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's Campaign Against William Taylor's Loyalists by Michael Adelberg David Forman’s house in present-day Manalapan survived into the 2000s. His campaign against William Taylor’s Loyalist association occurred in the immediate vicinity of his home. - November 1776 - As discussed in a prior article, Colonel David Forman raised four companies of so-called Flying Camp (short term enlistees assigned to the Continental Army) in the spring of 1776. He then commanded a regiment of men from Monmouth and Middlesex Counties for five months' service during the disastrous New York campaign. With enlistments expiring on December 1 and the Continental Army retreating across New Jersey into Pennsylvania, Forman was permitted on November 24 to take his regiment home to Monmouth County to crush a growing Loyalist insurrection. Forman’s orders from George Washington were broad but explicit: You are hereby ordered to march, with your regiment under your command, into said County of Monmouth, and on your arrival there, you are authorized to apprehend such persons as appear to be concerned in any plot or design against the liberty or safety of the United States, and you are further authorized, immediately to attack any body of men whom you may find actually assembled or in the arms of purposes aforesaid; and if you should find their numbers superior to your force, you have full authority to call in and take command of such a number of New Jersey militia as you may judge sufficient. I would recommend for you to be cautious in proceeding against any but such as you have the fullest grounds of suspicion, and not give the least molestation to the property of any during your march. In order to curb illegal trade between Monmouth County and the British, Forman was also encouraged to move "[live]stock and cattle or provisions... in danger of falling into the hands of the enemy" away from the coast and issue certificates to the owners for “reclamation.” David Forman’s Campaign There is no detailed account of Forman’s weeklong campaign against Monmouth County’s Loyalists, but they pursued their charge vigorously against the Loyalist association of William Taylor of Freehold. Taylor had previously rallied Loyalist-leaning neighbors against the Declaration of Independence and he was now the leader of a simmering Loyalist insurrection. After the war, he described Forman’s campaign and his narrow escape: In November 1776, Mr. Washington detached a regiment from his army, under command of Col David Forman, to take up and secure your memorialist and other friends of Government in Monmouth County, they actually took near 100 of your memorialist's friends and relations, and removed them 200 miles to Fredericktown in Maryland, and there closely confined them in gaol. Your memorialist, getting every intimation of their intentions, was obliged to leave his home and property... after laying concealed for a few days, joined that part of the Royal Army under Lord Cornwallis, on the banks of the Raritan. Taylor attempted to return to Monmouth County in February 1777. He was caught and detained by the Continental Army. But George Washington ordered his release because of confusion over a passport granted him from British authorities under which he traveled. After his detention and release, Taylor settled in as an attorney in the government-in-exile of New Jersey Royal Governor William Franklin. Another Loyalist, John Taylor of Shrewsbury [not the John Taylor of Middletown who was William Taylor’s father] was less fortunate than William Taylor: In November 1776, he was made a prisoner by the Americans, a regt. [under Col David Forman] being detached from Washington's Army to take up the friends of his Majesty's Government in that party of the country, carried to Philadelphia & there confined in close gaol. Similarly, John Wardell of Shrewsbury (a judge of the county court at Freehold and one of the county’s leading citizens) was also arrested by Forman. He was jailed in Philadelphia where he was subjected to, according to his account, “the foulest cruelties.” A few of Forman’s men wrote of the campaign in their postwar pension applications. Samuel Mundy of Middlesex County recalled: The Colonel of the regiment received orders to take his regiment to Perth Amboy & cross over into Monmouth County to disarm certain disaffected persons in that county - immediately after this service he was discharged with the rest by the Colonel, their term of service expired. Isaac Vrendenburgh, also from Middlesex County, corroborated Mundy’s account, “by request of our Colonel crossed over at Amboy and proceeded to Monmouth County where we apprehended a large body of Tories and Refugees, and were then discharged." Two Monmouth County members of Forman’s regiments, David Baird and James Johnson, also recalled the campaign. Baird recalled returning home where his company "made many prisoners of the Tories and sent them to Philadelphia." Johnson recalled that the regiment "took something like 100 Tories… and sent them to Lancaster.” The prisoners sent to Lancaster continued to Frederick, Maryland. Forman only sent a short report on the campaign to George Washington. In it, he noted breaking up a Loyalist ring led by William Taylor. He reported that "[We] took nearly 100 of his friends and relatives, who were removed 300 miles to Fredericktown, Maryland, and there confined to jail. Taylor himself, however, had previously escaped." It is unclear why some of the Loyalist prisoners were sent all the way to Frederick while others remained in Philadelphia. Charles Read’s Campaign Concurrent with Forman’s campaign, the New Jersey Government ordered four militia companies into Monmouth County under Colonel Charles Read of Burlington County (two of the four companies were from Burlington). They were to arrest Loyalist insurrectionaries. Read had led a similar campaign against Upper Freehold Loyalists in July. While Forman seems to have focused on Loyalists in Freehold and Middletown townships, Read made 70 arrests in Shrewsbury Township. A Loyalist newspaper, New York Gazette & Weekly Mercury , reported on Read’s campaign: About 70 men were taken up in Shrewsbury in New Jersey by the rebels and sent as prisoners to the Burlington goal, where they suffer in a very cruel manner; they were paraded through the country, pinioned with ropes around their necks, and often tied to fences like horses, when their leader chose to make a halt. It is possible that Read’s captures were the rank and file of Samuel Wright’s Loyalist Association since two of Wright’s men were captured and named names immediately prior to Read’s arrival. As for Read, the arrest of the Shrewsbury Loyalists was his last act in the service of the Continental cause. An antiquarian source claims that Read and Forman had a tense meeting during which Forman demanded that Read sign a loyalty oath to the New Jersey and Continental governments. Read refused and joined the British shortly after that. Forman’s regiment dissolved on December 1. The regiment would not be available to check the next wave of Loyalist insurrections that would soon flame up in Upper Freehold, Freehold and Middletown , and along the shore . These would be far more formidable than the localized associations toppled by Forman and Read. Related Historic Sites : Fort Frederick (Maryland) Sources : Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Coll. D96, PRO AO 13/109, reel 8 and D96, PRO AO 13/112, reel 10; Jones, E. Alfred. The Loyalists of New Jersey, (Newark, N. J. Historical Society, 1927) p 241. Gregory Palmer, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (Westport, Conn. and London, 1984), p 906. Rutgers University Special Collections, Great Britain Public Record Office, Loyalist Compensation Claims, D96, AO 13/112, reel 12; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Samuel Mundy of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#25890437 ; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 213; John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 6, p 307; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 8, 6 January 1777 – 27 March 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998, p. 467; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - David Baird; Library of Congress, NY Gaz & Weekly Mercury, reel 2904; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 193; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - James Johnson; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p228; William Dwyer, The Day is ours! - November 1776 January 1777: An Inside View of The Battles of Trenton and Princeton (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p 38. 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 Confusing Case of Captain Benjamin Weatherby by Michael Adelberg General John Sullivan consulted David Forman and then cleared the name of Captain Benjamin Weatherby after he was wrongly accused of recruiting Loyalist soldiers in Shrewsbury in 1776. - June 1777 - In order to understand the Revolutionary War and government during this period, it is necessary to remember that norms were lacking and communications were terrible. Lacking the ability to quickly corroborate information, leaders frequently acted based on a single piece of evidence—and the evidence that drove actions was often wrong. Leaders did the best they could under trying circumstances, and, in so doing, often contradicted each other. On June 18, 1777, Governor William Livingston informed George Washington that one of his captains, Benjamin Weatherby, was in detention. Pending further investigation, Livingston had determined Weatherby was a Loyalist, or at least a former Loyalist: I take the Liberty to enclose you a discharge from Capt. Wetherby to one Sharp, a soldier in the service of the United States; and Sharp’s affidavit of his having paid the Capt. 100 Dollars to obtain it. I cannot learn with any certainty to whose battalion Wetherby belongs, but am told that he belongs to Collo. [David] Forman’s. If he was an officer in one of the regiments raised by this State, I should be agreeable to a resolution of Congress of the 14 of April last, have spared your Excellency the trouble of ordering an inquiry in the matter. Livingston leveled the allegation based on a May 23 affidavit from Henry Sharp, sworn before Justice John Sparks of Gloucester County. Sharp swore that Weatherby had enlisted him into the Continental Army and, after Sharp thought better of it, insisted on a bribe to let him out of the enlistment. In Sharp’s own words: “He was inlisted [sic] by Capn Benjamin Watherby [sic] and that he give to said captain [Weatherby] for his discharge the sume [sic] of one hundered [sic] Dowllers [sic].” Livingston had also remembered that in October 1776, Weatherby had participated in raising a company of men from the Monmouth shore for the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers. Were it not for a party of Virginia Continentals (under General Adam Stephen) intercepting Weatherby’s boat on its way to Staten Island, Weatherby would have returned with a British transport and carried the men away. Based on this, Livingston informed Washington that he was detaining Weatherby under guard. Washington promptly forwarded the note to General John Sullivan, Forman’s superior officer in the Continental chain of command. By a lucky coincidence, Forman had just arrived at Sullivan’s camp when Washington’s note arrived. Forman had mustered the Monmouth County militia as part of a 2,000-man detachment that Sullivan would use to harass the British Army as it quit New Jersey. Sullivan discussed Weatherby with Forman and was likely surprised by what Forman told him. The next day, Sullivan politely informed Washington: I have enquired of General Forman. He knows of no Captain Weatherby. There is a person of that name [Henry Weatherby] at Shrewsbury who had orders to enlist the King's troops for the British service -- he enlisted some & was detected & was put in irons by General Stephen last summer, where he remained until about six weeks hence, when the General Assembly of this State released him -- Perhaps, he may since have taken the business your Excellency mentions? Washington did not debunk Livingston’s allegation about Weatherby right away. Although there is no documentation to prove it, it is likely Washington asked a staff officer to make further inquiries about Weatherby. Two things are clear from surviving documents—Captain Benjamin Weatherby’s name does not appear in the muster rolls or other documents of Forman’s Additional Regiment . And his name does appear in the rolls of Oliver Spencer’s regiment—another recently-commissioned New Jersey Continental Army regiment that competed for recruits with Forman. On July 12, Washington informed Livingston: I duly received your favor of the 18th Ult. respecting a Mr. Weatherby, and upon enquiry find, that he has been this long time dismissed from our Service for bad behavior. Colo Forman says he is of opinion that any Men he may have enlisted since, were for the Enemy, as he has been in Irons on that Account. But Washington was only partially correct. While he let the Governor know that Benjamin Weatherby was not a captain under Forman, he did not find out about Weatherby’s service and good standing under Spencer. According to the Society of the Cincinnati, Benjamin Weatherby of Billingsport, New Jersey served under Spencer from February 1777 through January 1781. No bad conduct by Weatherby is noted in his service record. It is unknown how long Benjamin Weatherby was detained, but his good name was eventually restored. His imprisonment seems to be a simple case of mistaken identity. In another remarkable coincidence, Captain Weatherby served under Sullivan and Spencer in a campaign against the Iroquois in summer-fall 1779. In so doing, he likely commanded the remnants of Forman’s Additional Regiment, which had been transferred under Spencer in 1778. As for Sharp and his curious allegation, his motivations are unclear. Perhaps Sharp was settling a score; perhaps he (and Livingston) honestly confused Benjamin Weatherby with Henry Weatherby—the Loyalist recruiter from the Monmouth shore. Either way, an innocent man actively serving his country was detained for weeks because of a single allegation that could have been quickly debunked. Related Historic Site : Morristown National Historical Park Sources : William Livingston to George Washington, in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 357; John Sullivan to George Washington, Sullivan, John, Letters and Papers of Major John Sullivan, Otis G. Hammond, ed. , 2 vols. (Concord, NH: 1930-31) vol. 2, p 394; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw080334)) ; George Washington to William Livingston, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 10, 11 June 1777 – 18 August 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000, pp. 66–67; Various genealogical resources on Captain Benjamin Weatherby of Billingsport, New Jersey. 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 Hanging of Stephen Edwards by Michael Adelberg This sketch shows the hanging of British officer, John Andre, in New York in 1780. Stephen Edwards, the first Loyalist executed in Monmouth County, was hanged from a similar gallows in 1777. - September 1777 - By September 1777, Monmouth County’s Revolutionaries and Loyalists had been in conflict for more than a year. The civility of the early months—in which there were arrests and property confiscations, but no violence—gave way to individualized acts of intimidation and violence at the end of 1776. Armed clashes began in 1777, resulting in combat deaths , long term imprisonments in horrible jails, and scattered acts of gratuitous violence, looting, and arson. But entering September, Monmouth County’s local war had not climaxed to the ultimate act of government-endorsed violence—no Monmouth Countian had been executed. That would change with the capture of Stephen Edwards. The Capture of Stephen Edwards Stephen Edwards was from a middling family that lived near Eatontown in Shrewsbury Township. There is no documentary evidence about his early life and Loyalism. However, by 1777, he was likely part of George Taylor’s Loyalist militia . He was living behind British lines and likely remained in contact with disaffected Monmouth Countians. He returned to Monmouth County during some of Taylor’s incursions . According to a number of local and antiquarian accounts, in September, Taylor sent Edwards into Monmouth County to distribute British recruiting materials. Edwards was staying at his parents’ house when Captain Jonathan Forman arrived with an armed party. Edwards dressed in a nightgown and feigned being an infirmed woman. Forman searched the house and found a soldier’s boots containing an order signed by Taylor—ending the ruse. Jonathan Forman brought Edwards to Freehold where David Forman (a colonel in the Continental Army and general of the New Jersey militia) was raising men to march to Pennsylvania to support the Continental Army in the defense of Philadelphia. The Hanging of Stephen Edwards Using authority allegedly granted to him by George Washington, Forman convened some kind of impromptu tribunal that he chaired. Stephen Edwards was determined to be an enemy spy. It was well known that spies such as Nathan Hale of Connecticut had been hanged by the British. Edwards was sentenced to death and promptly hanged, presumably on October 15. Forman justified the hanging in a letter to Washington that same day: One of my scouts fell in with & took a Tory refugee who had declared his attachment to the Crown early on in our dispute - on search the Gentleman, we found in his pocket a direction to make himself acquainted with the situation of our Army - I immediately ordered a court to call for his tryal [sic] - the fellow confessed to sd paper, and [said] that it was given him by Col. Taylor, the court sentenced him to be hung, which was executed today. Forman’s authority to convene such a tribunal and impose a death sentence is doubtful, but he often exceeded his authority. If Edwards was acting under the orders of a British-commissioned officer, he should have been recognized as a prisoner of war and been imprisoned rather than hanged. Starting in 1778, Governor William Livingston would pardon about half of the men