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 > French Fleet Threatens Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg From his flagship, Languedoc, outside Sandy Hook, Admiral D’Estaing, considered ways to engage smaller British fleet inside the Hook. Unable to do so, D’Estaing left for Rhode Island. - July 1778 - France entered an alliance with the United States on February 8, 1778, and two months later dispatched a large fleet to fight the British Army and Navy in America. The French fleet reached American waters off the Chesapeake Bay as a British fleet left Philadelphia and cleared the Delaware Bay. After spending a few days off Virginia, the French turned north, reaching Delaware Bay on July 8 and nearing Sandy Hook on July 10—only four days after the British Army had completed its evacuation to New York via the Hook. The French intentions were clear to Admiral Richard Howe, commanding British ships at New York: “The French squadron was advancing toward this port... anchored this evening without the Hook, seeming to meditate an attack on this port." Howe ordered all British ships to come inside Sandy Hook. As the French neared, ships and boats sprinted for Sandy Hook. Loyalist Louisa Susannah Wells, aboard the Rose in a four-ship squadron, narrated her arrival on July 9. She recalled, "we had a precaution to nail a sail-cloth before the cabin windows and to be careful of showing lights." She also wrote: The [sloop of war] Swift was so apprehensive about being taken that she threw out all her boats in order to be towed in. All the comfort we had was that the Swift would be taken first… We had the mortification to see five or six vessels taken by the enemy that day, which were bound to New York, but did not know its harbor [was] being blocked up. The French Fleet Arrives of Shrewsbury Inlet On July 11, word of French arrival ricocheted among British officers at New York. Colonel Thomas O'Beirne wrote, "in the afternoon they [the French] were observed to come to anchor off Shrewsbury Inlet, about four miles from the Hook.” The Army’s senior engineer, John Montressor, wrote of the first prizes taken by the French: This evening an account of the French fleet coming to anchor off Sandy Hook, consisting of eleven sail of the line and 3 three frigates; they took 12 out of 13 of our fishing boats. The tender of the [frigate] Thunder Bomb [was] drove into the French fleet by a gust and was taken. The logbook of the French flagship, Languedoc , reveals that the French were picking up additional British shipping. Even before they “anchored at Black Point” [actually Shrewsbury Inlet] on July 11, the French “took the sloop of war the York of 14 guns” on July 10 and only the 11th “took possession of some fishing boats” and “took the snow the Carcasse , laden with powder, bombs, and balls." Admiral Charles Henri D’Estaing was not initially impressed by the defenses at Sandy Hook, which he referred to as a "small guard.” Captain Henry Duncan of the Royal Navy described the British ships facing the French on July 11. At this time we had only the Preston, Somerset, Nonsuch, St. Albans, Phoenix, Roebuck. The Eagle, Trident, Ardent, Isis, and Richmond were anchored a little below the Narrows. At five, the Eagle and the ships with her joined those at Sandy Hook; the whole force then collected consisted of six 64-gun ships, two fifties, and the Experiment, two forty-fours, and two or three frigates. These were drawn up in order at the Hook to receive the French fleet. Our ships in general were but very indifferently manned, owing to sickness and their being short of complement. While the British had assembled a comparable number of ships as the French, the British ships were smaller and lightly armed in comparison to D’Estaing’s fleet. Fortunately for the British, winds did not support a quick attack on Sandy Hook. On July 12, Lt. Col. Stephen Kemble wrote that "since their arrival, no favorable winds to induce them to enter and attack us." The Loyalist New York Gazette wrote of a small Loyalist schooner, Dispatch , that escaped capture: With three men on board, was taken off the fishing banks by three barges from the French squadron… The fishermen of the Dispatch threw one Frenchman overboard and secured the other two in the hold, and stood off for Sandy Hook. The Gazette also reported that “six or seven barges belonging to them [French navy] were going ashore for water, were overset near Jumping Point in the Jersies, and a number of men were drowned." Indeed, the French were going ashore; D’Estaing, himself, went ashore. They needed local pilots to guide them through the deep-water channel immediately north of Sandy Hook and they needed fresh water and provisions for their hungry men. Both of these are topics of other articles. While waiting on local pilots and provisions, the French continued to pick up British ships. Admiral Howe and Colonel John Laurens of the Continental Army, arrived at Shrewsbury, both estimated that the French took about a dozen British ships and large boats. But the actual number, based on French sources, was higher than that. Table 6 documents their considerable booty while anchored off Sea Bright. Beyond the prizes, several British ships were chased and wrecked. On July 25, the Loyalist New York Gazette reported the wreck of a vessel carrying sugar wrecking a week earlier and “almost all her sugar is washed away.” In addition, “three more vessels are on shore southward of the Neversink... a schooner ran ashore and went to pieces on the Hook Thursday last." French Are Unable to Attack British Nonetheless, the primary interest of Admiral D’Estaing was determining the best way to cross Sandy Hook and attack the British. He reportedly offered a massive bounty to any pilot who could get his ships in. But he was unable to find a pilot who believed that the channel north of Sandy Hook was deep enough for the largest French warships. D’Estaing later wrote: He promised one hundred thousand crowns to the pilot who would take care of this; but the promise could not make convincing the advantage of an impossible execution, there being depth for only small vessels… the passage [across Sandy Hook] is too narrow to risk, that if the vessel would ground, it would close the passage and leave the ships devastated by the batteries of the enemy. The largest French ships—including twelve ships-of-line sat as much as 24 feet in the water, and the channel depth was reportedly only 22 feet (these figures vary slightly across different sources). A related problem was the narrowness of the channel. British sources note that the channel above Sandy Hook was only wide enough to admit one, or potentially two, ships at time. According to a sketch from O’Beirne, British warships were lined up near the tip of Sandy Hook and immediately south of the channel. The ships and nearby shore battery could therefore focus considerable cannon fire on the channel precisely at the point that French vessels would enter the channel one or two at a time. This effectively negated the fire power advantage of the French fleet (850 French guns against 534 British guns). Word of the French problem crossing Sandy Hook made it to George Washington, who wrote Congress: It was the Count's [Admiral D’Estaing] first wish to enter at Sandy hook in order to possess himself of, or to destroy, if possible, the whole of the British fleet, lying in the Bay of New York; and that for this purpose he had been much engaged in his inquiries about the depth of water, and in sounding the channel to ascertain it. The result of which was, that the water from the experiments made was too shallow at the entrance to admit his large Ships. In addition to the problems with crossing Sandy Hook, D'Estaing lacked fresh water and provisions for his men. Despite efforts to supply the French, supply lines through Shrewsbury could not meet the needs of the large fleet and its 11,000 men. D’Estaing wrote, “without resupply vessels, his troops were much too weak to support an attack by the enemy.” A British report further described the supply problem , particularly with respect to carrying heavy water casks through the ocean surf: They procured some supplies from the Jersies, which was brought three miles by land carriage...but in the portage of casks they lost a number of boats, officers and men amidst the surge that prevails upon that shore, and proves inexorable to navigators unacquainted with it. French Decide to Leave Sandy Hook D’Estaing convened a council with his senior officers on July 20 and the decision was made to weigh anchor and leave. A French Officer, Jean-Julien Chevalier Le Mauff, noted that before leaving, “They decided to sink a small snow carrying oars that was taking much water, after having it unloaded, as well as some fishing boats." This was done in order to block entry into the Sandy Hook channel. British observers noted that the supply boats rowing between the shore and the fleet ceased on July 21. For example, British Navy Doctor John Campbell, wrote: "The French squadron had maintained a constant intercourse with the shore, by means of boats and small vessels; which was observed to cease on the 21st of July.” Some observers thought the French were attacking. O’Beirne wrote, "we consequently expected the hottest day that had ever been fought between two nations. On our side, all was at stake." But the British were misinformed "from the unanimous report of the country people" who were trading with French while informing the British. In reality the moves of that day were French preparations to sail. They would leave for Rhode Island on the morning of the 22nd. Ironically, the winds turned on July 22, deepening the channel. Richard Howe wrote: “A fresh easterly wind, of two days continuance… raised the water on the bar very considerably higher than its common level… Instead of standing in to pass the bar, after tacking two or three times, he stood off to sea." When the French sailed, they chose not to turn over prisoners to New Jersey authorities on shore. This peeved Reverend James Caldwell, a New Jersey delegate to the Continental Congress, who wrote: The French fleet took a number of fishing vessels outside the Hook - the greater part of their crews were the vile Tories who fled to the enemy & were obliged to fish for their support - but some were faithful inhabitants of Staten or Long Islands, obliged to support themselves in that way. Application was made to the Admiral to send the inhabitants to shore to abide the trial of their country & he seemed to consent, but afterwards appeared to be influenced to take them. The fate of these prisoners—including local Loyalists taken by the French while fishing—is unknown. Despite rumors of French fleets returning to Sandy Hook, the French never returned in force. However, the French threat forced the British to spread their naval assets across a wider variety of ports. This created an opportunity for American privateers eager to prey on British shipping bound for New York. Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Montresor, John. “Journals of Captain John Montresor.” Edited by G. D. Scull. (New York: Collections of the New-York Historical Society, 1881) p 502; Thomas Lewis O'Beirne, A Candid and Impartial Narrative of the Transactions of the Fleet, Under the Command ofLord Howe (London, 1969), p 10; Louisa Susannah Wells Aikman, The Journal of a Voyage from Charleston, S.C. to London: Undertaken During the American Revolution (New York: New York Historical Society, 1906), pp. 12–6; Adm Richard Howe, published in Thomas Pownall, The Remembrancer or Impartial Repository of Public Events (London: J. Alman, 1778) vol. 6, p352; Lulu Hartshorne’s account, Monmouth County Historical Association, Collection #86, box 1, folder 21; Logbook of the Languedoc in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 233; Jean D'Estaing, Reports, 1778-1779, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Coll. 815; Gardner W. Allen, A Naval History of the American Revolution (1912, 1940, reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), pp. 329-30; Tilly, John A., The British Navy and the American Revolution (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1987) p 84, 143; Jean D’Estaing, letter, B. F. Stevens, ed., Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives Relating to America, 1773–1783, [25 vols., London, 1889–1898], vol. 23, #2023; Colin Lindsay, Extracts of Colonel Templehoffe's History of the Seven Years War (London: T. Cadel, 1793), v2, p485; Henri D’Estaing, Extrait du Journal d’un Officier de la Marine, Morristown National Historical Park, Rare Books Coll., #9596, pp. 9-13 (translated by Google Translate); Lapeyrouse de Bonfils, Léonard Léonce, Histoire de la Marine Française, Par M. le Comte (Chez Dentu, Librarie, Palais Royal Galerie D'Orleans, Paris, 1845) v. 3, pp45-48; London Chronicle, published in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 541; Thomas Lewis O'Beirne, A Candid and Impartial Narrative of the Transactions of the Fleet, Under the Command ofLord Howe (London, 1969), p 11; Montresor, John. “Journals of Captain John Montresor.” Edited by G. D. Scull. (New York: Collections of the New-York Historical Society, 1881) pp. 504-5; Henri Doniol, ed., Histoire de la Participation de la France à l'Établissement des États Unis d'Amérique: Correspondance Diplomatique et Documents, 5 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1876–99), vol. 3, p. 447-9; The Fleet of D'Estaing, Profession Patrick Villiers, http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/fleet01.htm ; Kemble Stephen. Adjutant to General Howe: The Kemble Papers, NYHS Collections (New York: New York Historical Society, 1884–85) p 155; Francis Downman, The Services of Lieut. Colonel Francis Downman (London: Royal Artillery Institution, 1898) p64-72; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Archibald Robertson, Archibald Robertson: His Diaries and Sketches in America, 1762-1780 (New York: Arno, 1969) p 180; Richard Howe in London Gazette, Sept. 15, 1778; Journal of Chevalier de Gra-Prévlle in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 437; Journal of Jean-Julien Chevalier Le Mauff, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 446-447; Thomas Lewis O'Beirne, A Candid and Impartial Narrative of the Transactions of the Fleet, Under the Command ofLord Howe (London, 1969), pp. 15-6, 23; John Tilley, The British Navy in the American Revolution (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1987) p 144; John Campbell, Biographica Nautica, Memoirs of an Illustrious Seaman (Dublin: John Williams, 1785) p 485; George Washington to Congress, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw120252)) ; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; George Washington to John Sullivan, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw120243)) ; Henry Laurens to George Casewell, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p482; Conrad Alexandre Gerard in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 966; United State Naval Academy, Rosenbach Coll., James Caldwell; Thomas Cushing to John Adams, The Adams Papers, Papers of John Adams, vol. 7, September 1778 – February 1779, ed. Gregg L. Lint, Robert J. Taylor, Richard Alan Ryerson, Celeste Walker, and Joanna M. Revelas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989, pp. 147–149; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Piers Macksey, The War for America, 1775–1783 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1964) pp. 217-8. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > David Rhea Complains about Lee's Continentals in Monmouth by Michael Adelberg Monmouth County’s Quartermaster Agent, David Rhea, used two-horse teams to bring wagon-loads of hay and grains to the Army. He feuded with Major Henry Lee who purchased his own forage. - October 1779 - As noted in prior articles, David Rhea was a lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army early in the war who served with distinction at the Battle of Monmouth . In late 1778, he wished to return to Monmouth County as the Continental Army’s Quartermaster agent. He wrote Moore Furman, leading the Quartermaster office, on October 30: “You had thoughts of appointing me to that office if I thought it proper to retire from the Army... I can leave the Army on the shortest notice." Rhea received the appointment and established an office at Allentown. He hired a small staff and set up a second office at Freehold (in a house purchased amidst scandal ). By early 1779, he and John Lloyd, agent for the Commissary Department, were purchasing food, hay, and grains for the Army and its horses. In January 1779, George Washington sent the cavalry regiment of Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee into Monmouth County. The reasons for doing so were not explicit but, based on related orders and events, it is probable that Washington was seeking to increase the county’s security (he had sent a regiment of Pennsylvania Continentals to Tilton Falls a few weeks earlier). Also, Washington likely hoped to place Lee’s men in a place with a large winter store of forage. This second reason would put Lee in conflict with Rhea who was purchasing forage for the main body of the Continental Army. David Rhea’s Complaints about Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee David Rhea first complained about Lee to Clement Biddle on February 12, 1779, even before Lee arrived. He wrote: “The light horse have not made their appearance, pray do not send them to these parts as yet; the country are all in arms about grain prices, send no more wagons here." In the same letter, Rhea referred to a growing controversy regarding Middletown’s Benjamin Van Cleave, which Rhea instigated by asking the Freehold Magistrate to seize Van Cleave’s hay. Van Cleave claimed the hay was to be used for poor relief and the Middletown Magistrate sided with him. A frustrated Rhea wrote of his own county, “it is a damnation country to do business with." Lee’s regiment came and went in early 1779, but returned in the summer of 1779 to search for and initiate communication with the expected French fleet . While other Continental regiments set up camp near the shore (at Tinton Falls and Middletown), Lee set up camp at Freehold and sent small parties to the shore. The co-location of Lee and Rhea purchasing forage in the village of Freehold was bound to cause conflict. On October 12, Rhea complained about Lee to Moore Furman: "Major Lee's dragoons have done as they please since they have been in this county.” Rhea went on describe a specific grievance with Lee’s request for wagons and a horse team: Major Lee has called for some light wagons and says it will be much less expense to ye public to have baggage in some light wagons and two horses, then the way he now moves -- I have none [for him], he wants me to have them made & to purchase large strong horses for that purpose. I have put him off in such a manner that I believe he will not ask again -- I think I shall have no more of it -- those horse consume a large quantity of forage, and at a very high price. I know not what to do --I hope they will not stay long, the inhabitants have fixed their price and the Major, I trust, would not alter it. In this last line, Rhea revealed a key aspect of his complaint. Lee was negotiating purchases directly with local farmers rather than deferring to Rhea, whose job it was to make those purchases. While stationed in Monmouth County , Lee issued passports to locals to go to New York (as spies, Lee reported) and proposed a plan whereby his men would impound the cattle of locals living near the shore, where they might be sold to London Traders or taken by Loyalist raiders. However, Lee lacked the authority to perform these acts. Lee’s sharp elbows not only bothered Rhea, but also bothered Judge John Imlay. Imlay asked Governor William Livingston to write Washington about Lee, and Washington abruptly removed Lee from Monmouth County in January 1780. When the French fleet was again expected on the Jersey shore in summer 1780, Washington returned Lee to Monmouth County. Lee again set up his headquarters at Freehold and again aggravated Rhea. Rhea wrote Furman on July 1, to complain that Lee had hired teamsters from Trenton into service to carry forage to Trenton, but Lee did not have forage for them to transport: Early this morning, some teams that were impressed by the Light Horse returned from Trenton, as they say, and report that they are not wanted... I will discharge the horsemen [teamsters] this evening; they have been a great deal of trouble. If events transpired as Rhea suggests, Lee was purchasing and raising forage in direct competition with Rhea, a move sure to draw his ire. It also suggests that Rhea, at least in Lee’s eyes, may have lacked energy in executing his duty. Rhea complained about Lee again a few weeks later. On July 21, he wrote Furman about the need for meal for the prisoners in the Monmouth County jail at Freehold. Rhea wrote “there are a number of prisoners, very impudent, in the gaol now." He then complained that "Major Lee's troops have consumed all the meal at Walton's & Conover's mills" which was intended for the prison. If all Revolutionary War documents had survived, it is very likely that additional complaints about Lee would surface; similarly, Lee likely complained about Rhea or other Monmouth County officials who he likely regarded as uncooperative. Based on available documentation, Lee did exceed authority more than once and was corrected by Washington and Livingston accordingly. Lee also likely perceived, with some merit, that local officials like Rhea were not doing all they could to support the Amry—much less his own regiment. Related Historic Site : US Army Quartermaster Museum (Virginia) Sources : David Rhea to Clement Biddle, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I173, Letters from Nathanael Greene, v3, p37; David Rhea to Moore Furman, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5599; David Rhea to Moore Furman, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5591-5592; David Rhea to Moore Furman, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5593. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Shrewsbury Friends Struggle to Stay Out of War by Michael Adelberg From their meeting house in Shrewsbury, Monmouth’s Quakers struggled to remain pacifists and keep members from participating in the war. They disciplined 31 members, 16 of whom were expelled. - July 1781 - Of all of America’s religious denominations, none were rocked as profoundly by the American Revolution as the Quakers (Friends). The majority of Quakers were pacifists and therefore at odds with a new government that required militia service. A prior article discussed the drive of the Shrewsbury Quakers to abolish slaveholding among Quakers, but the challenge of maintaining their pacifism amidst civil war would prove a more fundamental problem. Most of Monmouth County’s Quakers lived along its Atlantic shoreline and in its western township of Upper Freehold. The Upper Freehold Quakers attended a sub-meeting at Arneytown that rolled into a meeting in nearby Burlington County; those in Stafford Township attended a sub-meeting at Barnegat that rolled into the meeting at Little Egg Harbor. The Atlantic shore Quakers north of Barnegat attended a meeting at Shrewsbury, which included a sub-meeting at Manasquan. Fortunately, the minutes of the Shrewsbury monthly meetings and annual meeting have survived; they offer exceptional information on the activities of the meeting and its members. Grievances Grow among the Shrewsbury Quakers Not every Quaker was against the Revolution (Nathanael Greene, for example, was the most important American general of the war besides George Washington, was born and raised a Quaker). However, it appears that the majority of Shrewsbury Quakers were disaffected by the Revolution. They lived on the military frontier line that separated Continental- and British-controlled areas. A member of the Shrewsbury meeting, Benjamin White, recalled the difficulty of living on military frontier line and the imposition of quartering Continental troops: We were so near the lines that in the fore part of the night we had the British and Refugees, in the morning the American troops. My brother was called a King's Man or Refugee and myself a rebel or friend of the Jersey troops. Col [Benjamin] Ford and Maj [Henry] Lee came. We had to find quarters for the Army. The dwellings for some distance around were occupied by soldiers. We gave up our kitchens and cellars. White’s store at Tinton Falls was sacked during a Loyalist raid, but a more frequent source of Quaker grievance with the New Jersey government was its mandatory militia service. For strict Quakers, even paying fines for non-attendance was tantamount to supporting warfare. As early as February 1776, the pacifism of the Shrewsbury Quakers put them at odds with their local government. At that time, the township committee (acting as proto-government) unanimously warned the meeting to “forebear to pass censure on any person or persons... for acting in conformity in their military stations.” A year later, George Washington complained to Governor William Livingston about "the Quakers and disaffected persons are doing all in their power to counteract our Militia Law." The Shrewsbury meeting compiled reports on Quaker suffering due to the war. An August 1777 report concluded that £207 in fines had been levied against them "chiefly for support of the war & fines for refusal of military service.” Fines were enforced by seizing the goods of Quaker families. A 1779 report totaled up £1040 in fines (and this is before militia delinquency fines spiked in 1780). Equally concerning, “diverse friends were imprisoned, some were discharged, one of which qualified [took Loyalty oath], three continued confined upwards of three months, were fined by the court (though not yet levied) & their persons discharged from imprisonment." Over the course of the war, 31 members of the Shrewsbury meeting were disciplined for participating in the war. This was about one third of the 98 members disciplined during the war. In total, 78 men and 20 women were disciplined for a variety of offenses including marrying outside the faith, drinking alcohol, not attending church, and refusing to free slaves . Summary information on the 31 disciplined men is in the appendix of this article. Offenses related to participating in the war included serving in the militia and otherwise bearing arms, but also included less direct means of participation such as hiring a militia substitute and paying fines militia delinquency. Men were even disciplined for paying money for the return of property that was confiscated as a punishment for militia service. The Shrewsbury Friends did not distinguish between Whig and Loyalist when meting out discipline—members were disowned for supporting either side. Examples of Shrewsbury Quakers Disciplined for Participating in the War In September 1776, John Parker was reported at the Shrewsbury Meeting for “bearing arms.” The meeting sent Joel Borden to counsel him. Parker apologized, but his apology was rejected for “not being so full” and Parker committed a new offense by paying a fine for militia delinquency. Parker offered a second apology in December 1776, which was accepted. In June 1777, the meeting reported that "Parker doth acknowledge that he did hire a man to serve in his place for one month, but does not pretend to justify his conduct and seems disposed to make satisfaction.” In December 1777, Parker apologized for paying militia delinquency fines and hiring a militia substitute. Despite his many transgressions, Parker remained in the meeting. (A second John Parker was also disciplined.) In April 1777, Jacob Woolcott was brought before the Shrewsbury meeting and issued an apology: I hereby acknowledge that I did once ride in company with some military men who was on the business of taking prisoners & collecting arms, for which conduct I am really sorry, and do fully condemn the same. A year later, in June 1778, Woolcott again ran afoul of the meeting. It was reported: "Jacob Woolcott paid a sum of money for a man to go into military service, and since that matter has come against him for playing cards." Yet again, in August 1778, he was reported for "leaving his home for military service." Woolcott was given the opportunity to apologize, but apparently declined to do so. In January 1779, he was disowned by the Shrewsbury Friends. He went on to serve as a Lieutenant in the state troops . John Lawrence (son of William) went down the same path as Woolcott. In January 1779, he came before the Shrewsbury meeting: "I consented that a man should purchase my property when taken for a fine for not going into military service." In March 1780, Lawrence was again reported for "fighting formally and has bore arms in a hostile way, has left his habitation and gone where he cannot easily be treated." In March 1780, Lawrence was disowned by the Shrewsbury Meeting. In December 1779, and again in January 1780, the Shrewsbury Friends moved against three Pine Robbers who had previously been members of the meeting. In December, it was reported that: John Worthly and Joseph Hulletts have left us, and been concerned in bearing arms in a hostile manner, and as such practice is directly contrary to our principles & our profession, we think that for the reputation of our Society to disown them from being members. Another Pine Robber, Reap Brindley, was reported to the meeting in January 1780: "Richard [Reap] Brinley has bore arms & continues to do so, is profane in conversation and frequents places of deviation." Obadiah Tilton was sent to counsel him. In May, Tilton reported that his counseling had “no effect” on Brindley. Reap Brindley was disowned. In July 1781, the Shrewsbury Friends moved against three members concurrently. At a prior meeting, it was reported that James Tucker "has taken up arms, and [is] frequent in using vulgar and corrupt language." In July, it was reported that Tucker was still “bearing arms”; he was disowned. At the same time, Wiliam Corlies was disowned for bearing arms. However, a third member of the meeting, Richard Lawrence apologized to the meeting: "I am sensible that I have done wrong in traveling without a certificate, in bearing arms in the militia, and in committing fornication with a woman who is now my wife." He was permitted to remain in the meeting. Shrewsbury Friends Struggle to Comply with New Jersey Law In addition to disciplining individuals for not turning out for militia service. The Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meetings tracked the fines accrued by members. The first such report was compiled in July 1777; at the time, Friends had incurred L416 in fines "chiefly for not bearing arms & paying taxes for supporting a war against the Government." The report also noted that three members had been jailed. In January 1780, a committee of Edmund Williams, Robert Hartshorne and William Smith considered petitioning the New Jersey Assembly with respect to accumulating militia fines. The committee concluded: We do not at present find any matter wherein we can apprehend we can be useful - the laws, we think, is not so vigorously executed as heretofore, therefore [it is] our opinion that an application to those in power will not be of any good purpose. In October, a new committee comprised of Benjamin Woolcott, Jonathan White, William Tilton and George Parker reported that, "they have drew up a remonstrance against the oppressive conduct of those in power & presented it to the Assembly, who informed the Committee that the principal law discussed in their remonstrance expired at the close of the last session of the Assembly." The petition is noted in the minutes of the New Jersey Assembly, which recorded on November 8: Setting forth that the militia bill now in force, more especially that passed sixteenth day of June last, proves very grievous in the manner they have been executed against some of the persons belonging to the meeting, and praying relief. Loyalty oaths posed another problem for Quakers, whose religious principles made the act of taking an oath impermissible. So, the New Jersey government permitted Quakers to take an affirmation instead of an oath. Affirmations commonly included qualifying language such as "as far as consistent with my religious principles.” By 1778, all New Jersians were required to take an oath or affirmation to the New Jersey government; those who had not taken a Loyalty oath or affirmation (or signed the Continental Association before that) were barred from voting and officeholding. The Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meeting also considered the difficulties associated with Friends crossing enemy lines into New York