This educational resource is the digital companion to the award-winning exhibit Beneath the Floorboards: Whispers of the Enslaved at Marlpit Hall. It teaches the history of slavery in New Jersey to middle school/high school students using fact-based research and primary source documentation. Beneath the Floorboards: Whispers of the Enslaved at Marlpit Hall Middle School / High School Education Resource Download Worksheet Request Teacher Resource Book a Class Trip Welcome to Colonial Monmouth! Marlpit Hall in Middletown, NJ stands today as a window into the 18th century. This c. 1762 home and its residents witnessed many of the most exciting, inspirational, and painful chapters in our history, from the fight for independence to the heartbreak of slavery. Join us as we explore what life was like from a unique perspective; through the lens of the enslaved Marlpit Hall. Unbroken Chains: Meet the Taylors of Marlpit Hall Above, the oldest known image of Marlpit Hall, taken in 1886 from the roof of what is now known as the Taylor-Butler house. The house known today as Marlpit Hall was constructed around 1762. Edward Taylor purchased the home in 1771, beginning an unbroken chain of Taylor ownership until 1931. There was also an unbroken chain of slave ownership through at least 1832, where men, women and children worked the fields, grist mill, and inside the house to maintain the Taylor lifestyle. Next > Seeds of Slavery As early as the 1620s, Dutch slave traders were transporting small numbers of enslaved Africans into the New Netherlands, the territory later known as New York and northern New Jersey. But it was not until New Jersey came under British rule in 1664 that the institution of slavery grew into a cornerstone of colonial society. Early English provincial law encouraged settlers to maintain enslaved labor. In one of New Jersey's founding documents, The Concession and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of Nova Caesarea, white settlers were granted an additional seventy-five acres of land for every enslaved person they brought with them. Slavery spread quickly in East Jersey. Around 1675, Colonel Lewis Morris expanded his iron works at Tinton Falls in Shrewsbury with the labor of 60 enslaved Africans. His nephew, also Lewis Morris, would become the colonial royal governor of New Jersey. The enslaved labor working at Tinton Manor provided the template for Monmouth County's budding slave society. Sketch of Tinton Manor, c. 1680 By 1720, most enslaved Africans were brought to New Jersey from West Africa through the port at Perth Amboy. Those who came through the West Indies were seasoned for the slave market in a process that exposed them to new foods, disease, language, and agricultural training. Seasoning was a particularly cruel and enduring practice that claimed the lives of countless enslaved Africans. Next > They Were There Click an image to learn about the individual Tom Elizabeth Clarisse York Will Hannah Ephraim T he Taylor family of Marlpit Hall, like many of prominence and wealth in early Monmouth County, relied on slave labor. From around 1780 to 1830, Marlpit Hall was the primary residence of at least ten enslaved African Americans: York, Tom, MaryAnn, Elizabeth, William, Hannah, Matilda, Clarisse, Ephraim, and George. Four were likely born at Marlpit Hall. What is a kitchen family? White families and their enslaved often ate, slept, and worked within very close proximity to one another. Some households referred to enslaved African Americans as their "kitchen family;" a misleading term, given the way these individuals were treated. A n 1818 inventory of Marlpit Hall's upper level kitchen chambers reveals modest provisions for the enslaved: straw beds and bedding, cots, a rocking cradle, and a trundle bed. Wool and linen wheels, as well as a quilting frame, suggest that some women also used this space for spinning and weaving. The "Kitchen Family" Next > Community of "Africa" near present day Matawan Free Black Society Read More I would like to tell you many things...I don't tell all, but I keep it in my heart. Katy Schenck, 1851 Born into slavery in Freehold The enslaved protested their condition daily in different ways. Rather than leaving their African heritage behind, they celebrated it - secretly - through religion, food, and music. Some pretended to be sick or did a poor job of their tasks, such as burning meals, breaking tools, or working slowly. Some staged insurrections or destroyed property. Escaping was also a brave act of resistance. Resistance!! Next > So ... How Do We Know What We Know? The stories of the enslaved at Marlpit Hall were told using primary source documents and material culture. Learn how to analyze and use these tools! Enter the Primary Source Workshop Enter the Primary Source Workshop Many Thanks to Our Advisory Panel : Hank Bitten, Executive Director of the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies Dr. Wendy Morales, Assistant Superintendent of the Monmouth Ocean Educational Services Committee Noelle Lorraine Williams, Director of the African American History Program, New Jersey Historical Commission Upper Elementary Level Resource: Please visit the companion resource for grades 3-5 here , or find it at monmouthhistory.org/colonial-slavery. Professional Development, Clas s Trips or Questions: To arrange a professional development session or a class trip to our award-winning exhibit, Beneath the Floorboards: Whispers of the Enslaved at Marlpit Hall , please contact Dana at dhowell @monmouthhistory.org

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > George Taylor and Nathaniel Scudder Report the Arrival of the British Army by Michael Adelberg A massive British fleet passed Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Harbor on June 30, 1776. Monmouth County’s George Taylor and Nathaniel reported the event. - June 1776 - At the end of June 1776, a massive British fleet began arriving at Sandy Hook, the peninsula at the entrance of New York that was taken by the British navy two months earlier. This massive British fleet carried 25,000 soldiers—the largest European army ever sent to the Americas. The Monmouth County militia was camped opposite Sandy Hook on the nearby Navesink highlands. Commanded by Colonel George Taylor, they were the first rebelling Americans to see the British fleet, and it was their responsibility to report on the critical event. James Bowne, serving under Taylor, recalled: The company consisted of about sixty privates - besides the officers - they were quartered at a house on the Bay shore near the upper part of the Highlands where they could see from their quarters the enemy shipping and had a fair view of Sandy Hook, where the enemy lay. On June 29, Colonel George Taylor of Middletown reported the first of the British fleet was arriving. The New Jersey Provincial Congress recorded receiving notice from Taylor that "45 sail is now in sight & 19 sail are at the Hook, & a party of men already landed at the Light House & some light horse." At the same time, Taylor assessed his own vulnerable position. He pessimistically predicted: "The party of men and Light Horse [at Sandy Hook], I have no doubt, will pay us a visit as soon as convenient for them. Our guard is very weak , and not sufficient to make any stand." Taylor’s assessment is corroborated by militiaman George Smock, who recalled that the British landing put “strict terror in the hearts of all." John Covenhoven of Freehold, a delegate in the Provincial Congress serving as the body’s Vice President, immediately forwarded Taylor’s report to the Continental Congress. Covenhoven noted steps taken to supply Taylor’s militia and then appealed for help: We have taken steps to move forward a considerable number of arms & ammunition, lead & powder... We rely on your care and protection from every part of the Continent, and doubt not that the most vigorous steps have been taken for our general safety. On July 1, the majority of the British fleet passed Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Harbor. At this critical moment, Nathaniel Scudder, a Committeeman and Lt. Colonel of the Monmouth militia, rode through the night to deliver word to the New Jersey Provincial Congress. During the night he heard booms that he mistook for cannon-fire from the British ships of war (probably thunder). He arrived at the Provincial Congress on July 2 mistakenly believing that the invasion of New York was already underway. Understanding the exceptional vulnerability of Monmouth County, Scudder called for the Monmouth militia to be exempted from duty outside its boundaries. The men should "not be prevailed upon to march to New York and leave their wives and children to fall prey to the enemy, if they should be repulsed at New York, or to be murdered by the Tories in their absence.” John Covenhoven immediately passed Scudder’s report to the Continental Congress along with his own letter: We have this moment undoubted information, by Lieutenant Colonel Scudder, from Monmouth County, that about four o' clock yesterday afternoon, he observed nearly the whole of the enemy' s fleet in motion, and at half past six in the afternoon, saw