given death sentences in the Monmouth County courts. Forman’s quick hanging of Edwards denied the Governor of this opportunity. Further, Forman reportedly refused to allow Edwards a last visit with his parents who had traveled to Freehold. At the time of the tribunal, Forman was in the process of raising men for dangerous duty with the Continental Army and a crowd was gathering in Freehold for the county’s annual election. Given these exceptional circumstances, it is probable that the Edwards hanging had a performative element to it. Public hangings of notorious Pine Robbers drew celebratory crowds to Freehold later in the war. While many of the details of the Edwards capture and hanging offered above are from antiquarian sources, they are consistent with facts offered in original sources, including Forman’s own letter excerpted above. Another source is the testimony of William Corlies, a Shrewsbury Loyalist, who spoke about Edwards in 1782. He said: Edwards was taken out of his bed at his own house and carried to Freehold; the following day he was brought to some kind of trial, and the day following executed. The offense alleged against him was said to be his having some papers [from George Taylor] found in his pocket. Robert Lawrence, a squire whose daughter, Mary Leonard, ran afoul for Forman further corroborated Forman’s use of extra-legal tribunals: "David Forman do himself a court martial… without following the rules of either martial or common law." Two Loyalist newspapers reported on the hanging of Edwards. The more accurate of the accounts was printed in the New York Gazette : Stephen Edwards, an inhabitant of Shrewsbury… was in consequence of some form of private information, surprised and apprehended by a party of rebel light horse at Shrewsbury a few hours after he landed, going to visit his wife and children. He was with great exultation and triumph hurried up to the rebel headquarters at Freehold, where David Forman, by a kind of court martial, had him tried, condemned and executed in two days. The report concluded: "It will shock the reader" that Edwards was “denied a final visit with his grief stricken family,” but he "behaved to the last moment with a coolness and a steadiness most heroic." The New York Gazette & Weekly Mercury published a less accurate report of the hanging of Edwards: We hear from Shrewsbury that a very young man, very inoffensive in his behavior except in being a friend to the Government, was last week hung up at his father's door, without ceremony, by one Forman, who calls himself of Major, for no other crime than attempting to bring off to this place a few cheeses to this town, where he had been forced to take up his abode; after he had hung for several hours, it was with the utmost difficulty that the relentless murderer could be prevailed upon to indulge his father to permit him to bury his body. In November, the New York Gazette , reported on Forman’s removal as a general in the New Jersey militia and, incorrectly, suggested that the hanging of Stephen Edwards was at cause: We are informed that General David Forman has been removed of his command as a General in the Rebel Army, in consequence, it is said, of a memorial preferred against him by the inhabitants of Monmouth County, New Jersey, which expressed their abhorrence for the monstrous and deliberate murder of Stephen Edwards of Shrewsbury. The wife of Mr. Forman has ever since the above atrocious act been in a state of distraction. Stories about the hanging of Stephen Edwards, no doubt, reverberated within the Loyalist refugee community. The Edwards hanging was discussed several times in April 1782 during the court martial of Richard Lippincott (Monmouth Loyalist) for having hanged Captain Joshua Huddy (Monmouth Revolutionary). It was one of a dozen “Acts of Cruelty and Barbarity ” enumerated by Loyalists to demonstrate the villainy of Monmouth’s Revolutionaries. Further, Loyalists claimed that Captain Huddy played a direct role in killing Edwards. Josiah Parker, for example, testified "that in the year 1780, he took Joshua Huddy prisoner… Huddy did then confess that he had been concerned in hanging Stephen Edwards… he had fixed the rope around Edwards's neck." As much as any other early-war incident, the hanging of Stephen Edwards set the precedent for the kidnappings and murders that characterized the later-war in Monmouth County. Related Historic Site : Nathan Hale Homestead (Coventry, CT) Sources : Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p205; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 182-3; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 6; United Empire Loyalist Association, Loyalist Trails 2017-11, March 12th, 2017 ( https://uelac.ca/loyalist-trails/loyalist-trails-2017-11/#StephenEdwards ); David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 44, October 10 - 16, 1777; Robert Lawrence, Memorial, New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Coll., State Library Manuscript Coll., #129; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 1, p 479; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Deposition, Josiah Parker, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v105, reel 8, #709. 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 > Loyalists Seek to Defend Waters Off Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg Isaac Lowe, Chairing the New York City Chamber of Commerce, sought a vessel to protect the waters outside of Sandy Hook in spring 1781. Neither he, nor the British, found a vessel to do this job. - May 1781 - Early in the Revolutionary War, the British military easily turned aside any threats to their base and ships at Sandy Hook (which they captured in April 1776 ). Troops at the lighthouse, backed by a guardship(s) anchored nearby, easily dispersed land-based attacks in June 1776 and March 1777 . Fortifications constructed and troops deployed in July 1778 made Sandy Hook impervious to a landing by the marines in Admiral Charles Henri D’Estaing’s large French fleet . However, by 1779 the British presence at Sandy Hook was dramatically weaker. Early in the war, the guardship was never less than a frigate and was frequently more than one ship. In 1779, with the British navy now fighting a global war that sapped its strength in New York, the guardship was often a sloop of war (less than half the guns of a frigate). Cannon were taken from Sandy Hook’s shore battery, and troop size dwindled down to a single under-strength company of New Jersey Volunteers . Loyalist irregular raiding parties camped at Sandy Hook intermittently, but did not greatly increase the peninsula’s security. A collection of rebels successfully attacked Sandy Hook—including Captain John Burrowes of Middletown Point and Captain John Rudolph of Henry Lee’s Continental Army dragoons . A company of Loyalists was captured by a privateer on its way to Sandy Hook. On the ocean side of Sandy Hook, New England privateers took dozens of vessels coming in and out of New York. On the Raritan Bay side, local privateers such as William Marriner launched at least a dozen successful attacks against Loyalist vessels “London Trading ” between New Jersey and New York. The large merchant ship, Britannia , and sloop of war, Alert , were taken in separate incidents. Better Protecting Ships Near Sandy Hook Loyalists were exasperated. In March 1781, the Board of Associated Loyalists , a British-tolerated paramilitary group, sought an armed boat to protect the waters around Sandy Hook without success on March 13 and March 20. Details on their attempts to gain a vessel are not revealed. The Associated Loyalists would continue trying to purchase vessels for the next six months before finally succeeding in doing so in September. Isaac Lowe, chairing the New York City Chamber of Commerce, also believed an armed boat was needed to better protect London trading vessels coming into Sandy Hook and fishing vessels off Shrewsbury Inlet (at present-day Sea Bright). On May 1, the Chamber wrote Marriott Arbuthnot, the admiral commanding the British navy in New York: The best cruising ground for the enemy, perhaps in the whole world, is within sight of Sandy Hook… many stout privateers are fitting out in different rebel ports, and that unless effectual measures may be taken to defeat and blast their designs, very few vessels, except of great force, will get safe in or out of this port. The Chamber called for: A couple of last-failing frigates constantly to cruise between Delaware and Block island, and making the lighthouse at Sandy Hook once or twice a week, as the winds might permit, would effectually protect the trade at this port from all invaders. Arbuthnot responded two days later: I have just received the letter you have honored me with, pointing out the necessity of frigates being constantly employed in cruising off Sandy Hook, for the protection of the trade bound to this place, as well as for protecting the fishery upon the banks of Shrewsbury, and to prevent the rebel privateers from making such near approaches to this port as they have lately done, to which they are reported to have met with too much success. The admiral further wrote that British "frigates have not only been cruising almost constantly off the bar, but between Montauk point and the Delaware ...I have detached cruisers off this part of the coast.” Arbuthnot then discussed a prior offer to protect the Shrewsbury fishing banks: With respect to the protection of the fishermen employed on the banks of Shrewsbury, for supplying your market, I cannot help mentioning to you, that early after I took the command on this station, I purchased a vessel, mounting 12 carriage-guns; she was fitted out at a considerable expense; I requested that the city would man her, that I would pay the men, and that her services should never be diverted to any other purpose than giving such protection. My offer was received with a strong degree of coolness. Lowe did not reply for nearly a month. When he did, on May 28, he expressed ignorance regarding Arbuthnot’s prior offer of a boat to protect the fishing banks off Shrewsbury: With regard to your Excellency's request to the city, to man a vessel for the protection of the fishery on the banks of Shrewsbury, the Chamber of Commerce beg to assure your Excellency, that no application was ever made to this corporation upon that subject; or, in all probability, they had taken it up with the same zeal which they doubt not your Excellency will admit they manifested to procure volunteers for manning his Majesty's ships under your command. Lowe promised to man the gunboat if Arbuthnot would again make it available: If your Excellency will be so good as to furnish-a proper vessel, with provisions and ammunition, to protect the fishermen on the banks of Shrewsbury, for the benefit of this market, the Chamber of Commerce will cheerfully exert their endeavors and they doubt not they will be able, in a short time, not only to procure as many men as your Excellency may think sufficient for that purpose, but also raise funds for paying them provided that they shall be discharged as soon as the fishing season is over. It is unknown if Arbuthnot and Lowe ever put the discussed vessel to sea to protect the Shrewsbury shore. The Associated Loyalists nearly did so. On May 21, Daniel Coxe of the Associated Loyalists wrote: You will please to inform the Board that there is now fitting out at this place three large whaleboats in order to protect the trade to you by cruising along the Jersey Shores from Cape May to the Hook, they are now ready to go down. However, as noted above, it appears that these boats never put to sea (or may have put to sea and suffered quick capture rebel privateers). The Associated Loyalists, on July 20, had to again request a vessel from the British navy "to annoy the sea coast southward of Sandy Hook, and check the trade of the Delaware." Meanwhile, the most successful Loyalist whaleboat, the vessel Trimmer , neared the end of its career. According to newspaper accounts in the Loyalist New York Gazette and the New Jersey Gazette , the Trimmer captured a New Jersey galley, Bulldog , and two small sloops on April 21, which it brought into Sandy Hook. This added to its impressive list of captures: "these three makes nine prizes brought into here by the Trimmer in the last month, besides the number destroyed." However, the Trimmer soon met with disaster. On June 13, the New York Gazette , reported that the Trimmer , while returning back to New York, "was overset by means of a sudden gust of wind within sight of the Light House, by which melancholy incident 35 people drowned, the remainder of the crew taken up by some vessels near at hand." The newspaper further reported that “among the saved was Capt. Phillips, the vessel's master.” It appears that Phillips did not return to the dangerous work of privateering. Efforts to Better Protect Sandy Hook Fizzle For all of the letter-writing in spring 1781, there is no evidence that the British navy, the New York Chamber of Commerce, or the Associated Loyalists put a vessel to sea to protect the London Traders or fishermen of the Shrewsbury banks in spring 1781. Lowe again sought British protection for the Shrewsbury Banks fishermen in July 1782, writing the British Admiral: The trade and fishery [off Sandy Hook?] are unprotected, and requesting that some means be pursued to encourage the fishermen to take fish and supply this garrison, and that its commerce may not be annoyed by the privateers and whale-boats that infest even the Narrows. New England privateers continued to prowl the approaches to Sandy Hook and small New Jersey privateers, including the bold Adam Hyler, continued to pluck small vessels off Sandy Hook. The Associated Loyalist vessels (the sloops Colonel Martin and Association , and the brig Sir Henry Clinton ) that finally put to sea in September 1781 had undistinguished tenures. Newspapers do not attribute any captures to them. When the British finally sought to check Hyler and the Raritan Bay privateers in June 1782, their efforts were lampooned rather than feared. The Pennsylvania Freeman's Journal reported on June 19: The enemy have a stout galley stationed near the mouth of the Raritan, and gun boat or two cruizing about the bay, who appear to do little more else then firing now and then upon such rebel oystermen and fishermen as venture too near them. That same month, Congress approved a plan to provide wood and supplies to American prisoners held in New York to build a fishing boat if the British would permit the prisoners to fish the Shrewsbury Banks alongside Loyalist fisherman. It is unknown if his plan was ever fully-executed. For short periods of time, such as May 1780 , British fleets docked at New York and put ships on patrol on the Jersey shore. They took some prizes, and forced rebel privateers to back off. But, for long stretches in between, rebel vessels operated with impunity. The illegal trade between the Monmouth shore and New York was too profitable to be ended by the capture of some Loyalist vessels. London Traders knew the risks they were taking and enjoyed cooperation from locals along long stretches of the largely disaffected New Jersey shoreline. The capture of Loyalist fishermen engaged in peaceful activity, was that much more heart-wrenching for Loyalists. This is the subject of another article. Related Historic Site : New York City Chamber of Commerce (Manhattan, New York) Sources : New York Chamber of Commerce of Marriott Arbuthnot, John Stevens, Colonial Records of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, 1768-1784 (New York: John F. Trow, 1867) pp. 255-81; S.W. to Daniel Coxe, John Austin Stevens, Magazine of American History, 1884, vol 11, p161; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; The Scots Magazine, v43, p 373-5; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Clements Library, Proceedings of the Board of Directors of the Associated Loyalists, March 1781 p. 8-13, August, p. 5, July p. 11, and September 1781, p. 5. 