and returning in Loyalist parties that robbed and plundered . On October, 1781, the combined meetings recorded: As there is a number of young people belonging to the Friends, removed from the verge of this meeting to New York, Long Island & Staten Island, some of whom have been privately returned back & committed acts inconsistent with our peaceable principles & thereby occasioned public scandal on our society, it is desired that Friends should consider whether such persons ought not to be publicly testified against. The outcome of their deliberations is unknown, but the willingness of devout Quakers to testify against former members linked to Loyalist raiding may show a desire to move closer to the New Jersey government toward war’s end. As the war wound down in July 1782, the Shrewsbury Friends finally agreed to pay taxes that supported the military. The Freeman's Journal (of Philadelphia) reported: We hear from Shrewsbury in New Jersey that the society of Friends, who are very numerous in those parts, have lately had a meeting to consider and provide against the ruinous tendency of being distrained on for taxes, as they have been these six years past. They are now consented to pay voluntarily to collectors, as other subjects of that State do. The Letters of the Hartshorne Brothers Letters sent to Richard Hartshorne (living on Rumson Neck) from Loyalist brothers, William and Lawrence, give insight into the views of a prominent Quaker family. In a March 20, 1778, William Hartshorne, in New York, wrote Richard Hartshorne to complain about his private letters being opened: The freedom that has been taken with the private letters of friends, however inoffensive they may be, has deterred me from attempting to convey one to you, but I can no longer refrain from endeavoring to have the satisfaction of hearing from you… At the same time, I seriously declare that I mean not to say one word that may do injury or give offense to any people on Earth. William Hartshorne further worried that he might suffer when his letter was read: The probability of this letter falling into the hands of people who may put meaning to words different from what I write – thought to convey, makes me very careful of what I say and not so particular in mentioning my own affairs as I wish to be. William Hartshorne wrote Richard Hartshorne again on September 19, 1778. This time he cautiously expressed hope of visiting the family. He also discussed affairs in New York and on Sandy Hook: “There has passed some compliments of a cordial sort between the commanding officer at S.H. & shore. I think there would not be much difficulty in procuring permission for being at home a day or two.” He also discussed a debate in New York about withdrawing from Sandy Hook (which would make contact between Loyalists in New York and disaffected in Monmouth County much more difficult): “Have found out that a great Revolution in politicks has been brought about in many little principalities in this neighborhood – from western to eastern – that poor S.H. must be given up.” In March and April 1779, Thomas Meadows (probably an alias used by Lawrence Hartshorne) wrote to R.H. (Richard Hartshorne) about the risk of sending letters to Shrewsbury. He also lampooned the Continental government and Colonel David Forman of Manalapan, a vigorous enemy of the disaffected: As there is considerable risqué in conveying letters, you will not hear from me in that way so often, however, I will sometimes attempt it and, in spite of all the lawmakers and lawgivers from Congresses down to Black David [David Forman], [I] will never call writing my brother corresponding with the Enemy. I think we may write to each other in a way that would not bring either of us into any disagreeable scrape even if they should unluckily fall into the hands of those heroes who, as volunteers, are sworn out to guard & protect or, in other words, to break open & plunder the dwellings of their neighbors. He also wrote of the anguish felt by brothers unable to visit family living across enemy lines: My brother would sometimes in a little boat visit his native shore and perhaps steal home to bless his aged parents with the sight of their son, but, of late, guards very frequently patrol the place of landing, so that my brother cannot without danger of being shot from behind the bushes and other skulking places where the guards often conceal themselves… Is it treason to warn him of this danger? His parents are in terror when they hear of his coming and although they long for nothing so much as to see him, could it be done without distressing his life? Lawrence Hartshorne also insulted unnamed Whig leaders: “I always make it a point to adhere to the spirit of the law immutable and to disregard the vile twistings of knaves & idiots.” As for Richard Hartshorne, he was the Monmouth militia paymaster through much of the war, but his warm contacts with New York Loyalists were discovered and he eventually became a Loyalist refugee himself. Perspective The author’s prior research demonstrates that more than a dozen Monmouth County Quakers served in British forces and even more served in the New Jersey (Whig) militia and state troops. Dozens more likely committed acts that, if detected, would have triggered disapproval from the Quaker meeting. These include assisting armed parties and participating in robberies. The war substantially intruded into the everyday lives of Shrewsbury Quakers. For example, the Shrewsbury Friends celebrated seventeen marriages between 1773-7, but only three from 1778-1783. The number of “witnesses” at these weddings also dropped from an average of 42 before the war, to 32 during the war. The pacifism of strict Quakers placed them squarely at odds with the laws of the State of New Jersey that mandated, among other things, militia service and fines for missing militia service. But in neighborhoods that were mostly ethnic-English, militia laws often went unenforced. This allowed many Quakers to ignore the law without penalty into the 1780s. Ultimately, the government of New Jersey made some concessions to Quaker principles and most Quakers evolved their principles to accommodate New Jersey law. Historian Richard McMaster argued that the requirements of the Revolutionary governments (militia service, loyalty oaths, taxes) pushed devout Quakers toward disaffection. These Quakers did not necessarily support the British, but they could not support a Revolutionary government with policies directly opposed to their principles. McMaster termed these Quakers "passive Loyalists" (to distinguish them from “active Loyalists” participating in the British war effort). Neutrality was the position of these passive Loyalists, as nicely stated by the Yearly Meeting of the Maryland Quakers in 1778: We believe it our indispensable duty to abstain from all wars and contests which have tendency to destroy the lives of men... we cannot, consistent with our religious principles, join with either of the contending parties, being thereby equally restrained from entering into solemn engagements of allegiance to either. Related Historic Site : Shrewsbury Quaker Meeting House Appendix: Shrewsbury Friends Disciplined for Participating in the War (see table 15 ) Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #3792; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel MR-PH 51; Judith M. Olsen, Lippincott, Five Generations of the Descendants of Richard and Abigail Lippincott (Woodbury, N.J.: Gloucester County Historical Society, 1982) pp. 159-61; Proceedings of the Committees of Freehold and Shrewsbury, Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, First Series, 1846, p 195; George Washington to William Livingston in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, pp. 331, 335. New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 4, May 7, 1777; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Freeman's Journal (Pennsylvania), July 12, 1782; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, Reel MR-PH, 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Letter, William Hartshorne at Edenton, NC, to his brother Richard Hartshorne in New York, March 20, 1778, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Letter, D. B. to Richard Hartshorne, September 19, 1778, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Letter, “Thomas Meadows” to R. H. dated “13th of the 4th Moon 1779. Possibly a pseudonym being used by Richard Hartshorne’s brother William, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Anonymous letter, addressed to R. H., dated “20th of the 3rd Moon 1779.," b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 8, 1780, p 20-21; Information on the marriages of the Shrewsbury Friends is in John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v1, p 306-14; Richard McMaster, "The Peace Churches of the American Revolution", Fides et Historia, v9, Spring 1977, p 8, 20. . Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Battle of the 1500 at Middletown by Michael Adelberg In June 1781, a large British party raided present-day Holmdel. The Monmouth militia bravely resisted. Among the wounded was Lt. Garrett Hendrickson, whose house was in the path of the raiders. - June 1781 - By 1781, the British Army (including Loyalist units such as the New Jersey Volunteers ) had largely pulled back from raiding into New Jersey. Many of their most enterprising officers, such as Captain Patrick Ferguson who led raids into Monmouth County, left to fight in the Carolinas . Loyalist irregulars, including the Associated Loyalists , filled the void—launching numerous small raid s into New Jersey. However, the British Army still made a few large incursions in 1781. One of those large incursions, involving roughly 1,500 British and Loyalist regulars, was launched into Middletown on June 21, 1781. Some locals would subsequently call it “the Battle of the 1,500.” The Battle of the 1500 in Newspaper Reports The most complete narrative of the Battle of the 1500 was printed in the New Jersey Gazette a few days after the incursion. The report noted that “a body consisting of about one thousand new Levies [Loyalists], British and foreign troops, under the command of Cortland Skinner, made an incursion” with the “intention to plunder a place called Pleasant Valley.” Pleasant Valley (present-day Holmdel) was a solidly-Whig neighborhood in western Middletown Township. Alarm spread before the raiders arrived, allowing the locals to engage in “driving off their stock of every kind so that they [the raiders] found little booty.” The outnumbered local militia resisted bravely: The militia of the neighborhood were by this time beginning to collect, and a pretty smart skirmishing was kept up through the remainder of the day, in which we are informed that our people behaved with great spirit. The raiders then withdrew toward the Navesink Highlands, camping on Garrett’s Hill , where a militia party raided the camp of the raiders: “One of our gallant officers