. Loyalists, including many from Monmouth County, raided Manasquan and destroyed its salt works in April 1778. - April 1778 - When the American Revolution started, the British Navy blockaded American ports. As a result, the new nation experienced a severe salt shortage (essential to food preservation). The Jersey shore was thinly-populated and poor before the war; its sandy soil was ill-suited for farming and the inlets were dangerous and too shallow for large vessels. However, New Jersey’s shallow tidal inlets were ideal for salt making and a dozen salt works sprung up on the Monmouth shore within a year. These salt works were vulnerable to British-Loyalist attack. The importance of salt and protection of the salt works was discussed by New Jersey Governor William Livingston and General George Washington. Livingston wrote in September 1777: “the scarcity of salt is a serious consideration, and has been industriously perverted by our internal enemies.” He lobbied for bills to support and protect the salt works. Washington deemed the protection of the salt works important enough to grant Colonel David Forman a temporary reprieve from joining the Continental Army in the defense of the Delaware River: Am very sorry to hear that the information you have heard on the intent of the enemy to destroy the salt works upon the coast of Monmouth County will divert you from coming to the reinforcement of the Army; but these works are so truly valuable to the public that they are certainly worth your attention. The salt works were also on the minds of American Loyalists eager to punish their former neighbors and disrupt the Continental Army’s food supply. On January 1, 1778, an anonymous Loyalist from Shrewsbury wrote about the salt works owners and their salt works: A great many of them pretend to be friends of the King--perhaps they have sent some provisions to New York and got four times as much as they could get at home, and then they think they can make salt freely & call themselves friends of the Government, but you will judge whether or not they are friends of their own pockets... You know that these works stand near the waterside, that 200 men might destroy them all. In March, General William Smallwood, stationed in Delaware, wrote George Washington about nine Loyalist sailors captured near Cape May. Smallwood interrogated the men and learned of a plan to attack the New Jersey salt works: “They give out their Intentions are to destroy our Salt Works at Egg Harbour, to collect all the Forage adjacent to the River on both Sides.” Historian Arthur Pierce, who studied the New Jersey shore during the American Revolution estimated that the salt works may have produced 2,000 bushels of salt a month at their peak. The most productive salt works on the Jersey shore in April 1778 were the Union Salt Works on the Manasquan River (in present day Brielle). An antiquarian source claims the Union Salt Works contained "no less than one hundred houses" each with 6-10 copper pans and kettles. The largest house was said to be the property of the Continental Congress and was valued at £6,000. Surviving original documents do not confirm these details. The only force assigned to defend the salt works was David Forman’s under-sized Additional Regiment , which Forman, in a blatant conflict of interest, used in 1777 to construct the Union Salt Works. In the resulting scandal , Forman lost command of his regiment; it was sent to the Continental Army camp at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania in late March 1778. The Attack on the Monmouth County Salt Works It was not long before an attempt was made to raze the salt works. The New Jersey Gazette reported on a raid made by roughly one hundred New Jersey Volunteers and forty British regulars: The enemy landed on the south side of Squan Inlet, burnt the salt works, broke the kettles; stripped the beds of some of the people there, who I fear wished to serve them; then crossed the river and burnt all except Derrick Longstreet's. The next day they landed at Shark River and set fire to two salt works... one of the pilots was the noted Thomas Okerson. The report further noted that the raiding party went in three large boats and a war-sloop commanded by Captain Henry Collins of the Royal Navy; they landed at Manasquan on April 5. Captain Boyd Potterfield of the British Army led the landing party, which faced no significant opposition. Potterfield sent his commander, General Henry Clinton, a lengthy report on the raid on April 7: The 5th, about 3 o'clock in the morning, we weighed and at 8 o'clock we anchored off Squan Inlet; after reconnoitering the place from the vessels, we landed at about one hundred yards distance from a salt work, which we immediately destroyed. We then proceeded and most completely demolished a very considerable work on the right of the Inlet, which belonged to the Congress, and is said to have had six thousand pounds--likewise some of the contiguous, but of less consequence—after completing the above, we reimbarked without opposition. Potterfield continued: The same day in the afternoon we anchored off Shark [River]; we landed a party to examine the country, but the wind coming from the eastward occasioned a very high surf, and made it necessary in the opinion of Capt. Collins to re-embark, as he apprehended it would increase, and render it impracticable to get the boats off. We immediately & with some difficulty re-embarked & proceed to the Hook. The dispatch that was necessary in destroying the works prevented our taking an exact account of everything; but there was at least one hundred houses, each containing 8 to 10 kettles and boilers (a great part of which were copper) for the purpose of making salt. We also destroyed a great quantity of beef and bacon, mostly dried, & a great deal of ready-made salt. We likewise destroyed a sloop partly loaded with flour belonging to Boston & a quantity of grain, which we found on the beach. A week later, the Loyalist New York Gazette corroborated this account, but suggested a larger raiding party of "200 of the King's troops." New York’s other Loyalist newspaper, the Gazette and Weekly Mercury , also reported on the raid, adding a detail on the limited damage at Shark River: “The wind coming eastward occasioned such a high surf, they were under necessity of re-embarking, which prevented them from demolishing the salt works there that the rebels had at that place.” Ambrose Serle, a British officer periodically stationed at Sandy Hook, noted the raid on April 7. He wrote, “Two or three small armed Vessels, with Troops on board arrived last night from Egg Harbor, [actually Manasquan] where they had destroyed some Salt Works erected by the Rebels, and other Stores, to the Value of near £30,000, without the least Inconvenience.” After the Attack On April 15, the Pennsylvania Ledger reported on a storm that compounded the damage: The late storm has destroyed many of the small salt works on our shore--with all the salt in them. The night tide was several feet higher than has been known before--a considerable number of horned cattle were drowned on Long Beach and other places. The Long Beach is almost wholly leveled, with but little more than a sand bar left. The furniture has floated out of the rooms of some houses that flood low on the waterside. The inhabitants never saw so distressing a time. The Ledger further reported that the raid and storm had destroyed 100 salt work buildings and further “destroyed immense quantities of salt, beef, salted hams, sides of bacon, corn and hay." However, the high surf at Shark River “prevented them [the raiders] from demolishing those works." On April 9, Colonel Samuel Forman, commanding the Monmouth County militia at Toms River, wrote of the raid and suggested that the Monmouth militia offered some resistance: "15 Mounted militia” under Asher Holmes harassed the raiders’ departure at Shark River. Forman also noted that two booty-laden boats capsized as the raiders hastily rowed into the rough surf. However, Noah Clayton, a militiaman at Tinton Falls, offered a different perspective on the militia’s role: While we lay there, an express arrived stating that the Tories had burned the Squan River salt works, and [we] immediately marched in pursuit of them, but they got into their boats and made their escape, and we returned to the Falls again. News of the raid prompted letters from the leading Continental Army officers near the shore—Colonels David Forman (recently stripped of the regiment assigned to guard the salt works) and Israel Shreve (who gained Forman’s men and now had responsibility of protecting the shore). On April 7, Forman, who had predicted an attack on the salt works, wrote Shreve: I gave orders to the troops to march and were to have gone this morning. Yesterday evening the enemy had landed and destroyed the Union & other salt works; altho' the militia on duty in Shrewsbury had immediately marched to their assistance, they could not get down timely to save them - Col [Samuel] Forman and myself immediately set off in the night and after giving all the necessary orders came down to Toms River and there immediately set off in the assembled militia to reinforce the guard stationed for the protection of [Thomas] Savadge's and other works… They [the raiders] will in all probability return as soon as the militia are discharged. Forman noted that he had left some men under Captain Thomas Marsh Forman at Toms River with the militia to protect the large but non-productive Pennsylvania Salt Works . Shreve then wrote George Washington, exaggerating the size of the raiding party and requesting reinforcements: This moment I received Intelligence that the Enemy has Landed at Squan between 600 & 1000 men, and Distroyed [sic] all the Salt works in that Neighborhood. If your Excy should think proper to send more troops to this Quarter, with Artillery, I Beg for the Jersey Compy of Artillery, at present commanded by Capt: Lt Seth Bowen. Washington did not send Bowen’s company, but forwarded Shreve’s note to the Continental Congress with a cover note of his own: "The enclosure, NJ 2, is the copy of a letter from Colonel Shreve of the Second Jersey Battalion, containing an account of the destruction of the salt and salt-works at Squan." That same day, Washington directed that the men from Forman’s regiment who had just arrived at his camp at Valley Forge to return to New Jersey (under Shreve) where they could be temporarily used to protect the shore. Concurrently, the New Jersey Legislature authorized raising two companies of State Troops (militia paid by the state to serve continuously) to protect the shore. This would be Potterfield’s only foray into Monmouth County, but Henry Collins would lead an even larger raid (against Egg Harbor at the southern tip of present-day Ocean County) six months later. The salt works on Falkinburg Island in Little Egg Harbor were one of his targets. On learning of Collins’s attack, John Cooper, owner of the salt works, wrote his manager: I have just learned that there is an expedition going in towards Egg Harbor and I understand you have a quantity of salt there. I hope you will think as I do and remove it as soon as possible for, depend on it, the works will be destroyed and there should be no time lost. Collins’s Loyalist guide, Lt. Thomas Okerson, would participate in additional raids, including one a year later that razed his home village of Tinton https://www.monmouthhistory.org/250/the-loss-of-tinton-falls Falls . Related Historic Site : Valley Forge National Historical Park Sources : William Livingston to New Jersey Assembly, in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 173, 182-4; George Washington to David Forman, Neilson Family Papers, box 1, folder: Rutgersania, Rutgers University Special Collections; Anonymous Loyalist, quoted in Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 228-9; William Smallwood to George Washington, March 20. 1778, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; The Library Company, Pennsylvania Ledger, vol. 2, Oct. 1777-May 1778; William MacMahon, South Jersey Towns (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1973) p 304; The Revolutionary Salt Works of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton Past Times Press); The Revolutionary Salt Works of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1923) pp. 41-42. John Barber, Henry Howe, Historical Collections of New Jersey (New Haven, Connecticut: n.p., 1868) p351; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 422-3; Harry B. and Grace M. Weiss, The Revolutionary Salt Works of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1933) pp. 41-42; The Library Company, Pennsylvania Ledger, vol. 2, Oct. 1777-May 1778; Online Institute for Loyalist Studies, www.royalprovincial.com : University of Michigan, Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, vol. 33, item 15; Monmouth, Page in History (Freehold: Monmouth County Bicentenial Commission, 1976) p 33; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 2, p 160; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) p 371; Israel Shreve 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. 420–421; Edward H. Tatum, Jr., ed., The American Journal of Ambrose Serle, Secretary to Lord Howe, 1776-1778 (San Marino, Ca.: The Huntington Library, 1940), 282–83. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; David Forman to Israel Shreve, April 7, 1778, University of Houston, Israel Shreve Papers; George Washington to Congress, George Washington, Official Letters to the Honorable American Congress Written During the War between the United Colonies and Great Britain (Boston: Manning & Loring, 1796) v 2, p245; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Noah Clayton. Previous Next