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 Capture of William Marriner by Michael Adelberg William Marriner led two boats with 28 New Jersians to the Brooklyn shore to pick-off vessels trading with New York. Bad weather forced Marriner’s party to land; they were taken by local militia. - August 1780 - In early June 1778, two whaleboats left Middletown Point (present-day Matawan). They rowed through the night, and landed in Brooklyn. The small party, led by William Marriner (along with Captain John Scheck of Middletown) captured two prominent Loyalists and returned with them without any losses. It was one of the more remarkable raids of the war. Operating out of Middletown Point, Amboy, and New Brunswick, Marriner raided Brooklyn again and intermittently attacked and took larger vessels over the next two years. But his string of successes ended in August 1780. On August 3, Marriner headed toward Brooklyn again with a small party (28 men) in two whaleboats. In bad weather, one the boats overturned and the party had to go ashore at Hog Island (near present-day Breezy Point). The Loyalist New York Gazette reported the results: Captain Hicks, of the militia of that place, mustered his company and with a few volunteers in two boats went in quest of them, but the stormy weather prevented their attacking them this evening. About four o'clock the next morning, a smart action ensued, and the whole party of Rebels were taken prisoner. The report claimed that Marriner had been cruising the Brooklyn-Queens shore for fourteen days and “had met with no success." That seems unlikely as Marriner’s party would not have carried enough provisions to be at sea for that long. The report also stated that "there were none killed or wounded on either side; several grape shot went through Captain Hick's jacket." Finally, the report discussed the captured rebels: One of them [boats] was commanded by William Marriner, formerly of this city, but of late a great rebel partisan, prisoners amount to twenty-eight, among them a rebel commissary named Mr. [Alexander] Dickey, who ever had proven a violent persecutor of Royal officers and Loyalists who had fallen in his power. Two men in Marriner’s party discussed their capture in their postwar pension applications. Joseph Vanderveer of Middletown recorded: He volunteered with about twenty other persons on board a boat under Captain Marriner and another boat under Dickey, upon an expedition where they proceeded as far as Rockaway Bay; our boats, together with a sloop we had captured, ran aground, while lying in this situation we were taken prisoner by a part of the British Army and marched across Long Island to a place called White Stone, where we then put on board boats, taken to New York, and imprisoned in the North Church & kept there in close confinement until the latter part of December in the year 1780, when he was again exchanged. Josiah Woodruff of Essex County was also in Marriner’s party. He later recalled that "in the year 1780, I volunteered with said William Clark [also from Essex County] in a company under the command of Captain Marriner who, as we understood, had a commission for cruising as a privateer on the water against the common enemy." The party left Amboy on August 3 "on board two boats" with 10 oars each and 28 men "well armed with muskets and other weapons." They rowed past Sandy Hook to the southern shore of Long Island where, at Hog Island, they captured a small sloop “loaded with pork and sugar.” Woodruff described the mission going bad. The boats were unable to row back to New Jersey "due to boisterous winds." One of the boats overturned and the men had to swim to shore. Then, "very early in the morning, the British collected in a large boat, well armed, and we were all made prisoners." Marriner’s men were jailed five months before they were exchanged. Woodruff noted that the mission was to "intercept London Traders " and that the men “had perfect confidence in his [Marriner’s] skill & his patriotism as a Whig engaged in annoying the London Trader & carrying on unlawful traffic with the enemy." This was Marriner’s last privateer action. While the men in Marriner’s party were exchanged in December 1780, Marriner was not released until October 1781. Upon release, Marriner returned to a hero’s welcome in New Brunswick. But he quickly faded from public view. Marriner was likely an alias, and he may have reverted to his original name. An antiquarian source claims Marriner managed a tavern at New Brunswick after his release. Alexander Dickey, the co-leader of Marriner’s party, would remain an active whaleboat privateer through the end of the war. And New Brunswick became the primary port for the Raritan Bay privateers . If Marriner was managing a tavern it is easy to imagine him advising would-be privateers over strong drinks. New Brunswick’s most famous privateer captain, Adam Hyler, would soon emerge. Related Historic Site : The Wyckoff House Museum (Brooklyn, New York) Sources : National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Tunis Vanderveer; J.A. McManemin, Captains of Privateers. (Spring Lake, N.J.: Ho-Ho-Kus Pub. Co., 1994), pp. 341-4; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of William Clark of NJ, National Archives, p26; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, August 1780, 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 > The Establishment of the Association for Retaliation by Michael Adelberg Conrad Alexandre Gerard, the French diplomat, wrote with concern about rising vigilantism in Monmouth County in 1779; he could not stop formation of the Retaliators, a vigilante society, in 1780. - July 1780 - In spring 1780, Loyalist raiding parties ungoverned by military officers emerged as a dangerous, new enemy for Monmouth Countians. They kidnapped a dozen militia officers and several other Monmouth leaders. Inside Monmouth County, rage and desperation reached a new level; meanwhile, the expected return of the French fleet put county leaders in motion—traveling from Freehold to shore to create stores of provisions. This enabled Freehold Township leaders, particularly a clique of Machiavellian leaders who attended the Tennent Church together, to promote a bold idea—establishing a vigilante society to inflict eye-for-an-eye retaliation whenever a member of the society was attacked. Continental Leaders Worry about Vigilantism Throughout the war, Continental leaders worried about Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) engaging in lawless violence. Dr. Benjamin Rush, serving in the Continental Congress, for example, discussed "furious Whigs" who “injure the cause of liberty… by their violence." George Washington worried about New Jersey militia officers from “the lowest class of people… leading men into every kind of mischief; one species of which is plundering the inhabitants under pretense of being Tories." Worries about local leaders behaving lawlessly pushed Governor William Livingston to issue a proclamation on February 5, 1777. He scolded local officials who have “forcibly carried away and seized the goods of their fellow inhabitants on pretense that the owners thereof were inimical to the Liberties of America." Livingston warned that retribution would "inflame the minds of the sufferers... and abolish all discipline." Livingston ordered militia officers and other civil officials to "desist for the future from all depredations and violence" without legal due process. Monmouth Countians Petition for Tougher Laws Against Enemies In Monmouth County, scars from the Loyalist insurrections and the disastrous Battle of the Navesink trumped the Governor’s warning. Over the next three years, they repeatedly petitioned the Legislature for stronger laws to punish Loyalists and their kin at home. The petitions are summarized below: In March 1777, petitioners argued against leniency for disloyal citizens who “have nothing to fear from violation of the laws of this state.” They called for stricter laws to punish the at-home disaffected. In June 1777, petitioners (in two petitions) plundered of property during the Loyalist insurrections sought a law that would compensate them from the estates of Loyalists. When the Legislature did not act, Nathaniel Scudder, the County’s leading political figure, wrote Governor Livingston in April 1778: The Tory race, who have increased under our nurture, that is to say our lenient measures, are now much more dangerous than the British troops. Alas, my dear sir, instead of rearing our heads as heretofore like the stout oak, we flag like the parcel of bull rushes. Other petitions called for the State to prevent Loyalists from returning home, and re-punishing Loyalists formerly jailed but now “suffered to go at large." At least three more petitions went forward in 1779 calling for more vigorous actions against the at-home disaffected. In May and September 1779, petitioners (in three petitions) argued that county residents were “deprived of their property by some of the fugitives that have joined the enemy from this county.” They wanted victims “compensated by [the estates of] such fugitives as have left their estates." Extra-Legal Acts Against Loyalists in Monmouth County Even while Monmouth Countians were seeking stronger laws against Loyalists and at-home disaffected, some were taking matters into their own hands. Perhaps most notably, in October 1777, David Forman, a Colonel in the Continental Army (who would soon have his troops taken away from him) hanged the Loyalist Stephen Edwards without a civil trial. Other events would follow. In January 1778, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard a trespass case against William Wikoff. The state charged Wikoff “with diverse other persons, with force and arms… unlawfully did assemble and close the stable of a certain Denice Holmes.” There, he “unlawfully did break and enter, and a horse belonging to Daniel Van Mater, did maliciously and unlawfully take from said stable to the evil example of all others." Van Mater was a Loyalist whose horse was apparently being boarded by Holmes. Wikoff had served as a captain under David Forman and his family had opposed the Loyalist insurrections. In 1782, the Supreme Court heard a case in which the State charged three leading Monmouth Whigs--John Burrowes, David Forman and Elisha Walton—with illegally detaining a Loyalist. Prosecutors charged that on April 1, 1778, "James O'Hara had then and there committed a felony & was flying from justice and was on his way to New York.” O’Hara was taken by the men who “falsely and unlawfully did conceal and keep secret the wicked intentions of the said James O'Hara... whereby O'Hara was not then & there brought to justice." O’Hara was detained without arrest; he re-emerged as a Pine Robber in 1781. After the destructive raid against Middletown Point in May 1778, a Monmouth County Whig published a threat to retaliate against civilians in Brooklyn in the New Jersey Gazette on June 6: O, ye butchering British monster! We are not obliged to delay retaliating any longer! - Therefore, as you value the safety of your friends on the Island, do not send another example as that of Middletown [Point], for the consequence may prove fatal to the Tories on the Island. Concurrently, William Marriner and John Schenck launched their surprise counter-raid against Brooklyn, and the Monmouth County Court of Oyer and Terminer issued a dozen capital convictions—more than any county court would issue during the war. Later that year, the captured Loyalist, James Pew, was murdered in the Monmouth County jail by the prison guard, James Tilley. Word of vigilante activity in Monmouth County reached Philadelphia. Conrad Alexandre Gerard, the French diplomat at Philadelphia, wrote with concern on February 10, 1779: The impunity with which the Tories who lived in New Jersey have exercised all kinds of exhortation in the proximity of the English [has] embitters the Whigs, who have themselves re-assembled throughout all parts of the County of Monmouth, which is very fertile in Tories. They [Tories] infest the roads with robbery, the Whigs give their hunt; they seize property all over where they find [Tories]; they kill in great numbers [and] they accuse throughout. They [Whigs] drag them [Tories] before the juries of their choice and assume the right of the [entire] body of people; they pronounce the guilty and enforce their sentences immediately without due processes, and confiscate their goods. People hope this rage will calm down through public vengeance and the particular exercises of the Whigs. If such exercises are the good fruits of Democratic Liberty, this is a good fruit people cannot wish on their enemies. Extra-legal retaliation also had its moments in the Continental Congress; a few times, it threatened eye-for-an-eye retaliation. For example, on May 24, 1779, Congress stated that the British ”have perpetrated the most unnecessary, wanton and outrageous barbarities… deliberately putting many to death in cool blood after they had surrendered, abusing women and desolating the country." So, Congress resolved: “Congress will retaliate for cruelties and violations of the laws of nations committed in these states against the subjects of His Most Christian Majesty, in like manner and measure.” Establishing the Association for Retaliation A year later, in June 1780, the New Jersey Legislature’s Upper House, the Legislative Council, recorded receiving a petition from Monmouth County praying "that retaliation may be made on the disaffected to induce the enemy to treat our citizens more humanely." The Council minutes do not record a response to the petition, but the petition was sent to the Assembly (the Lower House). The Assembly’s minutes record receiving two petitions from Monmouth County about retaliation. The first one: "praying that a law may be enacted to enable them to retaliate upon the disaffected in the said County, under proper regulations and restrictions" was referred to the Committee. The second one prayed for a law that would allow petitioners “to apprehend a number of the most notoriously disaffected who are related to the most considerable among the Refugees, and to keep them in close custody until the loyal subjects of the State, in the hands of the refugees are liberated.” The petitioners well knew that many families split apart during the war. Punishing the kin of a Loyalist based on the (alleged) sins of that Loyalist is impossible to ethically defend. If the kin of the Loyalist was “notoriously disaffected,” those individuals could stand trial for their own actions. One of these petitions has survived. The petitioners complained of: The enemy amongst us, who not only conceal the plunderers, but we believe, give information as to most of our movements, and are so crafty that we are not able to bring lawful accusations against them, although there is great reason to think they are active aforesaid, by which means they take off any persons they please, plunder our houses, take our property. The petitioners worried about the militia and state troops “not being up to the task.” They then requested: As no means appears to us to be so effective as that of retaliation, we therefore earnestly pray that your honourable body will form such a law as may enable us to make such retaliation, as person for person and property for property, under such restrictions & regulations as to your honours will seem most adequate to the suppression of aforesaid. Importantly, the petitioners requested a law to enable “person for person and property for property” retaliation—a tacit acknowledgement that such actions were not legal under existing law. On June 23, David Forman (who was assisting the Continental Army with preparations for the arrival of the French fleet) wrote George Washington regarding a raid against Middletown that took ten captives (seven were liberated). Forman interrogated a Loyalist captured during the raid: On his examination, he confesses he is not a soldier - neither was he to receive any pay - that their sole business was to take a number of inhabitants from their houses and to plunder, & that the plunder was to be divided amongst them. The fact is they were probably a marauding gang. Forman called on Washington to clarify that he could execute such a man for “marauding”—a power granted to British officers. Forman referred to a standing British order: Declaring that all persons not uniformed & acting without a commissioned officer, if taken, should be hanged immediately as marauders - some such example, I am sure, is necessary in this part of the country to deter that class of people; we can no longer be secure at night. My next dispatch shall cover, for your Excellency's opinion and if agreeable to the rules of war, that prisoners taken in that way may be executed. At this same time, articles that would establish the Association for Retaliation were being drafted. Forman and others were traveling between Freehold and the shore, making it easier to promote the Association for Retaliation’s first meeting—to be held at Freehold on July 1. The articles were circulated; signatures were collected. On July 1, the Association for Retaliation held its first public meeting at the county courthouse to elect a nine-man Board of Directors. According to antiquarian sources, Retaliators were sworn to secrecy under threat of the "direst penalty." 436 Monmouth Countians signed the articles—more signatures than any Monmouth County document from the Revolutionary Era. A number of David Forman’s political rivals —including Colonel Asher Holmes—chose to sign, though they probably regretted doing so later on. The articles of the Association for Retaliation stated the worldview of the Retaliators: Whereas from the frequent incursions and depredations of the enemy (and more particularly of the refugees) in this county, whereby not only the lives but the liberty and property of every determined Whig are endangered, they, upon every such incursion, either burning or destroying houses, making prisoners of, and most inhumanly treating aged and peaceable inhabitants, and plundering them of all portable property, it has become essentially necessary to take some different and more effectual measures to check said practices. They further complained about local disaffected who “in general have been suffered to reside unmolested among us, numbers of which, we have full reason to believe, are aiding and accessory to those detestable practices.” The Retaliators, therefore, “actuated solely by the principles of self-preservation… solemnly associate for the purpose of retaliation” and “obligate ourselves” to: Warrant and defend such persons as may be appointed for the purpose of making restitution to such friends to their country as may hereafter have their houses burned or broke to pieces, their property wantonly destroyed or plundered, their persons made prisoners. The eye-for-an-eye credo of the Retaliators was then laid out in three provisions: First, for every good subject of this state residing within the county that shall become an associator, that shall be taken… on the errand of plundering and man-stealing, there shall be taken an equal number of the most disaffected and influential residing and having property within the county, and them confine within the Provost jail and treat them with British rigor, until the good subjects of this state taken as aforesaid shall be fully liberated. Second, for every house that shall be burned or destroyed, the property of a good subject that enters with this association, there shall be made full retaliation upon or out of the property of the disaffected as aforesaid. Third, for every article of property taken as aforesaid from any of the associators, being good subjects, the value thereof shall be replaced out of the property of the disaffected as aforesaid. Finally, the Retaliators pledged to support the militia (“We will turn out at all times when the country is invaded, and at other times do our proportionate part towards the defence thereof.”) and advertise themselves in the New Jersey Gazette . These provisions may have been included to assuage fears that the Retaliators would work in opposition to Whig institutions such as the militia. (The full Articles for Retaliation are in Appendix 1 of this article.) The Retaliators knew that their existence was controversial; Nathaniel Scudder, a member of the Retaliator Board, wrote letters on July 12 and 17 to Philadelphia seeking to legitimize the group in the nation’s capital (see Appendix 2). In one of his letters, Scudder was too frank, writing (and underlining): “We are well aware of the objections this distressing mode is liable to cause, as being not agreeable to law, liable to abuse and likely sometimes to