made a descent upon them and rescued a number of a stolen sheep.” The next day, the raiders carried off “about 40 cattle and 60 sheep… The loss on our side is one killed and three or four wounded.” Two homes were burned. The report speculated that the raider’s “aim was to have penetrated further into the country” but the spirited militia response forced the raiders to shorten the incursion: The militia of the neighboring counties were called upon, and it was truly surprising to see with what spirit and alacrity they flew to their arms and were crowding down from every quarter to the assistance of their brethren, which accounts for the hasty retreat of the enemy. A report published in the Pennsylvania Gazette on June 27 claimed that 1,200 raiders landed at Shoal Harbor and marched through Middletown to Pleasant Valley “in the course of which he burnt Mr. [John] Stillwell's house, a Quarter Master in the Monmouth militia, also Justice [Peter] Covenhoven's house.” This report also praised “the militia, under Col. [Asher] Holmes, turning out with the greatest alacrity” which “ obliged the raiders “to go with very little plunder.” The report also praised “David Forman, Esq. (formerly General)” for “serving with his countrymen and fellow citizens in the ranks.” As the incursion and skirmishing was occurring, Loyalist irregulars on Sandy Hook took advantage of the local militia responding to the alarm. The Pennsylvania Packet reported a brutal incident that day regarding a Lieutenant Otter, who was clamming on the Shrewsbury shore (the details of which may be exaggerated): A refugee boat commanded by one Insley, formerly of New Jersey, was dispatched from a sloop at some distance in pursuit of him. Lieut. Otter gained the shore and ran a small distance, but having forgot his coat, ran back to recover it, and just as he arrived at the boat, he was killed by a four pound shot, which passed through his body. Insley and some of his crew came on shore, when he deliberately rolled up his sleeves, tore the bowels out of Lieut. Otter and washed his hands and arms in his blood. The wife and children of the unfortunate Lieut. were eyewitness to this monstrous barbarity of this imp of Hell. The Battle of the 1500 in Officer Letters and Other Docs Two of Monmouth County’s militia colonels, Asher Holmes and Samuel Forman, called out their men to combat the British/Loyalist incursion. Holmes reported to Governor William Livingston: They landed this morning about 4 O’clock at Shoal Harbor - reports make them about 1500 or 2000 strong, was marching towards Middletown. I have called out my Regt. and shall march toward the enemy immediately, if they are so numerous as reports make them, [I] must request the assistance of the militia in neighbouring counties. Forman, at Freehold, wrote to Captain John Covenhoven (not the political leader of the same name): There is a number of the enemy landed at Middletown, I order your company to march down to the Court House with all speed -- as they collect their, by 30 or more, as that may happen -- they must march to join those who may be gone... I have 350 ball -- bring down powder to make up what cartridges you have need made. The third Monmouth militia colonel, Daniel Hendrickson, was likely in motion too. But no surviving document proves this. On June 23, Colonel Holmes at Freehold wrote a longer report on the raid to Governor Livingston: They landed at Shoal Harbor about 4 O’clock on the 21st instant, marched up to Middletown and then divided into two parties, the main body took the main road towards Freehold to the upper Baptist meeting house & then turned off for Pleasant Valley, the other party took the road from Middletown to below Middletown, where they lay all night - about eight O’clock yesterday morning, they began their march down to the Highlands, and in the afternoon went on board their vessels in the cove, made sail before night for New York. Holmes concluded that “their number was about 1500; the enemy missed their main object, which was the stock that was mostly drove off.” He reported on the destruction: They have burnt two houses, vizt. Peter Covenhoven, esq., in Middletown, and John Stillwell at Garrett's Hill; the number of horned cattle taken by best account is between thirty & forty, and not above sixty or seventy sheep. On casualties, Holmes reported no more than “four of our men wounded & four missing. The enemy left three of their dead behind & we have taken six prisoners." Holmes reported that he was unable to “get the militia embodied” before the enemy’s arrival, so the “attacks that were made were with small parties.” Holmes also reported that, while his men were called away to battle the raiders, "a party of refugees from Staten Island in boats landed at Shoal Harbor and took eight or ten horses . " Other letters reveal that considerable misinformation clouded the response to the raid. Captain Thomas Beatty of the Continental Army, stationed at Cranbury, initially refused to march his men toward Pleasant Valley. He wrote the Governor on June 22: "We have reason to believe the accounts [of the raid] coming to this place are untrue.” He continued, “several persons have returned and say that the militia of Monmouth County have been discharged from the field alarms.” Beatty reported that Colonel William Scudder (brother of Monmouth County’s Nathaniel Scudder and leader of the Middlesex County militia) also kept his men at Cranbury: “Col Scudder has thought fit to detain his regiment at this place & has dispatched a horseman to Englishtown, or to the Court House if necessary, for more certain intelligence." Interestingly, Scudder’s man returned from Freehold with a great exaggeration: “Genl. [Benedict] Arnold has entered Monmouth County with 3,500 men." A few days after the raid, Nathaniel Scudder, Monmouth County’s leading political figure, wrote Livingston about a false report of a new incursion against Shrewsbury. As a result: An express was immediately dispatched for Monmouth Court House, whence the alarm was spread every way - I was awaked [sic] between five & six o'clock with the pointed information as to their being in force & on their way to Shrewsbury. Scudder went to Cranbury to spread the alarm, but "on my way home, I heard it was a false alarm." False reports continued. On June 25, Colonel Elias Dayton of the New Jersey Line reported to George Washington that: "On the morning of the 21st a body of the enemy, said to amount to fifteen or twenty hundred men landed at shoal harbour near Middletown point.” The wildly exaggerated size of the incursion force compounded an account of the enemy’s intention to stay in Monmouth County: They had taken a position within four miles of Monmouth court-house. By the accounts from New York of their having carried with them tents, baggage &c. I am inclined to believe that it is their intention to establish a post in that country in order to annoy and harass the inhabitants and to collect cattle of all kinds… It appears that they gained very little by their expedition. Following the battle, three wounded men, Privates Philip Walling and Walter Hyer of the Middletown militia, and Private William Hall of the State Troops were granted military pensions for wounds received during the battle. Attending doctors signed certificates like this one from Dr. Thomas Barber: Thomas Barber swears that he attended as a doctor, Walter Hyer, who was wounded while fighting the common enemy, June 21, 1781, in the right fore arm, by a sword or cutlass, by which he lost part of the bone and his hand is rendered almost entirely useless. Hyer later wrote in his veteran’s pension application that he "was severely wounded by a troop of British Light Horse, his arm being wounded and part of one hand cut off… in consequence of his being disabled, he was allowed and received a pension of the sum of sixteen schillings & eight pence per month." The Battle of the 1500 in Veterans’ Pension Applications Including Hyer, the Battle of the 1500 was discussed in eleven Revolutionary War veteran pension applications (Henry Applegate, Samuel Carman, John Leyster, John Schenck, Walter Van Pelt, William Van Pelt, Joseph Walling, Phillip Walling, William Walling, Garrett Wikoff). Among all of Monmouth County’s military clashes, only the Battle of Monmouth is narrated in more pension applications. John Schenck, a militia captain who had co-led a raid against Brooklyn in 1778, was the only officer to narrate the incursion. He recalled being targeted by the raiders: “They attacked the house of the said John Schenck… the British and Tories at New York had offered a reward of twenty five guineas to the man would take or kill him." Schenck was out with the militia and not taken. Phillip Walling was wounded at the battle and depositions were taken to confirm the fact. Samuel Cottrell deposed that Walling “was taken prisoner by the British at the battle, while a prisoner saw Philip Walling lying in a yard between the house and barn of Garret Schenck… Walling was taken from the yard and carried into the barn, & laid on the barn floor- said Walling was lifeless and was very bloody." William Van Pelt deposed that he “took off the hat of the said Walling and examined his wounds, which were on his head and appeared to be sword cuts -- the said Walling was very bloody and almost lifeless -- this deponent spoke to him and received no answer." Other pensioners discussed the route of the raiders and specific skirmishes. Joseph Walling recalled a skirmish "at Monkacunk when a James Hull was killed and Abraham Vanderule was wounded, Garret Hendrickson and Adam Striker were also wounded." (For Hendrickson, it was his second time wounded.