about one hundred and thirty sail in the channel from the Hook to New York ...that he left Middleton at eleven o' clock last evening; and at about four this morning, being at the high land between Upper and Lower Freehold, heard a very heavy firing of cannon. Covenhoven also reported on events in his home county: We also received, by Colonel Scudder, a letter from Colonel [George] Taylor, of Monmouth, dated yesterday, informing us of that County being so exposed to the enemy without, and the Tories among themselves, that he apprehends the Militia will not be prevailed on to march to New York, and leave their wives and children to fall either a prey to the enemy, if they should be repulsed at New York, or be murdered by the Tories in their absence, who are embodying themselves, and a considerable number already encamped at the Cedar Swamps. Covenhoven concluded by asking the Continental Congress to "send forward all the assistance in your power." However, the greatest threats to the Continental cause in Monmouth County would not come from the British Army, but from Monmouth County’s own Loyalists. Some of these men were already in insurrection against the new government while others were forming into companies that would soon join the British Army at Sandy Hook. Related Historic Sites : Independence Hall (Philadelphia) Sources : Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p137; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - James Bowne; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 6, pp. 1133-4; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 82, item 68, #155, 159; John O'Connor, "Nathaniel Scudder's Midnight Ride," New Jersey Historical Commission Newsletter, vol. 6, n. 3, November 1975, p 2 & 7; Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v1: p 1-2; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - George Smock. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > David Forman and the Continental Army Red Coats by Michael Adelberg Re-enactors in the blue-coated uniforms of the 3rd New Jersey Continental Regiment. David Forman’s Monmouth County regiment, in contrast, wore red coats taken from the British. - April 1777 - The Continental Army was faced with many problems, particularly early in the war. Among them was the inability to provide uniforms to its troops. When David Forman started raising his Additional Regiment of the Continental Army in January 1777, there were no uniforms available. George Washington was aware that Forman’s men needed uniforms. On April 17, he wrote James Mease, the Army’s Clothier General, about “a sufficient quantity [of uniforms] for Colo. Forman's Regiment of which they are in immediate want.” But the uniforms that were available were thick wool and ill-suited for the spring. Washington “directed the Colo. to have the heavy woolen linings taken out of the Coats… as they will be too warm for summer.” What is most interesting about these uniforms is that they were red; they had been taken from the British Army. David Forman’s regiment would be unformed as British soldiers. This concerned George Washington, who instructed his aide, George Johnston, to write Forman on May 9: "His Excellency conceives of the disadvantages and dangers that must attend our troops being clothed in scarlet; desires that you would have those drawn dyed some other color." Forman’s men spent the summer of 1777 in a salt marsh near on the shore building a salt works co-owned by their Colonel. The men grew sick and lacked provisions. Desertions resulted. In July and August 1777, two Pennsylvania newspapers advertised desertions from David Forman's Additional Regiment. One noted the deserter was in a uniform described as "scarlet and buff with pewter buttons." The second newspaper account described the deserter's uniform as "red coat with buff-colored facings, with woolen jacket, buff breeches and wool hat cocked up." A shore resident and militiaman, Samuel Lippincott, recalled meeting Captain John Burrowes of Forman’s regiment "who commanded a company which were termed Red Coats from the color of their outer garments." Forman’s red-coated Continentals participated in the Battle of Germantown , where Colonel Asher Holmes, leading the Monmouth militia, referred to them as “the Red Coats under Gen. Forman.” General Alexander MacDougall of the Continental Army also described that “Forman's Red Coats stood firm and advanced upon the British Red Coats." It is known that the Battle of Germantown was fought in poor visibility (due to fog and smoke from gunpowder filling the air). The Continental Army held firm at first, but broke lines amidst confusion about British positions. There was friendly fire between Continental units. Koert Schenck of Monmouth County recalled that Forman’s men “who all wore red coats and were fired at by some of our troops by mistake.” The origin of these uniforms is briefly discussed by Rachel Henderson, wife of Dr. Thomas Henderson, a friend of Forman’s. In a statement provided in Daniel Applegate’s postwar veteran’s pension, she wrote of Forman’s regiment “in regular uniform red coats, the said red coats having been taken by the Militia of Monmouth County from a British vessel captured in Raritan Bay.” Henderson’s account is corroborated by Abraham Melat’s testimony in his postwar veteran’s pension application: He was with a number of others, marched to Freehold and then put under the command of Col David Forman & company, consisting of about 30 under the command of Capt. John Burrowes, marched to the Monmouth shore to protect it, while there, a British vessel was wrecked, from which he took a large quantity of clothing and all the company, when he returned to headquarters were dressed in clothes we took from the British ship. Finally, Daniel Hygate’s testimony in Thomas Henderson’s pension application further corroborates that Forman’s regiment wore uniforms taken from the British: "said men raised & under drill & in regular uniforms, in red coats, the said red coats having been taken by the militia of Monmouth County from a British vessel captured in Raritan Bay." It is also known that David Forman used his own money to clothe his men. On March 1, 1778, as Forman was losing command of his regiment as a result of a dispute with the New Jersey Legislature , he submitted a £467 bill for clothing them over the course of "18 days of purchasing." The Continental Army’s account books also list $10,000 owed Forman in December 1778 for expenses incurred for equipping and clothing his men. As late as 1781, the New Jersey State Treasurer was carrying a line item for £961 in bounties and clothing expenses owed to Forman for his Additional Regiment. It is unknown whether Forman had to purchase the captured British uniforms for his men or if the uniforms were condemned to him as a prize of war with the captured vessel. Either way, Forman faced additional expenses in clothing his men beyond their uniforms. For example, shoes were an expensive necessity also in short supply. It is a fascinating irony that the regiment of Continentals raised to defend Monmouth County from British attacks wore British uniforms. This serves as a good reminder that the early Continental Army was truly a threadbare operation. Related Historic Site : Cliveden (The Chew House) Sources : Geore Washington to James Mease, John Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington, US Govt Printing Office, Washington DC, 1932, vol 7, 420-2; George Johnson to David Forman, Neilson Family Papers, box 1, folder: Rutgersania, Rutgers University Special Collections Charles Lefferts, Uniforms of American, British, French & German Armies in the Revolution (New York: 1926) p 78; Asher Holmes, Letter Concerning the Battle at Germantown, 1777, Proceedings of the NJHS, vol 7, 1922, p34-5; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Treasury, Auditor's Acct. Books, Book B, Ledger A, reel 181, #35-6; Account List, Clothier General, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I59, Miscellaneous Papers, v 2, p 143; Thomas Henderson (W426), Forman’s Regiment and Monmouth County militia, Supplementary deposition of Daniel Applegate, 21 April 1837, transcribed by John U. Rees; Forman, Samuel S. Narrative of a Journey down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1789-90 (Cincinnati, R. Clarke and Co., 1888) p 9-10. Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p 735; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Samuel Lippincott; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Abraham Melat of Mercer Co, www.fold3.com/image/#23397176 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of New Jersey, www.fold3.com/image/#23877525 The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 1781, p 71-72. 