injure the innocent - but alas my dear friend, necessity has no law.” With this statement, Scudder crystalized the problem posed by the Retaliators—they judged themselves so righteously aggrieved that they could commit unlawful and brutal acts , including against people whose only “crime” was having Loyalist kin. The Loyalist New York Gazette also printed the Articles for Retaliation. The writer noted that two members of the Retaliator Board had been prisoners in New York “whereupon, instead of the pains of imprisonment, were through the grace & benignity of Government, they were genteelly lodged and protected from every kind of insult.” While Loyalists, “merely for conscientious adherence to principle” are “condemned at mock tribunals, tortured and ignominiously put to death." The writer concluded that the Retaliators should be "most exemplarily and emphatically retaliated upon." Indeed, the vigilante Associated Loyalists in New York would emphatically retaliate upon the Retaliators, and they would retaliate in kind. As this author has previously written, retaliation propelled the local war Monmouth County for the next two years toward climactic retaliation in April 1782. Related Historic Site : Old Tennent Church Appendix 1: Articles of Association for Retaliation Whereas from the frequent incursions and depredations of the enemy (and more particularly of the refugees) in this county, whereby not only the lives but the liberty and property of every determined Whig are endangered, they, upon every such incursion, either burning or destroying houses, making prisoners of, and most inhumanly treating aged and peaceable inhabitants, and plundering them of all portable property, it has become essentially necessary to take some different and more effectual measures to check said practices, than have ever yet been taken; and as it is a fact, notorious to every one, that these depredations have always been committed by the refugees (either black or white) that have left this country, or by their influence or procurement, many of whom have near relations and friends, that in general have been suffered to reside unmolested among us, numbers of which, we have full reason to believe, are aiding and accessory to those detestable practices. We, the subscribers, inhabitants of the county of Monmouth, actuated solely by the principles of self-preservation, being of opinion that the measure will be strictly justifiable on the common principles of war, and being encouraged thereto by an unanimous resolve of the honorable the congress, passed the 30th of Oct., 1778, wherein they in the most solemn manner declare that through every possible change of fortune they will retaliate, do hereby solemnly associate for the purpose of retaliation, and do obligate ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, and every of them jointly and severally, to all and every of the subscribers and their heirs, to warrant and defend such persons as may be appointed to assist this association in the execution thereof; and that we will abide by and adhere to such rules and regulations for the purpose of making restitution to such friends to their country as may hereafter have their houses burned or broke to pieces, their property wantonly destroyed or plundered, their persons made prisoners of whilst peaceably at their own habitations about their lawful business not under arms, as shall hereafter be determined on by a committee of nine men duly elected by the associates at large out of their number; which rules and regulations shall be founded on the following principles, FIRST - For every good subject of this state residing within the county, that shall become an associator, and shall be taken or admitted to parole by any party or parties of refugees as aforesaid, that shall come on the errand of plundering and man-stealing, the good subject not actually under or taken in arms, there shall be taken an equal number of the most disaffected and influential residing and having property within the county, and them confine within the Provost jail and treat them with British rigor, until the good subjects of this state taken as aforesaid shall be fully liberated. SECOND - For every house that shall be burned or destroyed, the property of a good subject that enters with this association, there shall be made full retaliation upon or out of the property of the disaffected as aforesaid. THIRD - That for every article of property taken as aforesaid from any of the associators, being good subjects, the value thereof shall be replaced out of the property of the disaffected as aforesaid. We do also further associate for the purpose of defending the frontiers of this county, and engage each man for himself that is a subject of the militia that we will turn out at all times when the county is invaded, and at other times do our proportionate part towards the defence thereof. We the associators do hereby direct that a copy of this association be, as soon as the signing is completed, transmitted to the printer of the New Jersey Gazette, for publication, and that the original be lodged in the clerk's office. Also we do request, that the associators will meet at the courthouse on Saturday, the 1st of July, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon for the purpose of electing a committee of nine men, as before mentioned, to carry the said association into effect. Appendix 2: Nathaniel Scudder’s July 1780 Letters on Retaliation Nathaniel Scudder letters to Philadelphia on July 12 and July 17. Excerpts on Retaliation: July 12 : “After petitioning the Legislature without success for a law of retaliation or other remedy for depredations of the Refugees, and now despairing any other effectual mode of redress, the inhabitants of the County have entered into a solemn association (near 500 have signed it) to retaliate in kind upon the disaffected among us for all the damages, burnings, kidnappings, etc., done or perpetrated by the Refugees - and the Association has chosen a committee to execute the general purposes of the said association & General Forman is our chairman & that the association have jointly pledged themselves and their fortunes to support & defend us, you will not doubt that the execution will be rigidly punctual & delivered.” July 17 : “We suffer greatly in this part of the country from the murder, depredation, and kidnappings of the refugees and disaffected... we have from the necessity of the case on the sole ground of self-preservation been compelled to enter into a general association for the purpose of retaliation on the persons and property of the notoriously disaffected yet residing amongst us, for all damages depredations, burnings, kidnappings & c. done or committed by any of the refugees on the associators in this neighborhood; [we] amount to near or quite 500, & the number is daily increasing - they have chosen a committee of execution and have solemnly pledged themselves to defend them in the prosecution of the business - an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth [underlined], we are well aware of the objections this distressing mode is liable to, as being not agreeable to law, liable to abuse and likely sometimes to injure the innocent - but alas my dear friend, necessity has no law [underlined], we could no longer consent to be murdered and plundered by rule while from the laxness and timidity & indecision of our own magistrates the law was rather a screen for the Tories, while they [laws] afforded but little security to the well-affected citizens." Sources : Washington’s quote is in Ruth M. Keesey, "New Jersey Legislation Concerning Loyalists," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 79 (1961), p 81; Governor Livingston's Proclamation, American Revolution Digital Learning Project, www.amrevonline.org ; Petition contained in: National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, James Wall of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 20366031; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, February 18-19, 1778, p 55, 58; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, May 29, 1778, p 123 and June 3, 1778, p 129; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 245; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, September 28, 1779, p 178-180; New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #39523; Nathaniel Scudder to William Livingston, Massachusetts Historical Society, William Livingston Papers; New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #34123; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 2, pp. 246-7; Conrad Alexandre Gerard, Despatches and Instructions of Conrad Alexandre Gerard, 1778-1780, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1939) pp. 510-1; Journals of the Continental Congress, (Philadelphia: David Claypool, 1782) vol. 5, p220; the articles establishing the Association of Retaliation are printed in Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p206; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1780) p95-6; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 9, 1780, p 229; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 67, June 23, 1780; New Jersey Historical Society, MG-14 (Ely Collection), Petition, Monmouth County; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 219-20; Nathaniel Scudder to John Scudder, New Jersey Historical Society, Letters: Nathaniel Scudder; Nathaniel Scudder to Henry Laurens, Pennsylvania History Society, Dreer Collection, Nathaniel Scudder, August 17, 1780; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Tilton, LeRoy W. "New Jersey Petition of 1780, Concerning Retaliation," National Genealogical Society Quarterly, vol. 34, Spring 1946, pp. 75-76; “’A Combination to Trample All Law Underfoot’”: The Association for Retaliation and the American Revolution in Monmouth County, New Jersey,” New Jersey History , 1997; Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, unpublished compendium at the Monmouth 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 > Holmes v. Walton as a London Trading Incident by Michael Adelberg Sloops like the ones in this sketch of the New York Harbor were the workhorses of the London Trade, bringing food and lumber into the city and shipping out finished goods craved in New Jersey. - May 1779 - When the American Revolution began, the state of New Jersey made it illegal to bring or sell goods to the British Army or its supporters. However, the British paid good prices and paid in specie, and the government of New Jersey had few tools to enforce its no-trade policies. Regardless of attempts to curb the illegal trade, New Jerseyans, and Monmouth Countians in particular, were tempted into trading with British assets at Sandy Hook and New York. The illegal trade between disaffected Monmouth County farmers and British buyers was often facilitated by Loyalist middlemen nicknamed “London Traders .” This trade was so pervasive that the New Jersey legislature passed laws to authorize local officials to make arrests and seize suspect goods. But the early laws were cumbersome and frustrated both militia officers and local magistrates seeking to enforce the law. These frustrations and reports of the scope of the illegal made it to the Continental Congress which, in summer 1778, began a dialog with New Jersey Governor William Livingston about London Trading. On August 22, Livingston acknowledged receiving a letter from the Continental Congress urging him to stop the illicit trade between Monmouth County and New York. Livingston replied that "to prevent such supplies from Shrewsbury (from whence, as the County of Bergen is almost exhausted, that villainous traffic is now carried on) will be utterly impossible without a greater military force." Despite this misgiving, Livingston issued a proclamation on August 26 in which he noted "the most boundless avarice" of those who "persist in the traitorous practice of enabling the enemy, by supplying them with provisions." He then charged militia officers and magistrates: To exert their most vigorous efforts in support of said embargo, and particularly enjoin the civil and military officers of the counties of Monmouth and Bergen to use their utmost vigilance in preventing all commercial intercourse with the enemy, and to seize and secure all persons concerned in transporting and provisions to any place in their [British] possession, so that they [traders] may be brought to speedy and condign punishment. The Continental Congress and Livingston continued to consider London Trading . On October 13, the minutes of the Congress recorded: A letter of the 2nd from Governor Livingston was read: Ordered, That the letter be referred to the Board of War, and an extra of so much of it as it relates to the trade carrying on with the enemy at Shrewsbury, be sent to General Washington [George Washington]. That same month, New Jersey’s legislature passed its third law to curb London Trading. That law made it "lawful for any person or persons to seize and secure possessions, goods, wares, and merchandise, attempted to be carried or conveyed” to the enemy. The seized goods had to be registered with the local magistrate and, if the seizure was contested, the Magistrate would preside over a hearing to assure that seizure of goods was appropriate. The magistrate’s hearing did not need to be in a regular court and could be held before a six-man jury (even though a twelve-man jury was the legal standard). There was no appeal. In January 1779, George Washington committed to sending troops to Monmouth County in order to curb the London Trade. While Continental soldiers were involved in a few arrests and seizures, there is no reason to believe they were effective in curbing the London Trade as a whole. While militia officers seized goods suspected of being traded illegally, township magistrates were the officers charged with upholding the seizures. As noted in prior articles, Continental officers such as Major Henry Lee and Continental purchasing agents such as David Rhea, had testy relationships with magistrates who they deemed insufficiently diligent in condemning taken goods. Two township magistrates, Peter Forman of Freehold and Peter Schenck of Middletown, clashed bitterly when Forman upheld the seizure of goods from Benjamin Van Cleave, a Middletown resident. Holmes v Walton as a London Trading Incident On May 24, 1779, Major Elisha Walton, acting on a tip from William Wikoff, seized the goods of John Holmes and Solomon Ketchum, held by Daniel Ketchum. John James was with Daniel Ketchum at the time of the seizure. He subsequently testified: “At the time of the seizure of the goods; about sundown the evening of the seizure, John Holmes and William Bostwick came to Daniel Ketchum." After this, Ketchum "appeared to look very uneasy.” Ketchum soon left with the goods in a wagon. Phoebe Ketchum testified that she "rode in the wagon with her brother [Daniel]… along the back road" to escape notice. When they were stopped, they claimed to have no goods in the wagon. Walton asserted that Holmes and Ketchum bought the goods from London Traders bringing in goods from British-held New York. The goods Walton seized included 700 yards of silk, 400 yards of silk gauze, and other fabrics. Walton claimed that the silk was "such a quantity as could not be purchased in all the stores of New Jersey." Thomas Henderson, the former Freehold township magistrate, supported Walton’s assessment. He said the seized goods "appeared to be such as are usually imported from Great Britain... and the quantity was greater than ever this deponent had seen in any country store.” He further stated that silks like these "were exceedingly scarce." William Hilsey said the silks "appeared imported and of the first quality." Andrew Bowne testified that he transported the silks to Ketchum’s barn. He stated that “Holmes was not a merchant” and "he had never heard of John Holmes purchasing the goods from Boston." Testimony in support of Holmes and Ketchum was weak. Holmes asserted that the goods were purchased in Boston but was unable to produce any receipts about the purchase. Daniel Ketchum testified that he was moving the silks inland because of "an alarm at Middletown" and that the goods were purchased "honestly and righteously." Elias Covenhoven testified that he spoke with Holmes about the goods and Holmes never indicated "the goods were carried from N. York." The seizure of the silks was upheld by Judge John Anderson of Freehold and a mini-jury of six men. Walton promptly sold the silks for £20,000, a huge sum. Under New Jersey law, there was no way to appeal Anderson’s decision short of the state’s Supreme Court. So, John Holmes hired William Wilcocks of Freehold, formerly a Judge Advocate in the Continental Army, and Wilcocks filed a complaint before the New Jersey Supreme Court. While the assertion that the silks were purchased from Boston seems implausible, the due process arguments offered by Wilcocks were damning. Testimony strongly suggested jury tampering: "Elisha Walton did, at his own expense, and without the consent of said John and Solomon, treat with strong liquor the jury sworn to try this case, after they were unpaneled, but before they gave their verdict in the case." Wilcocks also claimed that the October 1778 law under which the seizure occurred was overly broad because it permitted seizures "under any pretense whatsoever.” In addition, Holmes was stripped of his goods without the due process protection of a regular jury trial. The New Jersey Supreme first heard the case in November 1779. The seizure of the silks was invalidated because Holmes did not receive appropriate legal due process (including a fair trial before a full jury). In addition, the October 1778 law that permitted Anderson to uphold the seizure without a verdict from a full jury was judged unconstitutional and voided by the Supreme Court (presided over by Chief Justice David Brearley of Upper Freehold). The case of Holmes v Walton is the first known case of “judicial review” in the United States—in which a court struck down a law as unconstitutional. Holmes v Walton was a Constitutional watershed; this is the subject of the next article . The Scope of London Trading Were it not for the precedent-setting litigation, the seizure of Holmes’ silks would have been just another London Trading incident. The seizure of Benjamin Van Cleave’s grain (see