} Garrett Wikoff recalled that his militia company “flanked the artillery at the time of the skirmish… near Van Dorn’s Mill.” Samuel Carman was also at Van Dorn’s Mill, where "he had his horse shot thru the neck but made his retreat & escaped." Henry Applegate suggested that the raiders “were marching towards Monmouth Court House and were met and engaged near Colts Neck.” They were “driven back” by militia resistance. John Leyster similarly recalled: “They divided at Middletown, about half going toward Middletown Point & the other division taking the road to Bray's Meeting House.” Leyster recalled that “his company was engaged harassing them during the day of their landing… their attempting to burn and plunder being in most cases rendered wholly ineffectual by the indefatigable exertions of his & other scouting parties." The pension application of Walter Van Pelt (submitted by his widow, Nancy Van Pelt) included telling details about the young couple. Matthis Smith deposed that, "the house of said Walter Pelt was burned by a party of the enemy... they had been married and keeping house for only one year or more, and he remembers that all property and furniture in the house was destroyed, and they did not even save the Bible." Nancy Van Pelt also recalled that after the raid, her husband brought “the coat of a Hessian who had been killed in the battle, and hung it up in her bedroom, and she insisted on her husband removing the coat before she would go into the room." Some of the information in the pension narratives is incorrect. For example, Walter Van Pelt claimed that the Loyalist raiders were under "the command of the celebrated Tory, Colonel [John] Morris.” But Morris was retired from the military by June 1781. Perspective The incursion of June 21, 1781 was a failure. The British had expected to push further into Monmouth County (probably to Freehold), but stubborn resistance from Monmouth militia and state troops convinced the raiders to shorten the incursion. Their haul of about 100 head of livestock was only a little greater than the haul taken by raiding parties one tenth the size. The Battle of the 1500 would be remembered as the day when the men of Monmouth County faced down a larger enemy. While some recollections were romanticized, it was a great day for the Monmouth County militia and a remarkable turnaround from early in the war when the militia usually scattered after exchanging a few shots with the enemy. Related Historic Site : Holmes Hendrickson House Appendix: New Jersey Gazette Account of the Battle of the 1500 "From Monmouth County we learn that on Thursday last a body consisting of about one thousand new Levies, British and foreign troops, under the command of Cortland Skinner, made an incursion into that county: By their conduct it appears that it was their intention to plunder a place called Pleasant Valley, where they arrived about 11 A.M. with little or no interruption; the inhabitants had however exerted themselves in such a manner in driving off their stock of every kind that they found little booty. The militia of the neighborhood were by this time beginning to collect, and a pretty smart skirmishing was kept up through the remainder of the day, in which we informed that our people behaved with great spirit.—They began their retreat about sundown, and made no halt till they got to Garret’s Hill, where they continued that night, during the course of which one of our gallant officers made a descent upon them and rescued a number of a stolen sheep; the next day they embarked again, having captured and taken off with them, by the best count, about 40 cattle and 60 sheep, with the loss of one man killed and a number deserted; their loss in wounded is unknown: the loss on our side is one killed and three or four wounded.—They have burned two houses, but it is acknowledged in their favor that they behaved remarkably well to the persons of the people in general. By their coming out in such force it was expected their aim was to have penetrated further into the country, to prevent which the militia of the neighboring counties were called upon, and it was truly surprising to see with what spirit and alacrity they flew to their arms and were crowding down from every quarter to the assistance of their brethren on this occasion, which accounts for the hasty retreat of the enemy and rendered their further services unnecessary." Sources : National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Henry Applegate of Monmouth, www.fold3.com/image/#12036438 ; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Schenck; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Walling; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Joseph Walling; National Archives, Misc. Numbered Records, 4019; Pennsylvania Gazette, June 27, 1781; Pennsylvania Packet, June 28, 1781; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Pennsylvania Gazette, June 27, 1781 and July 4, 1781 (CD-ROM at the David Library, #29049, #29075); Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 303; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Walter Hier; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Van Pelt; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Philip Walling; New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 15, June 21, June 23, 1781; To George Washington from Elias Dayton, 25 June 1781,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-06164, ver. 2013-09-28); National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#24475353 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Garret Wikoff of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 28142503; William S. Stryker, Official Register of the Officers and Men of New Jersey in the Revolutionary War (Trenton: Naar, Day & Naar, 1872); Forman, Samuel S. Narrative of a Journey down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1789-90 (Cincinnati, R. Clarke and Co., 1888) p 9; William Livingston to Asher Holmes, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 14, folder 10; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Walter Van Pelt; Pennsylvania Packet, July 12, 1781; Asher Holmes to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 224-5; Thomas Beatty to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 15, June 22, 1781; Asher Holmes to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 224-5; Nathaniel Scudder to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 15, June 24, 1781; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Samuel Carman. 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 > Pulaski's Legion and the Osborn Island Massacre by Michael Adelberg Patrick Ferguson was among the most energetic officers of the Revolutionary War. His attack on Pulaski’s Legion was among the most brutal Revolutionary War incidents to occur in New Jersey. - October 1778 - On October 5, 1778, a 1,000-man British-Loyalist raiding party reached Little Egg Harbor (called Egg Harbor at the time), just south of Monmouth County. They blocked the harbor entrance and, with disaffected locals as guides, 300 men in four galleys went upriver to Chestnut Neck, New Jersey’s privateer boomtown . Brief cannon-fire from the boats scattered the local militia from the town. On October 8, the valuable British merchant ship, Venus , and ten other vessels were unloaded and then burned, as were the warehouses and the town’s unarmed fort. Some smaller vessels escaped by upriver, but the success of the attack was near-total. The raiders returned to the mouth of Mullica River at Egg Harbor. One of their larger ships, Granby , grounded in the harbor and this may be why the raiders stayed in Egg Harbor for the next week. During that time, the raiders sent out parties to destroy nearby salt works (a favorite target of Loyalist raiders) and take unwitting privateers entering the harbor. British leader, Edmund Burke, received a report that the raiders then razed “three salt works, and several stores were destroyed. The Raleigh , a fine American frigate was taken.” The British also sent a party to Cranberry Inlet (the entrance to the shore’s second busiest privateering port of Toms River ) to capture another vessel. Even before the raiders razed Chestnut Neck, American forces were moving to defend the area. Thinking the attack would be made against Elizabethtown, Governor William Livingston mistakenly sent militia from several counties in the opposite direction of the attack. However, George Washington had better intelligence and ordered the new Legion of Kasimir Pulaski (officered by Europeans but manned by Americans) and the artillery regiment of Thomas Proctor to defend Egg Harbor. By October 8, a formidable collection of American forces neared the area: 250 men under Pulaski, 220 men in Proctor's Artillery Regiment with cannon, 50 Philadelphia militia, and 300 Monmouth militia under Samuel Forman. But the American forces were uncoordinated—arriving at different times, from different directions. Pulaski left Trenton for Egg Harbor on October 6 and, according to the New Jersey Gazette "marched for that place with all his troops in high spirits and with great alacrity." Lacking the strength to attack the British, Pulaski camped ten miles north of their ships, on Osborn Island—a swampy piece of land at the edge of Egg Harbor and the southern tip of present-day Ocean County. Local histories say they stayed in the homes of John Ridgeway and Jeremiah Ridgeway, members of a disaffected Stafford Township family. Though most of the recruits into Pulaski’s legion were Marylanders and Pennsylvanians, at least one Monmouth Countian enlisted in the Legion as they marched to Osborn Island. Joseph Coward enlisted for eighteen months and probably guided the Legion to its camp, where they arrived no later than October 10. Jonathan Pettit of Egg Harbor would later submit a claim for feeding Pulaski’s men with 40 fowls, 1 barrel of cider, and 2 1/2 yards of new cloth (total value L20 S7) "taken by the men under Genl. Pulaski” on October 10. By October 14, a stalemate of sorts existed at Egg Harbor. The British raiding force was too strong to be attacked, but Proctor and Philadelphia militia had moved up the Mullica River to defend the state’s interior. To the north, Pulaski and the arriving Monmouth militia blocked further raids into Monmouth County. (The activity of the New Jersey militia is discussed in another article.) Pulaski’s position was revealed to the British by Carl Joseph Juliat, an officer under Pulaski who deserted to the British. Local teenagers, Thomas Osborn, and Richard Osborn were compelled to serve guides to the British. Well informed about Pulaski’s vulnerable camp, a British-Loyalist party under Captain Patrick Ferguson determined to row ten miles to attack Pulaski’s Legion at night. The Osborn Island Massacre The reports of Count Pulaski to the Continental Congress and Captain Ferguson to General Henry Clinton describe what happened on Osborn Island: Pulaski reported having his camp revealed to Captain Ferguson: “One Juliat, an officer lately deserted to the enemy, went off with them… with three men whom he debauched and two others whom they forced with them.” Ferguson reported similarly: “A Captain and six men from Pulaski’s Legion defected to us” and provided information on Pulaski’s camp. Ferguson opted to attack because “the winds detained us” at Egg Harbor. Pulaski’s description of the attack: The enemy, no doubt excited by this Juliat, attacked us at three o’clock in the morning with 400 men. They seemed at first to attack our pickets with fury, who lost a few men in retreating. Then the enemy advanced on our infantry. The Lieut. Col. Baron DeBose, who headed these men, fought vigorously, was killed with several bayonet wounds, as well as Lieut. De la Boderie and a small number of soldiers and others were wounded. This slaughter would not have ceased so soon if on the first alarm had I not hastened with my cavalry to support the infantry which then kept up a good countenance; the enemy soon fled in great disorder and left behind a great quantity of arms, accoutrements, hats, blades, etc… We took some prisoners and should have taken many more had it not been for a swamp through which our horses could scarcely walk. Ferguson’s account of the attack