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 > Mordecai Gist's Continentals in Middletown by Michael Adelberg Colonel Mordecai Gist led a piecemeal detachment into Monmouth County in March 1779. His month in the county was marred by soldier misconduct and officers neglecting their duty. - March 1779 - When Colonel Caleb North’s regiment of Pennsylvania Continentals left Monmouth County in March 1779, they were replaced by companies of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware Continentals under the command of Colonel Mordecai Gist. Starting on March 10, fifteen of Gist’s men were sent “on command” to Middletown; the rest presumably arrived with their colonel a week later. In addition to the Marylanders, a company of Pennsylvania Continentals under Captain Walter Finney as well as several Delaware Continentals—the first of whom arrived “near Sandy Hook” on March 6—entered Monmouth County with Gist. The entire piecemeal detachment consisted of roughly 250 men. Their mission was to interrupt the illegal trade between the county’s disaffected farmers and the British at Sandy Hook, and to enhance the overall security of the region. There is little evidence that they were effective in either pursuit. Continental Troops Camp in Shrewsbury Township Captain Finney wrote of his march to Monmouth County on March 15: Ordered to Monmouth, marched the detachment from Pennsylvania Line to the Grand Parade, where the party assembled consisting of 250 rank and file, Captains….and myself, Col. Guest [Gist]; at 12 o'clock marched, proceeded to Brunswick, cantoned our men for this night and spent the evening very agreeable. They arrived in Monmouth County on the next day, "fell in by sun-rise and proceeded to Mt. Pleasant, cantoned our men, lodged at Mrs. Finoes [Freneau ]." On March 17, Finney’s part of the detachment reached Tinton Falls, where he would set up camp. Arrived at Tinton Falls by 12, disposed of the troops in the following manner, vizt. One company at Red Bank, one at Shrewsbury, two at Eatontown, one at the Falls; the latter being stationed, took lodging at John Little, Esq., where we were treated with politeness and respect. With Little (a county election judge), Finney "took a tour at Eatontown, and in the evening visited the guards” on March 19. The next night he "dined with Col. Breese [Samuel Breese]," the first Shrewsbury militia colonel who resigned in 1776 due to disaffection in his ranks. Breese now lived as a neutral. Over the next week, Finney patrolled the shore from Middletown to Long Branch with a party of 30 men. He broke off a smaller guard to observe British motions at Sandy Hook form the Navesink Highlands: I concealed my party till dark, then detached twelve men, and the guide, along the shore to Middletown Point, ordering them to keep concealed as much as possible, and return to me at 3 in the morning; after posting sentinels along the shore to observe, as well the motion of the enemy, whose guard ship lay within hailing. He made an effort to interrupt “the contraband trade carried on by the disaffected inhabitants” and Sandy Hook: I concealed my party till dark, then detached twelve men, and the guide, along the shore to Middletown Point, ordering them to keep concealed as much as possible, and return to me at 3 in the morning; after posting sentinels along the shore to observe, as well the motion of the enemy, whose guard ship lay within hailing, as to detect the contraband trade carried on by the disaffected inhabitants. Finney did not report intercepting any illegal trade. His men spent a few days at the house of Esek Hartshorne on the Navesink Highlands. Hartshorne, a wealthy Quaker, may have hosted the Monmouth militia two years earlier when it was surprised and routed by British regulars at the Battle of Navesink . While with Hartshorne, Finney’s men misbehaved. On March 28, Finney recorded: Being informed by Mr. Hartshorne that his cellar was broke into by the soldiery, ordered a search and inquiry, but not being able to prove any individuals guilty, paid the damage and returned to my station at the Falls, having made no further discovery, [other] than six of the enemy's armed vessels convoying 23 transports to New York. Back in Tinton Falls, Finney settled down and enjoyed himself. On March 29, he wrote: "spent the evening at Mr. West's in company of two very agreeable ladies, and Col. North, at a sociable gaim [sic] of Whist." On March 31, "in the evening, being just set down to a social amusement with two ladies and a gentleman.” That same day, Finney “was startled by drums beating to arms. Immediately repaired to my post... finding there was not grounds for the alarm, retired to my lodging." On April 1, Finney enjoyed "an elegant entertainment and ball at Mr. Lippincott's in Shrewsbury, the whole was conducted with the greatest decorum and good humor." Captain Walter Beatty of Maryland was stationed at Shrewsbury at this time and recalled “spending our spare time with a number of fine ladies in this neighborhood.” The pleasant entertainment at Tinton Falls and Shrewsbury juxtaposes awkwardly with the long patrols the men were supposed to be conducting; it suggests slackness in Finney’s and Beatty’s commands. The Disastrous Middletown Encampment For Gist’s companies at Middletown, the service was dramatically different. According to an antiquarian source, they battled a raiding party and, with the assistance of 60 militia from Woodbridge, they reportedly wounded fifteen of the enemy. They lacked clothing and provisions and found the locals unwilling to sell to them. The Colonel petitioned the Continental Congress complaining of being unable to purchase provisions: We have the mortification to see the troops of every State provided with clothing and other necessities at reasonable and moderate prices, whilst we alone have been obligated to purchase from private stores every necessity at the most exorbitant rates. The one documented attempt to supply Gist’s men turned into a fiasco. David Rhea, the Quartermaster agent for Monmouth County, would write in July that he purchased flour for Colonel Gist’s men at Shrewsbury in April. However, the forage master, Richard McKnight, never delivered it. McKnight was also a militia captain and was out on duty in April, then, in early June, he was captured by Loyalist raiders. The flour sat at Manasquan where Rhea finally ordered that the "damaged flour at Squan be sold." But it turned out that Rhea was misinformed. The flour was "not so bad, but bread might be made of it." The flour never made it to Gist’s men. On April 3, at least one company of Maryland soldiers mutinied at Middletown and Colonel Gist rode to Tinton Falls to seek help. Colonel Daniel Hendrickson, commanding the militia at Tinton Falls, wrote Captain Barnes Smock of Middletown to call out the militia: At Coll. Gess's request, I let you know that Coll. Gess has requested of me to let Coll. Holmes [Asher Holmes] know that he stands in need of assistance of the militia in order to bring his men to order; that one company hath this day mutinied at Middletown and are determined to go off to the enemy if not prevented; and desire Coll. Holmes would assist him with about fifty militia tomorrow morning at Middletown. Should take it as a particular favour if you would carry these lines in secrecy; I direct you to show it to Coll. Holmes so that he may give every assistance possible. I have ordered but a part of my militia here to attend tomorrow morning." Captain Finney, at Tinton Falls, wrote: "Captain Patterson's company mutinied at Middletown, was disarmed, and sent to camp under guard." At least some of the mutineers were arrested and brought before a court martial on April 14. That day, George Washington’s general orders noted “the Tryal of those men belonging to the Maryland Line who mutinied and attempted to desert from the Detachment at Monmouth." Two of Gist’s were men were found guilty: Daniel Buckley a soldier in the 2nd Maryland regiment and Patrick Ivory a soldier in the 1st Maryland regiment were tried, the former for Desertion and the latter for deserting from the Monmouth command—found guilty of breaches of the 1st Article of the 6th Section of the Articles of War respectively and sentenced to receive one hundred lashes each. Two days after the mutiny, Finney’s men responded to reports of a Loyalist raiding party at Shrewsbury: Being informed of some principal Tories being in the neighborhood of Shrewsbury, the whole detachment set out in quest of them, missed the main object, but in our route took two negroes and one deserter and two suspected persons, put the whole, with one other deserter, into one room--the two most noted villains in irons. It is probable that the raiding party was seeking to exploit gaps created by the troop mutiny. After this activity, "nothing material happened" happened according to Finney until April 10. On that day, "Col. Ford and [Benjamin Ford] an equal detachment relieved us." The Departure of Gist’s Regiment Finney’s men left Tinton Falls on April 11: "Proceeded to Mt. Pleasant, cantoned our men, and took a tour of Middletown Point; Dined with Captain Burrowes [John Burrowes], sup'd at Mrs. Finoes [Freneau]; lodged at Mr. Wallace [Wall]." On April 12, they mustered at sunrise, but did not leave the county that day: Being informed of a robbery being committed in the night, ordered a search to be made, found the villains, restored the goods, and punished the delinquents for disobedience of orders; Afterwards, pinioned them and marched them to the Provost, there to wait tryal [sic] for