prior article) four months earlier aroused greater passions inside Monmouth County. The author is able to document thirty distinct London Trading incidents during the war, but it is safe to assume that that is only a small fraction of the total volume of London Trading. The trade was so profitable that disaffected Monmouth Countians acquired more wealth (land and livestock) during the war than Whigs (supporters of the Revolution). London Trading also lured in out-of-staters. Three examples are below. These interstate incidents re-escalated London Trading to the attention of state and national leaders. July 3, 1781, the Monmouth County Court of Common Pleas heard the case David Ramsay of Virginia v John Chadwick. Ramsay "landed near Cranberry Inlet” where John Chadwick, believing Ramsay a London Trader, "threatened taking his boat from him" and then impounded the boat. Several Virginians wrote statements about Ramsay’s good character. The dispute was escalated to the Continental Congress. The final disposition of the case is not known. The Pennsylvania Gazette reported that on November 25, 1780, that "a number of persons long suspected of carrying on an illicit trade with the Enemy (by way of Shrewsbury) and depreciating our money, were apprehended.” They were: Patrick Garvey "an apothecary in the Continental service who owns part of the boat employed between Squan and Sandy Hook,” Garvey’s collaborators included two Princeton merchants. Garvey was found not guilty in the Monmouth Court of Oyer and Terminer in May 1782. The fate of the other men is unknown. Nathan Jackson was a New England privateer who apparently discovered that London Trading was more profitable than privateering. His double-dealing along the Monmouth shore allowed him to purchase provisions and then sell them in New York. His duplicity was eventually exposed and he was arrested and his vessel impounded. Jackson fought the charges against him for years in the courts but never recovered his vessel. London Trading in the Courts London Trading and related offenses drove activity in the county courts and New Jersey Supreme Court. Dozens of London Traders (or alleged London Traders) were arrested in a 1780 crackdown that led to a two-month long Court of Oyer and Terminer —twice as long as any court held in Monmouth County during the war. The New Jersey Supreme Court heard 246 Monmouth County-originated cases between its founding in 1776 and the end of 1784. About half of those cases might have involved London Trading: charges in those cases included crossing enemy lines (110 cases); supplying or aiding the enemy (13 cases); boarding an enemy ship (3 cases); and receiving stolen goods (1 case). The frequent appeal of seizures to the New Jersey Supreme Court was a cause of concern for many. A 1780 petition from 34 Monmouth Countians noted that “many captures have been made by the inhabitants of this State from persons within the enemy lines under sanction of a law now in force in this state” and that the decision on some of those captures were “removed to the Supreme Court under the pretense of errors in the proceedings of the Magistrates.” The petitioners complained: Your Petitioners are informed that some of the judgments are reversed by the Judges of the Supreme Court & there remains no redress for the captors who ought to have been fully supported - Your petitioners think it highly inconsistent with Justice that in every case any error should be committed by a Magistrate, that such error should totally abolish the capture. The petitioners requested a new law to protect the rights of people making seizures when an error was made by the magistrate. Petition signers included Elisha Walton, embroiled in Holmes v Walton litigation, as well as Captain John Walton (Elisha’s brother), Thomas Henderson, and John Covenhoven (a former state legislator). The New Jersey Assembly read the petition on December 8. The Assembly acknowledged that setting aside seizures gave “encouragement of the Disaffected and [is] great loss to the Loyal citizens of the State." Similar petitions arrived from Middlesex and Essex counties. However, there is no evidence that the New Jersey Legislature acted on the petitions. London trading remained a profitable endeavor through the end of war. The author’s prior research demonstrates that people in shore townships (where London trading occurred) increased their net wealth during the war despite being victimized by Loyalist raids that carried away their livestock and valuables. London Trading was risky; participants could run afoul of militia and privateer parties that seized their goods. As the war went on, complicated schemes evolved to bring goods to New York involving suspect passports and trap-doored wagons . While one ingenious scheme regarding wagons with trap doors for hiding contraband was exposed , most London trading went undetected; the practice only ended when the British left New York. Related Historic Site : South Street Seaport Museum (New York) Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 19, #30; Austin Scot, "Holmes v. Walton: The New Jersey Precedent", American Historical Review, 1899, vol. 4, pp 3-4; William Livingston to Congress, Library of Congress, Peter Force Collection, Series 7C, box 31, folder 2, 68:155, 211; Livingston’s proclamation published in the New Jersey Gazette, August 26, 1778; Journals of the Continental Congress, October 13, 1778, p1005 ( www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html ); Supreme Court Records, New Jersey State Archives, #44928; Common Pleas Minutes, July 1780, Monmouth County Archives; Austin Scot, "Holmes v. Walton: The New Jersey Precedent", American Historical Review, 1899, vol. 4, pp 3-5; Petition, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War Documents, #76; Supreme Court Records, New Jersey State Archives, #18354; Compiled records of the New Jersey Supreme Court, New Jersey State Archives; Holmes v. Walton, retrial, Supreme Court Records, New Jersey State Archives, #44928; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, May 13 and May 20, 1780, p 187-195; Adelberg, Michael, “Destitute of Almost Everything to Support Life: The Acquisition and Loss of Wealth in Revolutionary Monmouth County, New Jersey,” in James Gigantino, ed., New Jersey in the American Revolution (Rutgers University Press: 2015). 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 Loyalists Seek to Come Home by Michael Adelberg The Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War. In the treaty, Congress promised restitution and protection for Loyalists. In war-torn Monmouth County, Loyalists were often treated harshly. - September 1782 - In spring 1782, the British ceased offensive military operations in America and drydocked the Loyalists who raided into New Jersey (including Monmouth County). It was now understood that the British were preparing to leave and American independence would be recognized. In New Jersey, where outages like the hanging of Joshua Huddy (April 12) were still fresh, thoughts turned to Loyalists returning home—and making it clear that they were unwelcome. On June 3, Governor William Livingston addressed the New Jersey Assembly on the return of Loyalists. He called for a law barring the return of Loyalists because they would be a burden on society and work against the civic culture "by increasing the number of our disaffected, which themselves is already capable of great mischief." Livingston also worried that returning refugees will "to the last degree, disgust our Loyal citizens" creating public safety problems. The Assembly referred the matter to a committee and declined to act on the Governor’s recommendations. The topic of Loyalist reintegration was discussed through summer in the Continental Congress. Two members of Congress, Edmund Pendleton and James Madison, wrote on the topic, with Pendleton noting on September 9, "the inhabitants of New Jersey must possess the keenest resentments." Members of Congress were learning that the emerging peace treaty would include language about Loyalists returning home and receiving restitution for lost property . New Jersey Whigs Oppose the Return of Loyalists Newspapers and other public documents made it clear that many New Jersians were not ready to reconcile. In April 1783, the New Jersey Gazette printed "A last advice to the Tories and Refugees in New York: Poor, unhappy, deluded and infatuated people.” The advice from “a sturdy Whig” included these questions that Loyalists should ask themselves before returning to New Jersey: If your King has no mercy upon you, after all your faithful service, how can you expect that from your enemies? Consider what courts you are to be tried [if you return]; who are the juries to try you and who your prosecutors? Are they not, to a man, determined Whigs? Have they not all suffered and been injured by you? Loyalists were urged to leave the United States and not come back: You have an opportunity to save yourself from the vengeance of an incensed country; save yourself from the trouble and painful talk of punishing... Go off in the first ships. Here you cannot live, your friends cannot help you. A cold Congressional recommendation cannot save you. You showed no mercy to your country and you will have judgment without mercy. And the essay closed with a violent threat: “I give you earnest counsel. If you do not take it, your blood will be on your own heads." The New Jersey Journal printed its own anti-Loyalist essay, which concluded: We deem it an act of humanity in order to prevent the effusion of blood to caution all persons within British lines who may have taken an active part in the cause of Great Britain not to return among the citizens of America: They may rely upon it that nothing can save them from retaliation for the many cruelties wantonly exercised in the cause of the war. Monmouth Countians Threaten Returning Loyalists As noted in a prior article , 253 Monmouth Countians joined an “Association to Oppose the Return of Tories” in 1783. Some of those same men signed a June 1783 petition for the same purpose: Whereas a number of inhabitants of this County, during this past war with Great Britain, deserted their country and joined the Enemy, and now, on the return of peace, will in all probability attempt to return back to the Country they for a number of years endeavored to destroy and ruin - Your petitioners are of the opinion they will rather be a pest & disturbance, and perhaps destroy the blessings which are usually consequent to peace. The 112 petitioners requested “that no indulgence may be granted to any person or persons coming from the enemy” and that “they not be suffered to return amongst us nor have any restoration of property.” However, unlike the Retaliators, this association pledged to follow the law and comply with “the forthcoming articles of peace.” The petitioners included several of the most important Whigs from Monmouth County: Judge Peter Covenhoven Legislator Thomas Seabrook Magistrate Peter Schenck Sheriff John Burrowes Jr. Col. Daniel Hendrickson Col. Asher Holmes Maj. Thomas Hunn Capt. Barnes Smock Capt. Samuel Carhart Capt. Moses Shepherd Capt. John Schenck Capt. Stephen Fleming That same month, Monmouth County’s three delegates to the Assembly—Thomas Henderson, John Covenhoven, Daniel Hendrickson—advertised in the New Jersey Gazette about a false report “being industriously circulated through different parts of the state designed by some to lessen our reputation as zealous and uniform friends of the independence of America.” The report apparently claimed that the three delegates “did move to bring into this House a bill for the purpose of reinstating the refugees and Tories in the full enjoyment of their estates." Fourteen colleagues in the Assembly affirmed that the report was false. The allegation that Loyalist property might be restored was so inflammatory that the delegates needed to publicly disavow it. Throughout the 1780s, Monmouth Countians repeated their strong opposition to Loyalist reintegration. In August 1784, a “letter from Monmouth” was printed in Philadelphia and Boston newspapers. The author describes the suffering of good Whigs while Loyalists were returning home comfortably: In all this time of difficulty to the officer, soldier, and Whig citizen, who are next to begging for their bread in the place they saved, the prescribed traitor, the murderous refugee, and the double-faced trimmer, with all the scum and refuse of the Continent, we hear, are living comfortably, and following the business of advancing the interests of their families among you without intervention. The author then called for vigilante violence now in the interest of avoiding more bloodshed later: Remember that a little uncommon conduct now will contribute to your peace and save you from committing more at a future date. I hear some sly scoundrel call this violence, let that be so and let Whigs always consider that violence, and not law, brought about this glorious revolution, and that the majesty of the people can never be supported without a little of this blessed ingredient. As late as April 1787, petitioners from Monmouth County felt a need to restate their opposition to Loyalists (labeled "atrocious monsters of wickedness" in the petition) returning to the United States. Acts Against Loyalists Indeed, there is evidence of vigilante violence against Loyalists after the war. Historian David Fowler described three acts of retribution against Pine Robbers: Sylvester Tilton of Stafford Township, after being wounded by John Bacon’s Pine Robber gang in late 1781, hunted down one of those Pine Robbers and gave him "an unmerciful beating." Rueben Soper, also of Stafford (whose brother had been killed by Bacon), located Bacon’s guide William Wilson at Long Branch. Wilson was given "a sound thrashing" and thrown in a pond. Pine Robber, Stephen West, was hunted down and killed by a Continental Army veteran whose father's farm was burned during war. Even Pine Robber-allies with some wealth—such as boat owner William Dillon of Toms River—suffered after the war. 1791 court records list Dillon as an "absconded debtor" defaulted on nineteen debts. To fail so badly, it is probable that vengeful neighbors seized his boat and other property. Most acts of vengeance, such as those likely taken against Dillon, went undocumented. Loyalists Trickle into Monmouth County For all of the vigor devoted to keeping Loyalists from returning, some did. Noncombatants were most likely to come home successfully. On April 3, 1783, the Shrewsbury Friends (Quakers) re-admitted the family of Samuel Deloplane from New York. On August 18, George Washington vouched for the return of another Loyalist, Timothy Mount “late from Monmouth in N. Jersey State, but some time residing in the City of N. York” because of his “particular services to many of the suffering citizens of these States.” Presumably, Mount, though a Loyalist, assisted prisoners during the war. Washington wrote: Hereby permitted to return to the place of his former abode, and is hereby recommended to His Excels the Governor and the people of the State of N Jersey; with my wish that he may be received to the favor of his fellow citizens, as his merits appear to deserve it. The inoffensive Loyalist, William Opey, was turned out of Monmouth County. In October 1785, Opey was examined by local officials at Amboy. Before the war, he had lived (likely as a sailor) at Amboy, Woodbridge, and Mt. Pleasant (in Middletown Township). When the war began, he went to Staten Island. After the war, he returned to New Jersey, “traveling throughout different parts without obtaining settlement in any part… rambling about place to place." No longer drawing a British pension after they quit New York, Opey requested poor relief at Middletown. But Hendrick Hendrickson, Middletown’s magistrate, sent Opey to Amboy with a note from David Forman and Elisha Lawrence stating that Opey did not reside two years continuously at Mt. Pleasant and therefore was not deserving of relief. Fowler notes that the Loyalists of the Giberson family went to Canada after the war, but Gilbert Giberson returned home in 1786, apparently without incident. The notorious William Giberson waited until 1790 to return to New Jersey. When he did return, he re-settled near Little Egg Harbor , arguably the most disaffected area of the state. Loyalist combatants took a considerable risk returning home. John Wardell "was very active in taking submission of the inhabitants” during the Loyalist insurrections of 1776. Wardell spent the war in New York City. He returned to Monmouth County in 1783 and attempted to recover his confiscated estate but received a rough reception: Being informed by Governor Livingston and the rulers of the province, that the penal laws were yet in effect against Loyalists who had adhered to the British, Your Memorialist was therefore apprehended by a party of armed men who insulted him and abused him much, and obliged him to leave the province. In June 1784, according to an article in the New Jersey Gazette , Thomas Crowell and Elias Barnes, attempted to return to Woodbridge. Crowell (formerly of Middletown) had been a captain in the hated Associated Loyalists . The article stated that “Thomas Crowell and Elias Barnes exhibited their well known faces at Woodbridge, a village about five miles distant from Amboy, where Barnes had purchased a place.” Once recognized, a mob formed. The newspaper is not specific about what the mob did to Crowell and Barnes but an antiquarian source claims they were tarred and feathered and forced to flee. Ezekiel Forman, a Loyalist whose family connections led to two pardons after felony convictions (once for High Treason) resettled in Monmouth County after the war. But he lived on a small estate and likely returned to British lines after a few years. Another Loyalist from a prominent family was the infamous Loyalist partisan , Chrineyonce Van Mater. He attempted to return home after going to Canada. A report in the Middlesex Gazette noted that in January 1787: Apprehended, lurking at his father's house, the very active and noted Refugee, Chrineyonce Van Mater, lately from Shelburne, and much noted during the war for burning and plundering without the lines of the Enemy at New York. There had been a forty dollar reward for him which was punctually paid by the high sheriff to his two captors. He