differs on key facts: At eleven last night 250 men were embarked and, after rowing ten miles, landed at four in the morning within a mile of a defile, which we happily secured, and leaving thirty men for its defence, pushed forward upon the infantry of the Legion, cantoned in three different houses, who are almost entirely cut to pieces. We numbered among their dead about fifty and several officers among whom we learn are a Lieutenant Colonel, a Captain and Adjutant. It being a night attack, little quarter could, of course, be given; so that there are only five prisoners. Pulaski reported that immediately after the battle, he was unable to “cut off the retreat [desertion] of about 25 men, who retired into the country and the woods.” Given the loss of these men and deaths from the battle, he could not launch a significant counter attack. Pulaski did not report that the arriving Gloucester County militia attacked Ferguson’s raiders during its withdrawal, but was badly defeated. Ferguson also discussed the withdrawal, “The rebels attempted to harass us in our retreat but with great modesty, so that we returned at our leisure, and re-embarked in security.” Ferguson reported his losses at only two dead and two wounded. One Loyalist newspaper claimed that 60 of Pulaski’s men were killed, another stated 53. American newspapers reported Pulaski’s losses “at about 30 men killed or missing.” Subsequent accounts reveal additional information on the so-called Osborn Island Massacre. Ferguson reported that his men spared the homes of James Willett and the Ridgeways, who hosted Pukaski’s men: “as the houses belonged to inoffensive Quakers, who may have already suffered sufficiently in the night's confusion." But Ferguson was also callous about killing Pulaski’s Legion “which is entirely cut to pieces.” He explained, “It being a night attack, little quarter could be given.” With accusations building about the brutality of the attack, Ferguson wrote a second account of the attack ten days after his first report: Capt. Ferguson set off in the night in boats with 250 men, rowed ten miles, landed, marched one mile to a bridge, at which he left fifty men, with the rest he marched a mile farther, surprised and cut to pieces the infantry of Pulaski's legion. Our soldiers were highly irritated against this brutal foreigner, who had given out in public orders to his men, never to give any quarter; in consequence of which our people took only five prisoners, all the rest, were left on the spot, the business being done with the bayonet only. Yet even here Capt. Ferguson had an opportunity of exercising his humanity; the houses in which were the baggage and equipage of Pulaski's legion, belonging to inoffensive Quakers, he left them untouched, rather than distress the innocent inhabitants by burning the quarters. Ferguson further noted his need to strike quickly given that “the rebel Colonel Proctor being within two miles with a corps of artillery." British political leader, Edmund Burke, reading reports from America, wrote that Pulaski’s sleeping men “were almost entirely put to the sword.” Burke also claimed that “Pulaski had given orders that no quarter should be given to our troops." Pulaski’s alleged order to grant no quarter seems unlikely since it was Ferguson who launched the pre-dawn surprise attack. Continental Army General William Heath was outraged by Ferguson’s murderous conduct and the weakness of the “no quarter” excuse: They surprised a part of Pulaski's legion in that neighborhood [Osborn Island], whom they handled very severely. The British pretended that they had heard that Pulaski had instructed his men not to give them quarter; they therefore anticipated retaliation. A British captain, Charles Steadman, clarified the controversy over Pulaski’s alleged “no quarter” order: Captain's Ferguson's soldiers were highly irritated by intelligence immediately before received from the deserters [of Pulaski's Legion] that Count Pulaski had given out in public orders to his Legion, no longer to grant quarter to British troops. This intelligence afterwards appeared false; but in the meantime, Captain Ferguson's soldiers acted under the impression that it was true. Ferguson’s party returned to their ships at 10 a.m. on October 15. The invasion flotilla weighed anchor that afternoon but had to leave behind and burn their flagship, Zebra , which had grounded. They had orders raid along the shore on their back. Ferguson recalled that his men were to "employ ourselves” by “looking into Barnegat and Cranberry Inlets, and destroy and bring off any vessels that may happen to be there, and demolish the saltworks, which are very considerable on the shores of these recesses." Slowed by contrary winds, the British did not return to Sandy Hook until October 22. Back on Osborn Island, a mob took young Thomas and Richard Osborn, who had guided Ferguson’s men. According to local histories, the mob would have hanged the Osborns but one of Pulaski’s officers saved them by arresting them. Pulaski wrote on October 16, “Two men who guided the enemy were taken in that operation, I have ordered them to Trenton, with some prisoners and arms.” The Osborns were charged with treason and acquitted on October 30 (presumably because they were forced to assist Ferguson). As for Pulaski, his Legion was decimated and humiliated. They headed north though poor and disaffected neighborhoods where the locals had no love for either European officers or their out-of-state recruits. Pulaski’s difficult march is the subject of the next article.\ Related Historic Site : Little Egg Harbor Friends Meeting House Sources : Franklin Kemp, A Nest of Rebel Pirates (Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1966) pp 22-4; Wilson, Harold F., The Jersey Shore: A Social and Economic History of the Counties of Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth and Ocean (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1953) pp. vol. 216-217; John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v3, p477; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Franklin Kemp, A Nest of Rebel Pirates (Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1966) pp 3-5, 29-35; Private Correspondence: Jack Fulmer, Personal Map of Egg Harbor; Damages by Americans, Burlington County Ledger, claim #59, New Jersey State Archives; William MacMahon, South Jersey Towns (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1973) p 302; David Fowler, egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 192; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Joseph Coward; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Jacob Davidson; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I42, Petitions to Congress, v 1, p 214; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; William Livingston to Lord Stirling, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, p 457; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 12, pp. 981, 984; New York (Royal) Gazette, October 24, 1778; Edmund Burke, An Impartial History of the War in America (R Faulder, London 1780), p 42-3; Patrick Ferguson’s account in Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 50-1; Franklin Kemp, A Nest of Rebel Pirates (Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1966) pp 124-5; Patrick Ferguson to Henry Clinton, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v93, reel 2, #420-37; Szymanski, Leszek, Casimir Pulaski: A Hero of the American Revolution, (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1993) pp. 211-2, 214; Richard B Martin, Runaways of Colonial New Jersey (Westminster, MD: Heritage Books, 2007) p307; William Fischer, Biographical Cyclopedia of Ocean County (Philadelphia: A.D. Smith, 1899) p 49; Patrick Ferguson, Report, The Scots Magazine, v43, p 29; Patrick Ferguson to Henry Clinton, Great Britain Public Record Office, CO 5/1089, p 151-3; William Heath, Memoirs of the American War, (Boston: Applewood, 1798), p 208; Franklin Kemp, A Nest of Rebel Pirates (Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1966) pp 132-3; Frederick W. Bogert, "Sir Henry Raids a Hen's Roost,'" New Jersey History, vol. 98, n. 3-4 (Fall/Winter 1980), pp. 228-31; Richard Henry Spencer, "Pulaski's Legion," Maryland Historical Magazine, vol. 13 (1918), pp. 215-24; William Livingston to George Washington, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 80-1. 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 > Committees Form to Resist British Policies by Michael Adelberg The Continental Association, October 1774, created a national template for resisting British policies—county and township committees were responsible for enforcing it. - June 1774 - To punish the people of Boston for their “Tea Party” and other defiant acts , the British Parliament passed the so-called Intolerable Acts in early 1774. Colonists across the Thirteen Colonies reacted by boycotting British goods. Americans started forming committees to enforce the boycott and coordinate dissent across localities. The citizens of Freehold Township met at Monmouth Court House on June 6, 1774 to consider the state of affairs. According to minutes of the meeting, they agreed “that the cause for which the inhabitants of Boston are now suffering is the common cause of the whole Continent.” They also endorsed "an entire stoppage of importation and exportation from and to Great Britain and the West Indies.” Finally, they appointed a standing committee to “join an association with the several other counties in this province in any measures that may appear best to the weal and safety of North America." The Committee would be comprised of John Anderson, Hendrick Smock, Asher Holmes, Peter Forman, John Forman, John Covenhoven, Nathaniel Scudder – each of whom would go on to hold important leadership positions in the fledgling American government. While the committees that would soon form in other Monmouth townships contained a mix of men who would support and oppose the Revolution, the Freehold committee was full of ardent patriots (they called themselves Whigs). This would distinguish Freehold from the other Monmouth County townships in the years to come . A week later, on June 13, Josiah Holmes, one of Shrewsbury’s leading citizens, received a letter from the Essex County Committee. He responded by meeting with some other leading citizens in Shrewsbury and putting up a public notice which began: The deplorable state of the inhabitants of the great and (until now) flourishing town of Boston is reduced to by means of the late cruel and inhumane act of the British Parliament, for the blocking up their port, is the fatal occasion that thousands are now destitute of employment, and are also destitute of bread; now they have only to depend on the charity of well-disposed Christians. It is therefore proposed to load a vessel with grain and other provisions from this County of Monmouth, to be sent immediately for their relief. Meanwhile, the people of Monmouth County were