the robbery. Finney’s men left Monmouth County on April 13, camping at Millstone that evening. Washington communicated the withdrawal of Gist’s detachment to Governor William Livingston: I shall be obliged to recall the detachment from Monmouth. I have thought it necessary to give your Excellency this early notice, that you may take such measures in consequence as you shall judge expedient to give security to those parts of the country which these troops are now posted to cover. In a second letter on April 23, Washington admitted that one reason for the withdrawal were Loyalist “emissaries ” who “have been active in corrupting our [Gist’s] men.” In these letters, it is unclear if Washington knew that Benjamin Ford’s regiment had replaced Gist in Monmouth County. One Maryland company, under Captain Beatty, stayed at Shrewsbury, probably to help acquaint Colonel Ford’s men to the area. Beatty wrote of his continued stay: "Here we continued very peaceable, until the 26th of the month.” That day a massive British-Loyalist raiding party , under Captain Patrick Ferguson, landed at Shoal Harbor on the Raritan Bayshore and marched to Tinton Falls. Ford’s men pulled back rather than face the larger party. This raid is the subject of another article. Perspective While Gist’s command engaged in a skirmish and arrested a few men, its overall performance was poor. The local militia that it was supposed to be helping needed to muster and bring order to its mutineers and there is no evidence that Gist’s men curbed illegal trade with the enemy. At least some of Gist’s officers spent more time flirting with women than conducting patrols. After about a month in Monmouth County, they would be replaced by Benjamin Ford’s Marylanders—who would perform no better. Related Historic Site : The Old Mill Sources : Capt. Enoch Anderson, Muster Rolls, Delaware Archives, (Wilmington: Mercantile Press, 1911) vol 1, pp 92, 234-6, 312, 347; Must Rolls, Delaware Archives, (Wilmington: Mercantile Press, 1911) vol 1, pp 104; Muster Rolls, David Library of the American Revolution, Mordecai Gist Papers, reel 1; Memorial, Mordecai Giss, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 49, item 41, vol. 3, #460-3; Chester County Historical Society, Diary of Walter Finney; Daniel Hendrickson to Barnes Smock, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 5, folder 9; George Washington, General Orders, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 20, 8 April–31 May 1779, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2010, pp. 55–57, 478-81; George Washington to William Livingston, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw140422)) ; William Beatty, "Journal of Captain William Beatty of the Maryland Line, 1776-1781", Historical Magazine, 2nd Series, 1867, pp 117; David Rhea to Moore Furman, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5600. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > David Forman Sends Intelligence Reports to George Washington by Michael Adelberg In 1777 and from 1780 into 1782, Monmouth County’s David Forman provided intelligence reports to George Washington about the movement of British ships and troops at Sandy Hook. - June 1780 - From spring 1777 onward, George Washington sought intelligence on the movement of British ships and troops coming in and out New York Harbor via Sandy Hook. Monmouth County, and the Navesink Highlands-area in particular, provided the best views of Sandy Hook. Starting in 1777, Colonel David Forman of Manalapan, leading a locally-raised Continental Army regiment, provided intelligence reports to Washington. But Forman lost his command in early in 1778 and apparently stopped sending reports. After the Battle of Monmouth and the arrival of the French fleet in America, the need for regular intelligence on British movements took on new importance. Starting fall 1778, reports were provided by Continental officers who were temporarily stationed in northeast Monmouth County, starting with Major Richard Howell and Captain John Burrowes in summer 1778. After that, Washington sent regiments of Continentals in Monmouth County and relied on Colonels Caleb North (January-February 1779), Moredcai Gist (March 1779), and Benjamin Ford (April-May 1779) for intelligence reports. When Ford left Monmouth County, it appears that Washington lacked an officer who could be held accountable for regular intelligence reports. In addition to the men mentioned above, on July 27, Washington requested Middlesex County’s Colonel John Taylor (not the Monmouth County Loyalist of the same name ) to provide “immediate notice of any embarkation, the sailing of any troops out of the harbor or of the arrival of any in it, or the departure or arrival of any Vessels, whether they have troops on Board or not.” He noted that “it would be extremely useful to have look outs in Monmouth County and at the town of Amboy to keep an exact account of all Vessels coming in and going out and make daily reports to be transmitted to me.” However, Taylor did not emerge as a regular source of intelligence. In September, two officers in the Monmouth County state troop regiment, reporting to Colonel Asher Holmes, sent intelligence reports on the movements of the British. For example, Major Elisha Walton reported: Yesterday afternoon came a fleet consisting from sea consisting of seven men of war, forty-five square rigged vessels; we are informed by some of the Refugees that made a descent upon our shore that it is the 2nd division of Arbuthnot's fleet with troops from England, but what number we could not learn. We are informed by a deserter that came over yesterday. Lieutenant Jacob Woolcott, “commanding at Shrewsbury,” also sent a brief report on a British fleet leaving Sandy Hook on September 23. A week later, David Forman, for the first time in three years, was observing the British fleet at Sandy Hook from the Navesink Highlands. He noted the diminished size of the British naval squadron and concluded the British "are reduced to a position more to be pitied than feared." He pledged to join the Continental Army on an anticipated Franco-American assault on British positions in New York. David Forman’s Intelligence Reports, 1780 In June 1780, a string of punishing “man-stealing ” raids into Monmouth County and talk of vigilante reprisals re-raised affairs in Monmouth County to the attention of Continental Congress and Army leaders. Washington also learned that the French fleet had left the Caribbean and Sandy Hook was a likely destination. For both reasons, Washington re-established contact with David Forman and charged him with assisting the cavalry officer , Major Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, in linking up with the French. Washington also asked Forman to report on the movement of British ships at Sandy Hook. On June 12, 1780, Forman sent Washington a note that a British flotilla had crossed the channel north of Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Bay. Washington valued this intelligence because he wrote, on June 14, to the “Commanding Officer” of the Monmouth militia about the need to support Forman: As General Forman will probably, in the course of some months to come, have occasion to transmit me intelligence of a very interesting nature from the County of Monmouth, you will be pleased, whenever required by him, to direct one or more Light Horsemen of the County Militia to attend him and bring forward his dispatches to me. By doing this, you will render a very essential service to the public. The unnamed commanding officer was Asher Holmes, the colonel of the largest Monmouth militia regiment and colonel of the regiment of state troops defending Monmouth County. Holmes and Forman had many disagreements . Washington’s camp knew Holmes (who had twice marched militia to support the Army); it likely was a snub to leave Holmes unnamed on the order to support Forman. Forman lived in Manalapan and was deeply involved in founding the Association for Retaliation , a vigilante society soon enmeshed in violence. So, Forman only occasionally went to the Highlands to personally observe the British fleet. He hired Captain Joseph Stillwell of Middletown to perch himself in the Highlands (Garrett’s Hill most of the time) and send near-daily observations. Parts of Stillwell’s diaries have survived. Stillwell’s reports from June 16-20, 1780; July 1-8, 1780; July 16-20, 1780; November 5-11, 1780; December 12-14, 1780 were sent to Washington. There were other reports that have not survived. Most of these reports are short and concern information only on British ship movements; Stillwell often reports no activity or foggy weather preventing his view. Other Topics in Forman’s Reports Forman’s reports to Washington often included information on events in Monmouth County. Forman, an ambitious man who stretched the boundaries of decorum and his own authority, periodically sought Washington’s favor on topics well beyond British movements at Sandy Hook. On June 17, for example, Forman discussed a privateer flying “English colors” that attacked “fifteen of the trading vessels from Shrewsberry to New York” while “they was on a general fish party on