is at present committed on the charge of High Treason and has been refused bail. Van Mater’s fate is unknown, but the article noted that the Van Mater family had retained “a number of lawyers… to plead on his behalf at the next supreme court." Perspective Historian Robert Calhoon noted that in areas of the United States wracked by civil warfare, reintegration of Loyalists and erasing local resentments "was a century-long rather than a decade-long process." Indeed, most Monmouth Countians were likely against reconciliation. This put them at odds with Article V of the Treaty of Paris which stated that Congress "shall earnestly recommend" that the States: Provide for restitution of all estates, rights, and properties which have been confiscated; [Loyalists] shall have free liberty to go to any part of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain for twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution… All persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their rights. While Congress made these recommendations to the New Jersey Legislature, the request for leniency fell on deaf ears in most of New Jersey. In Monmouth County, it can be safely assumed that vigilante violence was more common than the peaceful accommodation for known Loyalists. With reintegration difficult and no restitution for their confiscated estates, most Loyalists remained dependent on the British. They were resettled in Canada and many were eventually compensated for their lost estates by the British government. This is the topic of another article. Related Historic Site : Independence Hall Sources : The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 3, 1782, p 22; New Jersey Gazette, April 16, 1783; Edmund Pendleton to James Madison, The Papers of James Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977) vol. 5, p 109; Journal of the Continental Congress, Library of Congress, p152 ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_ygyz ::); John Wardell’s Application, Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Coll. D96, PRO AO 13/112, reel 11; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 46-7; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; David Fowler, egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 277-9; Library of Congress, New Jersey Journal reel 1930 (mistakenly included on film with NJ Gazette, next to NJ Gazette March 19, 1783); New Jersey Gazette, April 16, 1783; Petition, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War Documents, #132; George Washington to Timothy Mount, Library of Congress, George Washington, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw270137)) ; Fowler cites from John C. Paterson, The Pine Robbers of Monmouth County, unpublished manuscript in the collection of the Monmouth County Historical Association, 1834, p 5; Calhoon writing in Jack Greene, The American Revolution: Its Character and Limits (New York: New York University Press, 1989) p 69; New Jersey Gazette, July 5, 1784; Continental Journal (Boston), September 9, 1784; Honeyman, A. Van Doren, “Concerning the New Jersey Loyalists in the Revolution,” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 51 (1933) p 123; Overseers of the Poor Collection, Folder: William Opey - Examination, Monmouth County Archives; David Fowler, egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 135; Middlesex Gazette (Connecticut), February 19, 1787; Petition, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War Documents, #147; Monmouth County Archives, Common Pleas (Loose). 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 British Army's Unpleasant Stay at Allentown, June 24-26, 1778 by Michael Adelberg This British map shows the crossroad and cluster of houses that made up Allentown. Leaving town, the British marched east to Freehold rather than northeast toward Cranbury as most expected. - June 1778 - On June 15, the British Army in Philadelphia started ferrying men across the Delaware River into New Jersey. It took four days to complete this action. As the British Army began moving east across New Jersey, it was slowed by thousands of non-combatant Loyalists and camp-followers, and a huge baggage train. The Army stretched out twelve miles on New Jersey’s poor roads. The weather was unusually hot. The New Jersey militia was expecting the enemy’s march. On May 27, General Philemon Dickenson, heading the militia, advertised that, "The militia of this State are to be particularly attentive to signals--as a movement of the enemy is expected soon." New Jersey militia, including Monmouth Countians under Colonel Asher Holmes, made the British miserable. They felled trees across roads, fouled wells, and skirmished with the British throughout their march. The British Army Enters Monmouth County Harried and overheated, the advanced column of the British Army reached Allentown on June 24. There, they found the bridge over Crosswicks Creek broken up (note: an older source claims the broken bridge was across Doctor’s Creek). The British officer, Andrew Bell, wrote: "The rebels had been there in the morning and tore up the bridge, which retarded us a short time.” A German officer named Hauser noted that “rebuilding the bridge kept us three hours." The rebuilding of the bridge impressed at least one Allentown resident, Elizabeth Waln, wife of disaffected mill owner, Richard Waln, who lived near town. She wrote: I never saw the like. The soldiers cut down big trees, trimmed them and brought each tree on porters (short trees passed under). There was a large row of soldiers on each side of a tree; they carried it along as if it weighed nothing, and some went back for another. There were so many men that as far as one tree was brought, another was close behind it, and so the bridge went up... The body marched on, and not the least annoyance was allowed. Col. John Simcoe wrote of the militia forming on the other side of the bridge, "Colonel Simcoe fired two or three cannon shot, which drove the small party from thence, and passed over without the exchange of a musket.” Bell further noted, “The Light Horse and infantry pursued them for four miles, but could not come up with any number." British officer, Thomas Sullivan, described this first skirmish at Allentown: "Fell in with Col. Morgan's [Daniel Morgan] riflemen and a body of militia… a smart firing ensued and the enemy, at length, retreated into the woods without any material loss on either side.” A second British force reached nearby Imlaystown on June 24, but not without incident. Adjutant General Carl Bauermeister wrote, "General Leslie had attempted to force the nearest road the previous evening, but had been compelled to desist because they were occupied by too strong a force. The enemy withdrew, however, during the night." Entry into the village the next day was delayed because the bridge into town "was completely demolished, which delayed his march into Imlaystown… for four and a half hours." A second German officer, Jacob Piel, mostly corroborated this account: “We had to cross a bridge which the enemy had broken up, the repairs to the bridge delayed us three hours." Lt. John Von Krafft, noted on the arrival of his company at Waln's Mill south of Allentown: We were soon again impeded in our march, the rebels having hewn and cast large trees in our way to prevent our baggage train from moving rapidly. Such tricks were often played on us by the rebels and sometimes they showed themselves in considerable numbers on the hillsides. But they never had the courage to attack us. The evening of June 24, the British Army camped in Allentown and nearby. John Peebles, a British officer, observed that “few or none of men inhabitants are at home & many houses deserted entirely.” Officers attempted to keep the Army in good order. Major John Andre wrote that "attention was paid to enforcing the orders respecting plunder, and also the Battalion horses and followers of the Army not mixing in the line of march." Lt. Colonel Alerud Clarke recorded receiving orders that "the women [campfollowers] are to march with the baggage" to lessen fraternizing and plundering. Despite the attempts to keep the Army in good order, there was bad behavior. Robert Montgomery, a militia officer, was robbed. Per an "inventory of property destroyed June 1778," he lost $249 worth of property. British soldiers reportedly "put a rope around the neck" of a family slave who would not reveal where the family hid its silver, but then let him go. In addition, three cannon balls were fired into Montgomery’s house during the June 25 skirmish. John Andrews, a supporter of the Revolution, wrote a memorandum shortly after the British left town: This day the British troops passed by with the Army, and the rear of the Army encamped at Lawrence Taylor's [tavern] and extended their three lines northern of my house, and plundered all after that part of the day, that they took from me, horses, cattle and hogs, destroyed all my grain and flax, took all of my meat and a number of things to the amount of £278. Another antiquarian account noted that the British used the Allentown Presbyterian meeting house as a stable for their horses, and damaged the building substantially. It was never repaired. John Peebles suggested widespread misbehavior by British soldiers. He wrote on the evening of the 24th that “a good deal of plundering [is] going on." On June 26, as Continental soldiers passed through Allentown, Joseph Plumb Martin of Massachusetts recorded: We had ample opportunity to see the devastation they made in their route; cattle killed & lying about in the pastures; some just in the position they were when they were shot down, others with a small spot of skin taken off their hind quarters and mess of steak taken out; household furniture hacked to pieces; wells filled up and mechanic's and farmer's tools destroyed. Better conduct was expected from British officers. Mrs. Waln recalled a British officer dining at her house: "He ate heartily and at the close of the meal, a large pile of bones by his plate... while the family refrained from eating." A twelve-year-old girl later recalled a British officer walking into her family’s house: “We all fell in to help the officers, giving them the entire table [of food]." But at the house of Elisha Lawrence (not the Loyalist and a Lt. Colonel in the militia) nearby, officers were refused food: They endeavored to evade this request, and made things as unpleasant as possible. The officer made no attempt to protect that house; and the consequence was [that] it was rifled of all valuables, and the famous Lawrence's fast mare was taken for an officer's horse. Historian John Fabiano wrote that when the British Army came through Allentown, Major John Andre carried a letter of introduction from John Lawrence (who led the first Loyalist insurrection two years earlier). Andre asked Dr. James Newell to care for his sick brother, which was done. When the British left town, Andre left Newell with the spoon (bearing the family crest) he used to feed his brother medicine. This could be used by Newell as a sign of loyalty to any future British parties. Desertion was a problem for the British Army all through the march. By some estimates more than one thousand men deserted during the miserable march across New Jersey and historian Don Hagist has documented 70 desertions during the British Army’s time in Monmouth County. As the Army left Allentown on June 25, Thomas Sullivan, a British soldier, recalled speaking with a corporal commanding a twelve-man guard who "acquainted me of their being inclined to quit the service, which I encouraged by informing them of my intention to do the same." Sullivan deserted during the march on June 25. After doing so, he recalled getting advice from a local: At some distance, I saw an old man who cautioned us against a set of people called Tories, or properly speaking, enemies of their Country. He also informed me of the route to take to escape danger... After a tedious and troublesome march, through woods and marshes, arrived at 4 o'clock within two miles of Allentown, where we met Colo. Morgan's riflemen. Sullivan surrendered to Morgan, who sent him to Philadelphia. He arrived there on June 28—the day of the Battle of Monmouth. British Army Departs Allentown John Andre noted a second skirmish with the New Jersey militia as the British left Allentown on June 25. He wrote: "a body of the enemy soon showed themselves, and passing thro' the village advanced a little toward the Jaegers [German soldiers], but were dispersed by a shot or two from their three pounders." A German captain Heindrich also described this second skirmish at Allentown: “The Jaegers in the rear guard were harassed severely by the enemy who pressed us vigorously” before they were dispersed. The New Jersey militia made the march from Allentown difficult. General Henry Clinton wrote of the rebels "filling up the wells and breaking down and destroying the bridges and causeways before us." Francis Downman wrote that "the rebels cut the ropes of the wells and filled them with rubbish.” Andre wrote: “As we approached Freehold, water was very scarce, the rebels had added to this by stopping up the wells." Bauermeister wrote of the militia blocking passage to Cranbury with "a thousand-yard wide strip of the finest woods cut down in order to barricade all the roads." Skirmishing continued on the march to Freehold. German Officer Heinrich von Feilitsch wrote: “the rebels soon appeared but a Jaeger killed an [rebel] officer. Shortly thereafter they engaged us closely but after a guard reinforced us, they had to retreat." John Peebles wrote of the continued need to “exchange a shot sometimes” with militia parties on the march to Freehold. As for the locals, Simcoe noted that his Loyalists were mistaken for Continental soldiers by locals who “gave the best accounts of the movements of the rebel army" and offered his men water. In contrast, locals avoided Redcoats. Peebles wrote: “A great many people left their houses & drove away their cattle.” By any measure, the British stay at Allentown was unpleasant. They skirmished when entering and leaving town. While some locals were hospitable, most were not—many left town and took their livestock with them. The march from Allentown to Freehold was even worse. The soldiers lacked water and the weather was unseasonably hot. Rumors, no doubt, swirled about rebel forces swelling on their northern flank and rear. Skirmishing and desertions continued. It is easily surmised that the British Army was in a foul mood when it reached Freehold—and Freehold would suffer for it. Related Historical Site : Historic Walnford Appendix: Continental Army and Militia Oppose the British in Allentown Opposing the British on June 24 and June 25 were a regiment of Virginia Continentals under Colonel Daniel Morgan (guided by Monmouth militia under Colonel Asher Holmes) and roughly one thousand New Jersey militia from several counties under General Philemon Dickinson. They did not have the strength to face the British, but they were successful in making the British miserable on their march. On the 24th, George Washington ordered Morgan, You are… to get upon the enemy's right flank and give them as much annoyance as possible in that quarter. Among the militia annexed to you, Gen. Dickinson will take care that there are persons [Col. Asher Holmes] perfectly acquainted with the country and roads, so as to prevent every danger and delay which might arise from want of intelligent guides. The same day, Dickinson wrote Washington of Morgan’s “march in the afternoon for Allentown” to harass the British rear. “I shall order about the three hundred militia who are collected there to join him." A mounted party of Upper Freehold militia under Colonel Samuel Forman was nearby; he informed Dickinson of British movement to Imlaystown but wrongly predicted that the British Army would head toward Hightstown (rather than Freehold). Also on the 24th, Washington wrote General William Heath that "every obstruction is thrown in their way which our circumstances will admit." Washington’s Secretary, James McHenry estimated that the small clashes at Allentown and elsewhere cost the British "thirty or forty in the different skirmishes with our militia and flying parties." Major Thomas Massie of Morgan's Regiment later suggested that the efforts to impede the British near Allentown “stopped them a day and some prisoners were taken." On June 25, Morgan’s Continentals skirmished with the British as they left Allentown for Freehold. The Continentals entered the town at 11 a.m. He wrote Washington: I fell in with their rear. We exchanged a few shot, no harm come. They drew up on one side of the creek and down the other, I sent some parties to skirmish with them and they immediately made off… I am afraid I shant [sic] be able to do them much damage. They encamp in a body so compact that it is impossible to get any advantage. Dickinson’s New Jersey militia entered Allentown soon after Morgan. He wrote Washington that "several deserters coming in - I imagine desertion will be great." At this point, the British line of march (whether through Middlesex County to Amboy or through Monmouth County to Sandy Hook) was unknown. Seeing the British take the road to Freehold, Dickinson informed Washington: “Their rout is certainly thro’ Monmouth, tis generally thought they will embark at the Watering-place [on the Navesink Highlands].” Dickinson further noted plundering by the British, “they have collected a great number of Cattle." General William Maxwell’s New Jersey Continentals reached nearby Hightstown on the 25th. He wrote: I have a small party on the Enemys rear & two Capts. and a Major on their right and rear who says the Desertion that way is Emence [sic]. Major [Joseph] Bloomfield says their rear today marched in much disorder and left a number of their Cattle on the road. They must have put a number of Men in their waggons [from heatstroke] as the day was immencely [sic] hot. Historian Mark Lender, who wrote the essential book on the Battle of Monmouth, described an incident involving the home of Robert Montgomery (an officer in the militia). Henry Clinton had used this house, among the best in town, as his headquarters. When the British left the house, it was quickly occupied by militia who then proceed to take shots at the assembled British from the house. The British