called on to participate in the selection of delegates for a Provincial Congress, a state body that would operate outside the influence of New Jersey’s Royal Governor. On July 19, citizens from four of Monmouth County’s six townships met at Freehold to establish a county committee (attending: Freehold, Upper Freehold, Middletown, and Dover; Shrewsbury and Stafford did not attend). In addition to selecting delegates to this new Congress, the attendees agreed to raise foodstuffs for the suffering in Boston and establish a county committee. The new Monmouth County committee declared that British taxes were “altogether unprecedented and unconstitutional” but they also declared loyalty to the King: “they do highly esteem and prize the happiness of being governed by so excellent a system of laws as that of Great Britain, doubtless the best in the universe.” The County Committee quickly became the quasi-government of Monmouth County—with help from the township committees of Freehold, Upper Freehold, Middletown and Dover. Shrewsbury and Stafford townships did not establish township committees until 1775. Over the next few months, the committees of Monmouth County enforced the boycott of British goods by advertising boycott violators. They also raised and shipped “1200 bushels of rye, and 50 barrels of rye flour” for the suffering people in Boston. And they resolved to establish a new militia outside of the control of the Royal Governor. Soon, the County Committee would take action against some of the county’s most public Loyalists. All of this was set in motion before the first Continental Congress established the Continental Association in October 1774—calling on all Americans to take the actions that had already occurred in Monmouth County. Related Historical Sites : Monmouth County Historical Association Sources : Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 43-50; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and Council of Safety , 1775-1770 (Trenton: Naar, Day and Naar, 1879) pp. 4-5; Allan Nevins, The American States During and After the Revolution , 1775-1 789 (New York: MacMillan Company, 1 922), p 44; Monmouth County Historical Association, Genealogical Files, folder - Revolutionary War Records of Monmouth County Soldiers ; Proceedings of the Committees of Freehold and Shrewsbury, Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, First Series, 1846, pp. 186-8; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p119-20; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 301-2; Pennsylvania Gazette , November 2, 1774 Previous Next

Become A Member Your support is greatly appreciated! Your support helps us to: Showcase award-winning exhibits Preserve our world-class regional collections Educate K-12 students on fascinating local history Maintain and interpret our historic properties Conserve irreplaceable objects and documents Offer unique and interesting public programming, both on-site and digital Make our collections digitally accessible Foster research efforts to continue to highlight Monmouth County history! All Memberships Include: New members receive one hour of free genealogical research by our archivist ($40 value). All members receive NARM reciprocal membership Individual Member $ 35 35$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: One Adult Membership Card NARM reciprocal membership Student/Senior $ 25 25$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: One membership card NARM reciprocal membership Family $ 50 50$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: Two Adult Membership Cards NARM reciprocal membership Friend $ 100 100$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: Two Adult Membership Cards Four Museum or Historic Home Guest Passes NARM reciprocal membership! Patron $ 250 250$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: Two Adult Membership Cards Six Museum or Historic Home Guest Passes NARM reciprocal membership! Benefactor $ 500 500$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: Two Adult Membership Cards Six Museum or Historic Home Guest Passes Private Museum Tour with our Curator NARM reciprocal membership!

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The British Burn the Sloop, Endeavor by Michael Adelberg In April 1776, a British Navy sloop sailed off Little Egg Harbor where it chased, beached and burned a small Continental vessel. This may have been the first maritime battle on the Jersey Shore. - April 1776 - With a British naval squadron in possession of Sandy Hook, it was perhaps inevitable that an enterprising British officer would request and receive permission to cruise the New Jersey shore in order to disrupt Continental shipping, avenge prior British captures , and acquire needed fresh provisions for hungry sailors deprived of New York’s markets. Though accounts differ on the exact date and other details, it appears that a well-armed tender of the British frigate, Phoenix , a sloop commanded by a Lieutenant Butler, left its mothership April 10, 1776. Its destination was Little Egg Harbor, the busiest port on the New Jersey shore and the only one capable of admitting deep-hulled vessels. At Tucker’s Island, outside of Little Egg Harbor (on the southern end of Monmouth County, which included present-day Ocean County), the tender found an attractive prey. The Pennsylvania Journal printed an account of what happened next: A small boat belonging to a sloop from Dartmouth, bound to Philadelphia in the Continental service, came on shore at Tucker's on Flat Beach, in whom came a Captain, a mate, and three foremast men belonging to said sloop, which was taken the first inst. in the evening by a King's tender, from out of Sandy Hook, who boarded and rifled her of everything valuable on board; after which they set fire to her and burnt her to the water's edge. The same report further detailed the skirmish that occurred when the Continental boat was captured: “The Capt. has one of his thighs broke and a musket ball thro' the other and the mate is badly wounded in the breast.” And the report revealed the intentions of the British, based on intelligence from a Barnegat man who was aboard the British ship: The said tender intended to come into our inlet with the first north-west wind to take off the cattle from the beaches and destroy all the vessels that were in here. The tender is a small sloop, mounted with two six pounders, four four pounders, some swivels and some small arms, with 36 men on board. Another account of the incident revealed that the Continental boat, Endeavor , commanded by Captain Job Tripp, “was chased and came up with” by the British tender: The tender was not content with firing a broadside at Capt. Trip's vessel, after she had hauled down her sails, but went alongside, after using much scurrilous language, ordered another broadside to be fired, by which Capt. Trip received a ball in his thigh, which has broke... The Mate also had a ball went through one thigh, and lodged in the other; an officer afterwards came on board and told Capt. Trip, that Butler, the Captain of the tender, out of his clemency had consented to give him his boat, on condition he would make the best of his way ashore. Captain Tripp initially claimed that he and his crew were too badly wounded to get themselves to shore, though they eventually did so by driving the Endeavor onto the beach. This likely angered the British and may be the reason they burned the ship. This report concluded that, “The Captain and Mate are both dangerously ill, having been thirty-six hours without any suffering to their wounds. The tender's people, after plundering the sloop, scuttled and set her on fire." On April 20, depositions were taken from two of the surviving sailors, Job Tripp and James Cathill. Their accounts add visceral details about the skirmish: We hailed them twice with our trumpet, but received no answer, but another firing, and hove about, and made after us. We still kept our course, and they after us, continually firing, till about ten o' clock at night. At that time they were about a swivel-shot distance from us ... We immediately hove to, and hauled down our foresail, and were busy in hauling down our mainsail, when they fired a broadside at us; which felled both the Captain and Mate. By their account, they fired two volleys of small-arms just as they fired their cannon and swivels; each volley ten guns. Their carriage-guns and swivels were two four-pounders and six swivels on each side. The Captain was wounded in the thigh, which we imagine to be a swivel-ball, which broke the bone, and shattered it very much. The Mate was also wounded in both thighs; the ball went through the fleshy part of the right, and lodged in the left. A follow up report on the incident, also published in the Pennsylvania Journal , revealed an important additional fact. The man from Barnegat who was aboard the British tender was Arthur Green, who reportedly gave the British “an account of all the inlets about there.” The British used him as their pilot during the attack and the report suggested they would do so again. This appears to be the first instance of a shore resident working directly against the Continental cause; it certainly would not be the last. American sailors were undeterred by the defeat and destruction of the Endeavor . On April 22, a six-gun tender of a British frigate was captured off the New Jersey coast by Captain Barry of Pennsylvania; that same month, the Continental government, in combination with the state of New York, assigned two midsized ships, General Schyler and General Mifflin , to cruise the Jersey shore to pick off vulnerable British shipping and to protect American shipping. The British countered with their own naval build-up, which is the subject of another article . Related Historic Site : National Museum of the Royal Navy (Portsmouth, UK) Sources : Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v5: p 1003-4; Gardner W. Allen, A Naval History of the American Revolution (1912, 1940, reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), p 86; Pennsylvania Journal, April 10, 1777; The North British Intelligencer or Constitutional Miscellany (Edinburgh: William Auld, 1776) v 1, p 347; John Jay Papers, Columbia U., digitized, http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.01088&p=3&level=2&originx=0&originy=0&fullheight=2768&fullwidth=2133ℑ.x=129ℑ.y=20 ; Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the state of New-York (Albany: Thurlow Weed, printer to the State, 1842) vol. 1, p414; Maryland Journal, May 1, 1776; Pennsylvania Journal, April 17, 1776. Previous Next

Each and every donation helps the MCHA create exhibits such as this one. Thank you for your support. First Name Last Name Email Address Donate in the name of: We suggest a donation of $10 per person, but any amount is helpful $ Thank you for your donation! Go to Checkout

Now and Then... These images will give you a sense of true local history! WORLDWIDE WORLDWIDE WORLDWIDE