the banks of the Shrewsberry.” Forman then informed Washington: My information, and I believe it is good, says that eleven or twelve of them was taken as the privateer immediately stood southward with her prizes. We are not informed who the prisoners are, we expect all are principal traders & plunderers of this Country - immediately on this information, I sent to Egg Harbor where I presume the prisoners are, if possible, to prevent there being paroled or discharged until their characters are fully known. Should they prove the gang we suppose they are, I hope it will be instrumental in restoring peace to this County. Why did Forman tell Washington about captured Loyalists at Little Egg Harbor? Probably because Forman lacked any jurisdiction over these prisoners and his stature with Gloucester County officials was enlarged if he could invoke Washington’s name when making an appeal to detain the prisoners. Unfortunately, we do not have further documentation of Forman’s attempt to detain and interrogate the captured Loyalists. On July 9, Forman lobbied Washington for troops to capture Sandy Hook. He discussed British plans to obstruct the expected French fleet “by interrupting the channel way at the point of the Hook & at the same time taking possession of the Hook with a body of troops and heavy cannon, they would make the passage almost impossible.” Forman predicted that bad weather or obstructions would “oblige the French fleet to put to sea." He then discussed the advantage of occupying Sandy Hook: With possession of the Hook, every difficulty would be removed in a very short time - by landing a few pieces of heavy cannon, the troops could cover the French ships while they drew the sunk vessels out of the channel or until they could wrap their ships through them. Washington did not respond to this proposal. Spotty Intelligence from David Forman’s Informers Forman continued sending intelligence reports in 1780 and intermingled information from these sources with Stillwell’s observations. On June 18, Forman wrote: “Yesterday afternoon, three frigates arrived within Sandy Hook. In the evening, a fourth ship was run in. The Tory report of this day is that Admiral [Marriott] Arbuthnot was on board.” Forman also wrote, incorrectly, that “this afternoon a large French fleet appeared, standing for Sandy Hook." On July 30, Forman sent intelligence after interrogating a deserter from Sandy Hook. He wrote Washington that “I have it from a mate of a vessel in their service, yet I believe an honest man in his information." The deserter described plans to sink ships at Sandy Hook if the French fleet arrived: "They should sink their store vessels in the place they now lay, which will, I apprehend, for a time render the passage of large ships up to the Narrows impracticable." Forman then reported on British ships leaving Sandy Hook, adding that "informers from New York” said the ships were headed for Rhode Island. On September 1, Forman again mixed Stillwell’s observations of British ships with word from informers in New York. Accounts from New York agree that there has been an amazingly severe press there for some time past and still continues - that the people are very generally dissatisfied and dispirited - it was also said Sir Harry [General Henry Clinton] was embarking his troops for Rhode Island. This last detail was false and Forman likely understood the mistake afterward. Two weeks later, Forman again reported based on an informer in New York. He reported that 5,000 troops were boarding transports. This time, Forman qualified his source, "this account my informant says may be relied upon.” And Forman went further: Should I ascertain further information that the intelligence is in any way wrong, I shall correct it by finding an honest man as soon as I shall be better informed. Yet I would observe to your Excellency that I have hardly ever been deceived by accts through this channel. Forman’s informer was spectacularly wrong six months later. In April 1781, Forman ignited a boomlet of excitement among the nation’s leaders by reporting a British invasion of the Delmarva Peninsula at New Castle, Delaware. He wrote on April 2: By account this day rec'd from New York, I am informed that a large embarkation is now in forwardness for Delaware Bay, that Genl. Clinton will take command of it & take a post at New Castle. My informant says confidence may be put in this information -- in justice to his intelligence I have found him hardly to err. Forman sent similar reports to Samual Huntington, President of the Continental Congress, and Governor William Livingston. Livingston forwarded Forman's report to Congress with a smidge of doubt, writing: "I know Genl. Forman's intelligence has been generally found true." Other times, however, Forman’s human intelligence gave him early word—even word about top secret activity. On August 3, Forman interrogated "sixteen artificers of the French Army" and sent Washington word: "These men tell me that the whole of the French Army are on the march to this State.” This was correct, but Forman incorrectly guessed why the French were coming, writing “that New York will soon be invaded." Forman was not supposed to know the French were moving, and did not imagine that the French would link up with Washington and march for Virginia to capture the British Army at Yorktown. Washington’s Reliance on Forman’s Intelligence While Forman’s intelligence, particularly from New York sources, was sometimes inaccurate, there is no doubt that his reports were valued. On June 18, 1780, Washington wrote General Robert Howe that Forman "is entirely to be depended upon" (though this was before Forman conveyed incorrect information from informers). Even when there were gaps in Forman’s reports, such as a gap from August 23-30, Washington was typically polite to Forman: I have not had the pleasure of hearing from you since your first favor of 23rd. inst. and I am informed from N York that a fleet with part of the Army of Lord Cornwallis arrived at that place last Friday. My anxiety will be well and early informed of the enemy's movements by water, induces me to wish to hear from you as often and as speedily as any material circumstance renders it necessary. Washington expanded even Forman’s responsibilities to include commanding the cadre of pilots gathered at Basking Ridge under Captain William Dobbs—men to be mobilized on the arrival of the French fleet. Washington wrote Forman: Immediately upon the appearance of a fleet near Sandy Hook, and you are satisfied it is the one we are expecting, you will please to give order to the pilots to repair down, where they may be at hand to be improved as occasion and circumstances shall require. Even in May 1781, after Forman’s intelligence was proven incorrect a number of times, Washington was grateful to Forman for his services. He wrote: “I am exceedingly obliged by the distinct and full intelligence of the sailing of the British Fleet - I had not before been able to ascertain the matter, and I was very anxious to do it." Forman rehired Joseph Stillwell at Washington’s request. It also appears that Congress valued Forman’s reports. On July 7, 1780, John Brown of the Continental Congress’s Marine Committee wrote directly to Forman to request intelligence reports: We would be much obliged to you if you would employ some suitable person to observe the motions of the enemy ships as they go in to and come out of New York, and transmit the number of guns and the condition, together with their movements. Brown informed Forman that he would be compensated for "any reasonable expense." Congress had even sent Forman a gift to assist him in reporting on British movements: “The Board are informed that an excellent spy glass was sent to your quarters by the Navy Board last year for the purpose of observing the motions of the Enemy from the Highlands." Forman’s reports to Congress have not survived. Perspective Whether Continental or British, Revolutionary War leaders were starved for information about the enemy. Whatever his flaws, Forman was George Washington’s best source of early intelligence on the movement of British men and ships in and out of New York. This made Forman valuable despite the inaccuracies in some of his reports. Savvy individuals like Washington and Livingston may have understood that Forman’s information from Stillwell could be trusted while the information from informers was suspect. Forman was also diligent in reporting his difficulties in gathering intelligence (see Appendix) and these difficulties, coupled with the value of his reports, earned Forman the goodwill of Continental and State leaders. Forman would need this goodwill as he was, simultaneously, leading a vigilante society, the Association for Retaliation, into lawless and violent acts. Related Historic Site : Hartshorne Woods Park Appendix: Difficulties Gathering and Sending Intelligence Reports On June 17, 1780, Forman boasted to Washington about the outposts he established to gather intelligence to Washington. He wrote, "I have established different posts for upwards of fifty miles of seacoast, that I think it will be impossible for any number of ships to