fired cannon into the house to disperse the snipers, damaging the home. Three Monmouth Countians wrote of their service around Allentown on June 24 and 25 in their postwar veterans pension applications. John Scott of the local Upper Freehold militia was likely with Samuel Forman. He wrote of being nearly captured: “He acted as an orderly sergeant, he thinks with seventeen men under his command, being detached from his company from Crosswicks to Allentown, then were obliged to surrender & escape with alacrity from a larger party of British troops.” Two militiamen were likely attached to Morgan’s regiment. They described marching on the flanks of the British Army. Matthias Handlin wrote, "The army to which this deponent was attached pursued… and camped north of the British while they lay at Montgomery's farm, about three quarters of a mile, on the farm of Job Cleavenger." Ellison Covert of Freehold wrote: “He marched to Allentown the day the British reached there, and about a half hour before the British reached there. He marched to Hightstown with his company - stayed there all night. Next day, he marched back to Allentown & stayed there all night." Sources : Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; American Philosophical Society, Thomas Sullivan, Journal of Operations in the American War, p 403; John Peebles, John Peebles' American War, p221-8; Bruce Burgoyne, Journal of the Hesse Cassel Jaeger Corps (New York: Heritage Books, 1987) p43-7; Bell, A. "Copy of a journal by Andrew Bell, Esq., at One Time the Confidential Secretary of General Sir Henry Clinton. Kept during the March of the British Army through New-jersey in 1778.” Proceedings of the New jersey Historical Society, vol 6, 1851, p17; Bruce Burgoyne, Defeat, Disaster and Dedication: The Diaries of a Hessian Officer (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p31-2; John Simcoe, Simcoe's Military Journal (New York: Bartlett & Welford, 1844) pp. 30, 32; Don Higginbotham, Daniel Morgan: Revolutionary Rifleman (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), p 87; Henry Clinton to Alerud Clark, Monmouth County Historical Association, Articles File: "Relic of the Revolution"; Robert Paterson, Diary, Copy: Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - British Sources; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, June 24, 1778; James Graham, The Life of General Daniel Morgan (NY: Derby & Jackson, 1856), 204; John Fabiano, Allen's Town, New Jersey: Crossroads of the American Revolution, unpublished manuscript in the collection of the Allentown Historical Society, p 45; John C. Fitzpatrick, The George Washington Papers (Washington DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1932, v12, p93; Veteran's Pension Application of Thomas Massie of Virginia, U.S. National Archives, Washington, DC; [?] Hausser, Journal of Quartermaster Hausser of von Lossing's Regiment, New Jersey State Archives, Manuscripts Coll., Papers of William S. Stryker; John Fabiano, Allen's Town, New Jersey: Crossroads of the American Revolution, unpublished manuscript in the collection of the Allentown Historical Society, p 51-2, 54; Allentown Messenger, Nov. 16, 1905; Carl Bauermeister, Revolution in America (New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1957) p185; Anonymous British Officer, Journal, Copy: David Library, Battle of Monmouth Collection, #73; Henry Jackson 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. 527–528; Bernard Uhlendorf, Confidential Letter and Journals, 1776-1784, of Adjutant General Major Bauermeister of the Hessian Forces (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957) p 184; John Von Krafft, Journal of John Charles Philip Von Krafft, 1776-1784 (New York: Privately Printed, 1888) pp. 45-6; American Philosophical Society, Thomas Sullivan, Journal of Operations in the American War, p407, 417; Samuel Lockwood, The British March to Monmouth, Beecher's Illustrated Magazine, vol. 6, n. 1, 1872, p24; Mary Murrin, ed., Conflict at Monmouth Court House: Proceedings of a Symposium Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Monmouth (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1978) p 13; Willcox, C. DeWitt, Major Andre's Journal, (Tarrytown, NY: William Abbatt, 1930) p 77-8; Joseph Plumb Martin, Private Yankee Doodle: Dangers and Sufferings of a Revolutionary Soldier (Eastern Acorn Press, 1962) p 123; Henry Clinton, The American Rebellion; Sir Henry Clinton's Narrative of His Campaigns, 1775-1782, with an Appendix of Original Documents (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1971) p 90; Francis Downman, The Services of Lieut. Colonel Francis Downman (London: Royal Artillery Institution, 1898) p64-72; Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961) vol. 1, pp. 503-4; Philemon Dickinson to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, June 25, 1778; Henry Knox to William Knox, Gilder Lehrman Institute, GLC2437.00712, www.gilderlehrman.org ; Edward J. Lowell, The Hessians and Other German Auxiliaries of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War (New York: Harper Brothers, 1884) p213; Correspondence File: Table of British Desertions compiled from Don Hagist, based on documents in PRO, WO 12; Col. Daniel Morgan to George Washington, 6/25/78, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress, Series Four; John Andrews "His Surveying Book, Likewise, Paintings" private collection. Copy: David Library, Battle of Monmouth Collection, #84; Thomas Sullivan, Journal, Copy: David Library, Battle of Monmouth Collection, #52; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, p. 537; William Maxwell 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. 542–543; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Ellison Covert of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#12873752 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Matthias Handlin of Ohio, www.fold3.com/image/#23563620 ; Contained in: National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Scott of PA, www.fold3.com/image/# 16232608; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p 618; Samuel Lockwood, The British March to Monmouth, Beecher's Illustrated Magazine, vol. 6, n. 1, 1872, p25; John Simcoe, Simcoe's Military Journal (New York: Bartlett & Welford, 1844) pp. 32-3; John Anderson, The Battle Cry: Newsletter of the Friends of Monmouth Battlefield, v8, n3, May 2002; Bruce Burgoyne, Diaries of Two Ansbach Jaegers (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p41-2; Mark Lender, Garry Wheeler Stone, Fatal Sunday (Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press, 2016) pp 139-156. 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 > County Elections Marred by Violence and Voter Intimidation by Michael Adelberg County elections, like this one depicted in the 1800s, were crowded and chaotic. In Monmouth County, Machiavellian supporters of the Revolution intimidated voters and beat opposing candidates. - October 1780 - By 1780, Monmouth County Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) had split into rival factions . “Due Process Whigs” supported the war effort but not to the point of sacrificing individual protections under the law; “Machiavellian Whigs” believed that individual protections under the law could be sacrificed in order to wage war effectively. The two factions argued over impounding goods from farmers and negotiating prisoner exchanges with the enemy. The establishment of the Association for Retaliation —a vigilante society led by the most Machiavellian Whig leader in the county, Colonel David Forman—ratcheted up tensions between leaders of the two factions. As noted in a prior article, the New Jersey Assembly investigated the Association for Retaliation in September 1780 and issued a scathing report about the group. However, because the report did not explicitly declare the group illegal, James Mott, a Monmouth County Assemblyman, sought to amend the report with a statement that would outlaw the group. Mott’s amendment failed because Monmouth County’s other two delegates would not support it. Just a week later, Mott would stand for re-election at the county’s annual election. The Tainted 1780 Election On October 10, at the annual election, three Machiavellian Whig leaders—Nathaniel Scudder, Thomas Henderson, and Thomas Seabrook (all Retaliators) won seats in the Assembly—defeating Mott and Hendrick Smock (Seabrook was re-elected). Elisha Lawrence (cousin of the Loyalist of the same name ) replaced John Holmes in the Legislative Council (the legislature’s upper house). Scudder, a former delegate to the Continental Congress , who had stayed out of politics for a year, wrote his son: I am again, through the importunity of friends and from the imminent dangers threatening the State, on the point of entering public life, having been elected to serve in the General Assembly for the ensuing year... My colleagues are Doctor Henderson and Major Seabrook -- Colo. Elisha Lawrence is our Counselor. The party of Mr. Holmes and Mott were thrown out by a majority of almost three to one, are outraged and threaten to correct the election, but I believe they will find themselves unable. The “outrage” of Holmes and Mott was expressed in a petition that was waiting for the New Jersey Assembly when it reconvened on October 26. The minutes of the Assembly summarized “a petition and remonstrance from 241 inhabitants of the County of Monmouth, setting forth that at the late election of the 10th instant, they had not a free and fair election.” The petitioners made two arguments. First, the election judges should have held the polls open for a second day to allow for militia—serving on the shore—to vote in shifts over two days: It was not prudent for the whole of the frontier to leave their habitations all at one time, lest the enemy might take advantage thereof, that a number of the inhabitants of the County were on duty at separate posts, which posts could not prudently be left without a guard – It was therefore proposed that part of said guards should have the opportunity of electing on the first day and the other part on the following day… The judges of elections did close the polls at 7 o'clock in the evening of the same day, though they were earnestly requested not to close the polls that day, but to continue the ensuing day. Second, the petitioners argued that voters were intimidated when a candidate (Mott) was beaten in front of voters and protesting voters were threatened: “One of the candidates was most shamefully beaten and otherwise ill treated, and orders were made that his aiders should be treated in the same manner.” The petitioners demanded that the election be voided and new elections held. Another petition came into the Legislative Council from the defeated incumbent, John Holmes, and Colonel Daniel Hendrickson, commanding the Shrewsbury militia. His men were deployed on the Atlantic shore and subject to dramatic fines if they skipped militia service to vote. The petition argued “that the election lately held in said County for representatives was not a free one, and that the election was closed by the Judges on the evening of the first day, before all the voters intending to vote had given their votes, owing to their being on militia duty and other duties." They also called for the election to be voided and new elections held. These petitions were countered by statements supporting the October 10 election. The Assembly read "a memorial from 244 inhabitants of the County of Monmouth.” The memorialists “do highly approve of the judge's conduct at said election and of the members returned to the Legislature; that they are convinced, from good information, that the election was carried on and closed legally." The Assembly also received "a certificate from 60 inhabitants of said county setting forth that the election was carried on strictly according to the law; and that there were very few votes presented for two hours before the close of the poll." New Jersey Assembly Considers the County Election On October 27, the Assembly considered the Monmouth County election controversy. The House took into consideration the petitions and other papers presented to them relative to the late election for the County of Monmouth, on which a motion was made by Mr. Van Cleave that the petitioners [calling for voiding the election] be heard before the Legislature. The motion failed 8-15. A motion to hold new elections failed 3-15. The new Monmouth delegates—Scudder, Henderson, and Seabrook—voted against both motions. The Legislative Council considered voiding the Monmouth election on November 10: A resolution to hold an investigation failed by a 3-4 vote; a resolution to hold hearings only if the Council supported the complaining petitions passed by a 4-3 vote; and a resolution to dismiss the complaining petition passed by 4-3 vote. Monmouth's Elisha Lawrence abstained on each of these votes. The geography of Monmouth County greatly favored the Machiavellian Whigs—who were clustered around Freehold, the county seat. Here, the large Presbyterian congregation , combined with a few dozen families forced to move inland for their safety created a powerful voting bloc of strident Whig voters proximate to the polling site. Due Process Whigs—though almost certainly more numerous—generally lived in Middletown and the Atlantic shore townships. Their election-day strength was diluted by distance from the polling site, particularly when election judges refused to hold the polls open a second day. While the New Jersey Legislature was willing to void the county’s 1777 election when Forman and followers intimidated voters, it was unwilling to do so in 1780 when Forman’s conduct escalated to assaulting a candidate and threatening voters. Perhaps, after the three years of war, legislators were more tolerant of Machiavellian behavior. Perhaps legislators believed that men like Forman—whatever their excesses—were needed to win the war. The tainted election was allowed to stand. After the Election James Mott would gain a small measure of satisfaction in the courts. Mott hired one of New Jersey’s most prominent attorneys, William Paterson, and sued Forman in the New Jersey Supreme Court. In the court’s filing, Mott claimed that Forman "made an assault on the said James… then and there did beat, wound and evilly treated, so that his life was greatly disdained of and other enormities.". Mott sought £1,000 in damages—roughly the value of a small farmstead. While documentation is not conclusive, it appears that the case of Mott v Forman was not heard by the Supreme Court but was heard in the Monmouth County Court of Quarterly Sessions instead. Forman pled guilty to the assault charge, admitting that he did “beat, wound, and ill-treat” Mott. Forman’s fine is not listed, but £20—the value of a good horse—was the upper limit for an assault charge in other cases where the outcome is known. This was only one-twentieth of the amount sought by Mott. Meanwhile, the vigilantism of Forman’s Retaliators grew more aggressive . Far from ostracized, Forman was appointed a judge of the Monmouth Court of Common Pleas. Given the inaction following the 1780 election, it is not surprising that violence would again mar Monmouth County’s 1781 election. Petitioners recorded: At the late election, when a number of men (some in arms) appeared in a hostile manner, threatening all such persons at they called Tories and [London] Traders, if they should vote; A writing was put up at the Court House to the same effect; several persons were inhumanly beaten, some of them after they had voted, and some of them drove away who were legally entitled to vote, and went away without voting, not thinking themselves safe, as they did not confine their abuse to people they judged disaffected, but beat and abused several… and at the close of the election, one of the inspectors was attacked going down the stairs, and most barbarously beaten. In October 1782, the New Jersey Legislature passed an election reform law. The purpose of the law was to limit the power of "internal enemies" who engage in "clandestine practices and secret combinations." In some elections, blocs of disaffected voters supported "corrupt and disaffected candidates." (This was the case in Monmouth County’s lower shore townships of Dover and Stafford.) The annual elections for state office would now be "viva voice,” so that anyone voting for a disaffected person could be identified. The vote was also taken away from those "on parole, or persons against whom inquisitions and indictments for aiding and adhering to enemies of the State hath been found." The law was part of a broader range of activities at war’s end to “oppose the return of Tories . ” One provision of the law spoke to a condition in Monmouth County that tainted the annual elections. Under the law, counties now could have more than one polling place. Six New Jersey counties established second polling sites; curiously, Monmouth County did not establish a second polling site (though voting would be moved to the townships in the early 1800s). Perhaps Monmouth’s Machiavellian Whig officeholders blocked establishing a second polling place that would favor their political opponents. The law did not address voter intimidation as carried out by Forman and his followers. Related Historic Site : Museum of the American Revolution Sources : The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 26-27, 1780, p 1-8; Nathaniel Scudder to John Scudder, New Jersey Historical Society, Letters: Nathaniel Scudder; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1780) p1-9; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 26-27, 1780, p 1-8; Court Docket, Monmouth County Archives, Court of Quarterly Sessions, folder: 1780; Mott v Forman, New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #25199; Larry Gerlach, New Jersey in the American Revolution 1763-1783 A Documentary History (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1975) pp. 397-9; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #10948 and 11036, and Collective Series, Revolutionary War, document #114; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, October 1782, reel 1930. 