be on the coast without my immediately being informed of it.” But his sentries proved unreliable and, at times, bad weather made observation difficult. Just two days after his boast, a frustrated Forman reported that foggy weather prevented useful reports from his posts. Therefore, he would go to the shore himself. "By daylight,” he wrote, “I will myself be on the Highlands of Middletown." Forman returned to the Highlands on June 29, writing Washington, "I rode down to the Highlands of Middletown - the day was rainy and dull as to prevent any particular observation." He went to the shore again on July 17, "I rode down to Shrewsbury yesterday, but the weather being too foggy to make any critical observation." While at Shrewsbury, Forman met with Major Lee and his cavalry. Forman informed Lee that he had to leave Monmouth County “on business” and needed Lee to provide intelligence reports in his absence. Lee might have disagreed and Forman might have complained to Washington. On July 19, Washington gave Lee a stern order: I depend on you for information of every occurrence, which will save General Forman the trouble of a business which I could only with propriety request the favor of him... For the future, you will make the report every two days, of the appearance at the Hook in which the more detail the better. Forman returned to Monmouth County in time to report again on August 11. He noted the arrival of British ships at Sandy Hook and promised to return to Shrewsbury for more information. He reported again from Shrewsbury on August 13, noting that he was in dangerous country "with only a small guard." Forman also noted that foggy weather hampered his intelligence; he was back in Freehold on August 16 and sent his next report. On May 21, 1781, Forman apologized to Washington for subpar intelligence reports due a family tragedy: "My whole time has been so entirely engaged with the distress of my family, loss of my little son, that I have not been of intelligence so as to form of an opinion on the destination of the fleet." He did, however, note that three deserters claimed a British fleet was heading for the Chesapeake. He also asked Washington about whether or not to rehire Stillwell. Washington promptly replied: I shall very willingly consent to take a man into pay at the rate you mention as the heights of Monmouth are the only ones from whence the movements of the enemy fleet in and out of the Hook can be clearly discovered. Stillwell was re-employed; the May 29 report included observations from Stillwell. Forman also ran into problems getting his reports delivered. An attempt to communicate via warning beacons had failed a year earlier—forcing Forman to rely on express riders. Forman wrote with frustration on July 9, 1780: “There is so few militia horse ordered out and so much use for them that in many instance I cannot be furnished with one in twenty four horses, and never until I send 15 or 20 miles for them." Washington was aware of Forman’s difficulties maintaining express riders. In August, when there was a break in regular reports, he wrote Forman, “I am very fearful that you have met with more trouble in establishing the Chain of Expresses than was expected.” Forman had to finance his horses and riders to carry reports. In 1782, Colonel John Neilson wrote that he and Forman were frustrated by having to make outlays for horses and riders: "If this mode is to be continued, it will be necessary to establish a fund to defray the expenses of that business, for no person can be prevailed upon to do it without being paid their traveling charges." Neilson also expressed frustration with Forman for taking one of his horses, “He has disappointed me, and is possessed of a horse which I am doubtful of his being entitled to." Sources : George Washington to John Taylor, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, July 27, 1779, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw150526)) ; Elisha Walton to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 157, item 147, vol. 2, #496; Jacob Wolcott, letter, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 157, item 147, vol. 2, #489; David Forman to George Washington, Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 4, p 428; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post, July 1780; David Forman to George Washington, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 171, item 152, vol. 8, #603 and vol. 9, #179; George Washington to New Jersey Militia Officer Commanding the Monmouth County, 14 June 1780,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-02093, ver. 2013-09-28; David Forman to George Washington, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, p 29; Forman’s letter noted in Thomas Fleming, The Forgotten Victory: The Battle for New Jersey - 1780 (New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1973) p 223; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 67, June 29, 1780; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 67, June 30, 1780; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 223-4; David Forman George Washington, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 93, item 78, vol. 9, #319; John Brown to David Forman, National Archives, Collection 332, reel 6, #260; David Forman to George Washington, Monmouth County Historical Association, Diaries Collection, box 2, John Stillwell's Diary (photocopy); George Washington to David Forman, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, p 183; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 68, July 17, 1780; George Washington to Henry Lee, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, p 214 note; George Washington to David Forman, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw220484)) ; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 80, August 11, 13, and 16, 1781; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 70, September 1, 1780; David Forman to William Livingston, U. of Michigan, Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, box 151, folder 42; David Forman to Congress, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Gratz Collection ALS; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 78, May 17, 1781; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 78, May 29, 1781; Personal Correspondence: David J. Fowler, Letter: David Forman to ?, August 3, 1781; John Neilson to Timothy Pickering, National Archives, Misc. Numbered Records, 85: 24782. 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 > Salt Work Laborers and Militia Exemptions by Michael Adelberg This sketch of a boiling house presents an idealized picture of the hot and dirty labor at a salt work. Finding reliable laborers was a common problem at the salt works along the Jersey shore. - March 1777 - As noted in prior articles, the shortage of salt in America sparked a new salt-making industry along the Jersey shore at the start of the American Revolution. By 1777, Monmouth County had at least nine salt works. These salt works needed laborers to cut wood, boil salt brine, and transport salt. But most salt works were far from population centers and they generally paid wages in low-value Continental money. Labor Problems at New Jersey’s Salt Works Labor problems were continuous at New Jersey’s salt works. John Van Emburgh of Middlesex County co-owned a salt works near Toms River, and he managed them. A dozen of his letters from the second half of have survived. The letters details that uneven productivity of the salt works, and his complaints about salt work laborers: July 12, 1778 “No salt making on the shore, scarcely since the last alarm… the people who belonged to the Country… will not work & they has been idle for two weeks.” Salt Produced: None Sept. 13, 1778 “The sooner you can forward the wagon & horses, I think the better … we are short of casks provided for salt” Salt Produced: Two wagon loads Nov. 7, 1778 “No salt at the works - sent you a load this morning by Mr Jobs which is all they have made.” Salt Produced: One wagon load Nov. 15, 1778 “I send you 19 bushels of salt from the works which Is all is all they have.” Salt Produced: 19 bushels Nov. 26, 1778 “They go on very slowly.” Salt Produced: 59 bushels Nov. 18, 1778 “Now on his errand to get hands [workers] which, if he fails, then the works will stop. Even could we get hands here, the prices is such that the works will not defray the charges.” Salt Produced: None Dec. 27, 1778 “The late storm has proved fatal to us in a very considerable degree. The people have been obliged to leave the works.” Salt Produced: 9 bushels of salt Dec. 30, 1778 “The men to whom we have rented the salt works have quit them, as nothing can be done along the shore in that way for some time now.” Salt Produced: None In December 1778, Van Emburgh gave up directly managing the salt works and focused on managing ships based at Toms River. He rented them and then re-rented them to a local man, Samuel Bennett, in May 1779. Bennett agreed to run the works and provide one third of the salt to Van Emburgh as rent: I have left the salt works to Sam Bennett who is to have them during his pleasure, find his own wood, & every other necessary. as such materials as possibly belong to the works & delivers us ... 