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 > Competition for Continental Army Recruits in Monmouth County by Michael Adelberg Broadsides like this one were posted across New Jersey. Continental Army recruits were promised a bounty, a uniform, and, sometimes, land in the West. But few recruits were raised in 1777. - May 1777 - In the spring of 1777, there was a great need to bring men into the Continental Army. The soldiers who had enlisted in 1776 had served their time and most were heading home. George Washington’s army needed to be rebuilt against the professional British Army with long term troops. The Continental Congress focused on this need and recommended to the states that future enlistments run for three years or the length of the war. It also focused on widening the pool of recruits. Below is one example of a resolution passed with the goal of enhancing Continental Army recruitment: Resolved, that it be recommended to the Legislatures of each of the United States to enact laws exempting from actual service any two of the militia who shall, within the time limited by such laws, furnish one able-bodied recruit to serve in any battalion of the Continental Army, for the term of three years or the present war - such exemption to continue during the term for which the recruit shall enlist, and every such recruit be entitled to the Continental bounty and other allowances. Congress further recommended that the states permit "the enlisting of servants and apprentices” and allow debtors to enlist. It encouraged states to raise enlistment bounties. Initial bans against African Americans joining the army were reversed. Each state was responsible for raising its own troops and New Jersey—as the “crossroads of the Revolution”—responded by increasing its recruiting bounties and creating a new Continental Army regiment to be raised under Colonel Oliver Spencer. While Spencer was based in Essex County, his recruiters ranged across northern New Jersey and into Monmouth County. Across New Jersey but particularly in Monmouth County, young men who were willing to fight had many options—the New Jersey Continental Line, Spencer’s new regiment, David Forman’s Additional Regiment —and British service in the New Jersey Volunteers. Mark Lender, the premier historian of the Continental Army, observed that after an initial surge of patriotism in 1776, recruits to the Army were generally young and poor men lured by bounties. While there is no reason to doubt Lender’s generalization, there were some exceptions. Jonathan Holmes of Allentown, for example, enlisted into the New Jersey Line at Bordentown on January 6, 1777. He wrote his father: "I have this day joined the Light Horse, for I think it don't do to lie by as an idle spectator at this critical time." David Forman Complains about Outside Recruiters The efforts of the New Jersey Government to recruit men for the state’s Continental Line adversely impacted David Forman’s efforts to recruit men for his Additional Regiment. On May 28, Forman complained to the Continental Congress: By the laws of such State Legislatures we have too much reason to fear the recruiting service as it respects a certain part of the Army of the United States will be much impeded... we are sorry to find that certain laws passed by the Legislatures of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, that we are by no means considered to be on equal footing with the other Regiments [i.e., State Lines], but we are laid under such restrictions as amounting in all its consequences to an entire prohibition. Forman described his men as "persons warmly attached to American Liberty, who have not entered the service from lucrative or ambitious motives." He and the officers in his regiment were frustrated by the uneven recruiting practices. He called recruiting parity: "We therefore hope your Honorable House will consider our situation and put us on a respectable footing as those of the eight Regiments, by establishing our authority to equality in the different States." His memorial was referred to Congress’s War Department and it appears no action was taken directly related to it. Forman was permitted to recruit for his regiment from the body of captured Loyalist insurrectionists jailed in Philadelphia. However, those efforts produced only a handful of recruits. Other Tensions Created by Recruiting The New Jersey Legislature continued to focus on raising men for the Continental Army. In October, it appointed two recruiters from each county to raise troops for the Continental Line. For Monmouth County, Kenneth Anderson (the County Clerk) and Gilbert Longstreet were appointed. The state continued to raise bounties throughout the war, but in Monmouth County, there were allegations of bounty theft. John M. Covenhoven (known as John M. to distinguish him from other men of the same name) recalled that he "enlisted for six months under Capt. David Gordon,” but claimed that “Gordon cheated him of his bounty." Recruiting for the Army also created tensions with Monmouth County’s large Quaker community. Jacob Hall recalled an incident in 1780 in which: This deponent was then encamped at Freehold town when Capt. William Barton brought in a number of recruits for the Army, among them was young Solomon Ivins... That old Solomon Ivins (the Quaker Preacher) came to camp on horseback in order to induce his son to leave the company, and he would procure him a substitute. Solomon Ivins defied his father: “He would not leave the Army to please the old fellow; the said Solomon Ivins was a good soldier and served until the close of the war." The Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers were also campaigning for recruits. Colonel John Morris, looking to fill his 2nd Battalion, advertised for recruits in Loyalist newspapers in March and May 1777. He offered an £5 recruitment bounty plus "each man shall be entitled to fifty acres of land in this province at the expiration of the rebellion." Via former militia colonel George Taylor, recruiting handbills for the New Jersey Volunteers were circulated throughout northern Monmouth County. Taylor recruited on his various incursions into Monmouth County in the spring of 1777. The results of all of this recruiting activity in Monmouth County were generally unimpressive. Monmouth Countians did not join the state’s Continental Line in great numbers. It appears that only one company—under Captain Jonathan Forman—was raised for the Continental Line from the county in 1777. Forman’s Additional Regiment also remained small—topping out at around 100 men. The low number of recruits reflects the underlying reality that Monmouth County—despite the tumult—was a place of considerable economic opportunity in 1777. Young men had many opportunities including producing agricultural and maritime products for eager commissaries . Monmouth Countians could also participate in new industries in need of laborers—particularly salt-making and privateering. Economic opportunities aside, many Monmouth Countians remained unconvinced that Revolution was the right path. The ranks of the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers swelled in early 1777. Illegal trade with the British was lucrative and low-risk through most of the war. This was the underlying reason that relatively few Monmouth men served in the Continental Army. Related Historic Site : National Museum of the United States Army (Ft. Belvoir, VA) Sources : Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of John M. Conover of Pennsylvania, National Archives, p4-7; Advertisement, New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury, March 10, 1777; New Jersey State Archives, Dept of Defense, Military Records, Revolutionary War Copies, box 27, #16; American Memory Project, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collection/continental ; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Solomon Ivins; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 49, item 41, vol. 3, #179-80; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 8, p 394; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p122-3; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 10, 1777, p 200. 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 Jersey Legislature Voids Monmouth County Election by Michael Adelberg This painting of a county election in the 1700s depicts a rowdy public event. Monmouth County’s chaotic 1777 election was tainted by voter interference and voided by the state legislature. - November 1777 - As discussed in prior articles, David Forman was the most powerful man in Monmouth County in 1777—its senior militia officer and Colonel of the locally-stationed Continental Army regiment. With no functioning local government to check him, Forman’s actions became increasingly reckless. Due to his zeal in serving the Revolutionary cause, other leaders sought to look past his transgressions. Of the many controversies surrounding Forman in 1777, it was his intervention in Monmouth County’s 1777 annual election that finally forced a check on his conduct. Under New Jersey’s Constitution, county elections were held annually to select delegates to New Jersey’s legislature and certain county offices, including sheriff. Elections were held at the county seat (Freehold) and votes were cast in public—so the votes of an individual were known to all present. Elections were overseen by three election judges who advertised the election, qualified voters, recorded votes, and tallied vote totals. While Monmouth County did not have political parties, there was a political split among its Revolutionary leaders. One group of leaders placed laws and individual rights above the need to prosecute the war. The other group believed that the war was such an existential threat that true patriots had to take any steps they deemed necessary to prosecute the war. Over time, this split would harden into competing factions of “Due Process” and “Machiavellian” leaders. Most Due Process leaders were from vulnerable shore areas, while most Machiavellian leaders were from Freehold and other relatively safe inland areas. The election judges at the October 14 election were Samuel Forman, Samuel Forman Jr., and Thomas Henderson—each of whom lived inland in Freehold and Upper Freehold townships. The Tainted Election of 1777 Based on the counted votes at the county election on October 14, two of Monmouth county’s three incumbent “Due Process” delegates were defeated by two “Machiavellian” candidates from Freehold Township—Kenneth Anderson (also county clerk) and Kenneth Hankinson (also militia captain). One Due Process incumbent, James Mott of Dover Township, was re-elected. But two petitions sent to the legislature alleged that the election was grossly unfair. One of those petitions has survived; in it, three complaints were made: First, petitioners complained about the closure of the polls. “The [election] judges, altho' demanded by the Sheriff and others that the election should go on” closed the polls before some voters could reach Freehold. Sheriff Asher Holmes and others asked the polls not “be adjourned until the next day” but second day voting was not permitted. This favored Machiavellian candidates because voters living on the vulnerable shorelines needed more time to travel to Freehold. Second, the petitioners accused David Forman and Dr. Thomas Henderson (an election judge) of cajoling voters and issuing threats during the voting. This was not allowed once voting commenced: General Forman, assisted by Lt Col Henderson harangued the people on the conduct of the late Assemblymen & candidates for the present Assembly, charging them with throwing cold water on every spirited measure & saying the people's liberties depended on their conduct that day... and made a partial representation from the votes of the late Assembly, and threatening to cram the votes down the throat of one of the late members, then a candidate for the present one and confine him with his guards, with many other threats. Third, the petitioners accused the election judges of permitting illegal voting: “a security [evidence of voter eligibility] was also demanded but refused, altho' several voted that was not entitled to vote by law.” The petitioners concluded, “therefore we conceive the election illegal, unjust & unconstitutional and even dangerous to the liberties of a free people." New Jersey Legislature Voids Election On November 4, the new session of the New Jersey Assembly convened and the elected Monmouth delegates—Anderson, Hankinson, and Mott—were seated. According to the minutes of the Assembly, the first item of business was considering two petitions from Monmouth County "complaining of undue and illegal proceedings at the election of representatives for the County." Summons were sent out to the petitioners, election judges, and David Forman. Forman had recently fought at the Battle of Germantown and was currently raising troops for the defense of Red Bank on the Delaware River. He declined the summons. He wrote George Washington about his decision: Two petitions ware handed into the Assembly most unjustly charging me and sundry other Gent. with undue practices on the Day of Election & praying the Election to be set Aside—The Petition was read in the House and a Hearing ordered on Tewsday [sic] next and a Notice served on me to Attend. I immediately went to the Assembly, informed them of my then situation and requested the hearing might be deferr’d for a few days until the Militia ware Assembled and put in some order—my request was Denyed [sic]. Forman “found myself hurt as a Gent. by the illiberal charges” and said his duty as an officer would not let him spend so much time away from Red Bank . “I then delivered [my Brigadier General commission] to Mr Speaker and left the House.” Forman said that the Assembly Speaker rejected the return of his commission, but he found someone else who would accept it. Forman then blasted the Legislature for not supporting the war effort: I have Long been disgusted with the indolence and want of attention to military matters in the Legislature of this State. I was determined to spin out this Campaign in my Slavery until I found a set of Men plotting by the most unfair means to stain my reputation. Forman’s resignation saddened George Washington, who wrote: “General Forman has, to my great concern, and contrary to my warmest solicitations, resigned his commission upon some misunderstanding with the Assembly." Yet, Forman’s resignation did not deter the New Jersey Assembly. It re-read the petitions on November 11 and heard testimony from witnesses on November 12. Other scandals related to Forman including the banishing of Loyalist women and extra-legal hanging of Stephen Edwards were likely discussed. On November 13, the New Jersey Assembly voted by a 13-12 margin to void the Monmouth County elections. This action drew a protest from the Monmouth County election judges. They claimed the Assembly’s majority “refused to point out to us or inform us in any degree (although requested of the House) we had violated the law, or whereupon the conduct of the officers acting at said election had been so illegal as to make necessary to set the election aside.” Therefore, judges would not “give any certificates further respecting the said election." This meant that those elected to county office on October 14 (including the new sheriff) would not have their election certified. The refusal to certify the election of county officeholders sparked another Monmouth County petition against the election judges: "The Judges at the late annual election refuse to give the Sheriff [newly-elected Nicholas Van Brunt of Shrewsbury Township] a certificate of his election, whereby they are deprived of a Sheriff for the said County, and praying a law for Commissioning said Sheriff." On November 21, the Upper House of the Legislature, the Legislative Council, unanimously concurred with the Assembly’s vote and ordered newly-elected Sheriff Van Brunt to advertise the new election. On November 28, the legislature passed "An Act to procure a Return of the Election of a Sheriff of the County of Monmouth” which affirmed the election of Sheriff Van Brunt and empowered him to supervise the new election that would be held to rectify the tainted October 14 election. This appears to be the first time that the New Jersey legislature had investigated, much less overturned, a county election. The Monmouth County delegates were sent home and new elections were held in December. In the new election, three Due Process leaders, Mott, Peter Schenck (Middletown Township), and Hendrick Smock (Freehold Township but Middletown family) were elected. No doubt, unfortunate timing and recent events impacted what happened at Freehold on October 14. The British had captured the nation’s capital three weeks earlier and David Forman had rallied hundreds of Monmouth Countians to support Washington’s Army; at the Battle of Germantown on October 4, Monmouth Countians had at least one killed and others wounded. Forman’s men returned home defeated and were exasperated by news of punishing Loyalist raids into Monmouth County near Shrewsbury . Forman had also just convened a tribunal and issued a death sentence on Stephen Edwards, who would be hanged at Freehold on October 15, the day after the election. These events came to a head at Freehold on October 14. Anger over recent events combined with the ample levels of liquor, gossip, and simmering grudges that day. The result was a combustible atmosphere that tempted leaders into actions that were illegal and undemocratic. Related Historic Site : Monmouth County Historical Association Sources : Petition, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, Photocopy; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 4-12, 1777, p 5-17; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 12, 26 October 1777 – 25 December 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. and David R. Hoth. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2002, pp. 151–154; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, p 108; Personal Correspondence: David J. Fowler, Letter: Samuel Forman, Samuel Forman Jr. and Thomas Henderson to New Jersey Assembly, no date; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 26-27, 1777, p 28, 30; Missing or Alienated Records of the State of New Jersey, http://www.nj.gov/state/archives/missinglaws13.html; and The Acts of the Council and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: Trenton, 1784) p33; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p15. Previous Next