1/3 of the net proceeds & at the expiration of his time in them, the works be returned in as good order as he received them. Van Emburgh purchased fifteen bushels of imported salt at an auction that same month and sought to purchase 150 more—further evidence that the salt works were not consistently productive. Thomas Hopkins, manager of the Friendship Salt Works in Gloucester County also frequently complained that his "wood-cutters refused to cut" and “said they would work no more as the weather was so hot & the mosquitos so thick." Sometimes they took his tools and ran off: "the 3 wood cutters eloped before day & stole an axe and loaf of bread,"; "no wood cutters at work this day. Thomas Savadge, managing the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River, had similar complaints . One salt works laborer, Benjamin White, of Tinton Falls, recalled: “I left [home at Tinton Falls] and came to Shrewsbury, and went to making salt by boiling seawater." But White soon “returned to my native soil… with but little money of value, it being Continental and old Jersey money.” White also complained that as a Quaker (whose religious principles did not permit militia service) and as a salt works laborer, he was "often fined for not doing militia duty.” New Jersey Government Considers Militia Exemptions for Salt Works Wage and working conditions aside, the need for salt work laborers clashed with New Jersey’s militia law which mandated service every second month. The New Jersey Assembly first considered this tension in September 1776 when it read a request from the Pennsylvania Council of Safety to grant militia exemptions to "persons employed in manufacturing, entrenching tools and carrying on salt works." The Pennsylvania government was sponsoring a large salt work at Toms River and was hearing about labor shortages from Thomas Savadge, the manager of the salt work. John Hart, on behalf of the New Jersey Assembly, declined Pennsylvania’s request: The malitia [sic] ordinances of this State have subjected malitia to certain fines for non-attendance, -- The assembly are of the opinion that particular exemptions, at this time, will be injurious to the public and greatly retard the marching out of the malitia. Hart suggested that salt work wages be adjusted to compensate laborers for paying militia fines. Near concurrent requests were made from Pennsylvania leaders and the Continental Congress to exempt salt workers from militia service. Yet, these same bodies requested local militia to “guard the salt works near Toms River.” These conflicting requests may have rankled New Jersey’s leaders. On the one hand, the state of Pennsylvania was requesting militia exemptions; on the other hand, they asked for a high-functioning militia to guard the salt works (at a time when the shore township militias were largely dysfunctional ). The New Jersey Assembly continued to hear requests for militia exemptions. Richard Brown of Stafford Township petitioned the Assembly on February 15, 1777, "praying an exemption for 15 men in the militia to be employed in carrying on the whale fishery in this State.” The Assembly rejected this petition but re-started deliberations about militia exemptions for salt work laborers. On March 14, the Legislative Council heard a bill to grant 10 militia exemptions to laborers at the Union Salt Works at Brielle. The bill passed unanimously on March 17. David Forman, Colonel of a Continental Army regiment and Brigadier General of the New Jersey militia , was the majority owner of this salt work. The preferential treatment of Forman’s Union Salt Works was noticed. Tensions between New Jersey and Pennsylvania over Militia Exemptions Just two weeks after Forman received the militia exemptions, James Mott, a member of the New Jersey Assembly, political rival of Forman, resident of Toms River, and creditor to the Pennsylvania Salt Works, wrote Governor William Livingston: Mr. Thomas Savadge of the Pennsylvania salt works at this place hath not been able to complete the same by reason of his workmen being frequently called out in the militia, he lately made application to Gen. Putnam, who gave a protection to his workmen, who were just got to work when they were called out again… If he cannot keep his workmen, he must be obliged to drop the whole [project], to the great loss of the owners and much damage to the public in general, for if the works were completed, he expects to make at least one hundred bushels of salt a day, and as salt is so much wanted, I make no doubt of your Excellency granting him such power. Mott’s letter suggests that Savadge had received militia exemptions from General Israel Putnam of the Continental Army. However, Putnam, as a Continental Army officer, lacked the authority to direct the affairs of the New Jersey militia. That responsibility belonged to Governor Livingston. The disparate treatment of the salt works was also noticed by Clement Biddle of Pennsylvania’s War Office. Biddle wrote the Continental Congress on April 4: This State has been at very considerable expense in the erecting of a salt works at Toms River in the State of New Jersey, under the management of Thomas Savadge; he informs the Board that they would have begun salt making before this time had the work men not been called out in the service of the militia. As the works are likely to be of great public utility, we think the work men should be exempted from military service. His Excellency, Governor Livingston, refuses to grant any such exemptions unless it be recommended by the Congress. We therefore recommend that you would give a few lines to the Governor to that purpose. On April 8, Congress debated a "motion from Pennsylvania for recommendation to the Governor of New Jersey to excuse [from militia service] 40 persons employed by Pennsylvania at the salt works.” The minutes of Congress noted the outcome of the debate: After much debate the amendment was agreed. -- Resolved that it be recommended to the Governor and Council of the State of New Jersey not to call into the field such part of their militia, not exceeding forty, who are necessarily employed in the salt works, now erecting in their state by the government of Pennsylvania, provided it be not inconsistent with the laws of the state. Congress’s resolution was toothless. The militia exemptions were plainly “inconsistent with the laws of the state.” Members of Congress likely knew this because most states had militia laws that required universal service, similar to New Jersey’s militia law. On April 12, Governor William Livingston's replied: The exemptions above recommended is inconsistent with the militia laws of this State, but if the Government of Pennsylvania will carry on said works with the inhabitants of their own Commonwealth, care shall be taken to have them exempted as above. Thomas Savadge continued to suffer labor shortages and continued to blame militia service for his labor problems. On July 8, he complained about “the tediousness and delay of erecting the works arises from not getting a [militia] exemption of my people for military duty in the militia.” He also noted the burden of recruiting workers: “It takes half of my time riding about the country looking for fresh hands, and when I have had them two weeks, the militia takes them away." By late 1777, a compromise was emerging. In September, Gov. Livingston wrote Thomas Wharton of the Pennsylvania Council of Safety acknowledging that the loss of salt work laborers “is extremely vexatious." He foreshadowed that "our Legislature is about to revise our militia law... doubt not the reasonableness of the exemptions you desire; it will be provided in the new Act." On October 7, the New Jersey Assembly unanimously passed "An Act to Encourage the Making of Salt at the Pennsylvania Salt Works." It allowed that "the manager of the salt works for the time being may cause to be enrolled any number of men that may need to be employed" with militia exemptions as long as the manager notified the militia captains of the men. The salt workers would function as their own militia unit: "the men so enrolled will be disciplined in arms by being regularly mustered and officered.” The Limited Impact of Militia Exemptions The New Jersey law came too late to save the Pennsylvania Salt Works. With the British invading Pennsylvania, the state’s government soured on the grandiose but non-productive project on the Jersey shore. On November 6, Wharton declared them: “long in the hand and altogether fruitless.” The state ceased underwriting them and eventually sold them. The failing Pennsylvania Salt Works did not dampen the interest of New Jersians in salt-making or their desire for militia exemptions. On November 13, Nathaniel Scudder petitioned the New Jersey Assembly on behalf of himself and other salt work investors "soliciting an exemption from militia duty for a number of men said to be carrying on a salt works, erected by them." David Knott petitioned for militia exemptions at his salt works two weeks later. The Assembly initially dismissed these petitions. But then, on December 11, the New Jersey Legislature passed an act granting militia exemptions to the laborers at salt and gunpowder works (exemptions for iron workers were also granted in a separate act). But, for salt-making, the exemptions were explicitly tied to production -- "one man at the salt-works for every 500 gallons the boiling vessels hold." The exemptions did not last. On March 28, 1778, the salt-making exemptions were repealed: "the great number of private [salt] works erecting, as well as already erected, promise an ample supply of salt." The legislature was likely influenced by scandals surrounding both the Union and Pennsylvania Salt Works and by the expected arrival of foreign salt in American ports (enabled by France’s entry into the war). An October 1778 bill to reinstate the exemptions failed by a 9-16 vote in the Assembly. Few surviving documents provide information about the Monmouth Countians laboring at the salt works. The financial papers of the Pennsylvania Salt Works show that the labor force fluctuated significantly but do not list the names of the laborers. An October 1778 militia delinquency fine against Peter Hulsart was “remitted & entirely set aside” at the Court of General Sessions in Freehold because he “labored at a salt works.” It is the only document of its kind that still exists. Two militiamen, in their post-war pension applications, recalled missing service due to laboring at a salt work. John Hulsart recalled being excused from militia service because he labored at the salt work at Mosquito Cove (north of Toms River): "Those who were thus engaged in the boiling of salt, from the great scarceness, were exempt from military duty." David Cooper recalled missing four to six months of militia service because “I was exempted under the laws of New Jersey from militia service” by laboring at a salt work. “It was considered the same as doing militia duty by those who were engaged in it." The British also took an interest in the Monmouth shore’s salt works. In April 1778, they attacked and destroyed several of them. Related Historic Site : National Guard Museum of New Jersey Sources : “Journal of Thomas Hopkins of the Friendship Salt Company, New Jersey, 1780,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 4 (1918), pp. 46-61; Benjamin White’s narrative is in Judith M. Olsen, Lippincott, Five Generations of the Descendants of Richard and Abigail Lippincott (Woodbury, N.J.: Gloucester County Historical Society, 1982) pp. 159-61; Library of Congress, J. Turner Coll., Folder - John Hart, September 2, 1776.; Journals of the Continental Congress, November 5, 1776, p925-6 ( www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html ); The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, February 15, 1777, p 67.; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p69, 73; Library of Congress, J. Turner Collection, folder: John Hart; The Library Company, Acts of the General Assembly of New Jersey, pp. 6-7, 47; James Mott to William Livingston in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 303; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 83, item 69, vol. 1, #355; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23389962 ; Thomas Savadge to Pennsylvania Board of War in Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, pp. 418-9; James Mott to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 1, #55, 58; William Livingston to Thomas Wharton in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, pp. 69-70; William Crispin to PA Council of Safety, William Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1970), v10, p306, 419; Journals of the American Congress, April 8, 1777 (Washington DC, 1823) v3, p83. Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 6, p 554.; Pennsylvania Council of Safety, Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p92, 193-4; Carl E. Prince, ed., The Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick, N.J., 1988), vol. 1, p 303; Thomas Savadge to Pennsylvania Board of War, Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, pp. 418-9; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p117-8; “An Act to Encourage the Making of Salt” discussed in Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Phila: Joseph Severns, 1845) vol 5, p745; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 13, 1777, p 17; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p24; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 28-29, 1777, p 33-34; William Livingston to Assembly in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, p 126; Harry B. Weiss, The Revolutionary Saltworks of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1959) p 39; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, March 27, 1778, p 92; Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 228National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Morris of KY, www.fold3.com/image/#25351861 ; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 8, 1778, p 203-204; Peter Hulsart, Court Paper, Rutgers University Special Collections, Holsart Family Papers, folder: A2; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1778) p10; Mark Lender, “The Enlisted Line: The Continental Soldiers of New Jersey”(Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, 1975) p 48; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, David Cooper of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#12873752. 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 > Militia Family Suffering After the Battle of Navesink by Michael Adelberg The Sugar House warehouse in New York was converted into a prison that held roughly 500 prisoners. Most of the militiamen captured at the Battle of Navesink were confined here. - February 1777 - By 1777, both the British and Continental governments were struggling to house and feed thousands of captured enemy combatants. The British Army in New York City was faced with the acute problem of holding 4,000 prisoners in a city that was already overcrowded with British troops and Loyalist refugees. Lacking alternatives, the British converted old warehouses and non-seaworthy ships into improvised prisons. These impromptu prisons were horrible places where hundreds died from inadequate food, shelter, and clothing. American prisoners had few beds and blankets. The skimpy twice-a-week prisoner rations (1/2 lb. of biscuit, 1/2 lb. pork, 1/2 pint of peas, cup of rice, 1/2 oz. butter) was rarely fully allotted. Following the defeat at the Battle of the Navesink , more than 70 Monmouth militiamen were put into these miserable jails. Monmouth Militiamen in British Prisons Historian Edward Raser studied 72 Monmouth militiamen captured at the Battle of Navesink. Five died in jail within two months and five others died in prison over the next year. At least seven of these men were married and at least four were fathers. Two of the prisoners were paroled from jail to become tailors for the British Army. The captured officers (Capt. Barnes Smock, Lt. Joseph Brown, Lt. Thomas Cook, Lt. James Whitlock, Ens. Tobias Polhemus) were eventually paroled to private homes on Long Island. Several of the captured militiamen discussed their time in prison in their postwar veteran’s pension applications after the war. Garrett Wikoff recalled his eighteen months of confinement: Together with about seventy other persons, were taken prisoner and carried on board a 64-gun ship then lying near Sandy Hook where he remained three days and three nights closely confined in her hatches. He was then taken, together with his comrades, to New York and imprisoned in the Old Sugar House, as it was then called. He remained there a prisoner to the enemy until the 8th of August 1778. Other Monmouth militiamen offer similar narratives. A few additional details are offered below: James Morris: “he was very sick with small pox, and looked very miserable, his hair was nearly all off his head." Cornelius Vanderhoff: "detained for 18 or 20 months until there was little number [left alive], for want of humane treatment” Matthias Hulse: “confined to the Old Sugar House… remained a prisoner there from the time he was taken, in close confinement, until the 12th day of May, when he was exchanged” Linton Doughty: “was confined for 19 months - for this time, on his return home received pay." Henry Vunck: “suffered while a prisoner great privations… in poor clothing and scanty & unwholesome provisions. Many of the prisoners died in consequence of this treatment.” Elisha Clayton may have had the most interesting recollection. He was “compelled to work at his trade in making clothes for the enemy; while thus employed he watched [for] his opportunity and made his escape, accompanied by a British soldier whom he induced to desert from the enemy.” Attempts to Support the Prisoners The Continental Commissary of Prisoners, Elias Boudinot, sought provisions for the prisoners of war. He engaged John Covenhoven, formerly Monmouth County’s leading delegate in the New Jersey Assembly prior to capture by a Loyalist party on November 30, 1776. Covenhoven signed British protection papers and, after that, he retired from public life. But raising provisions for prisoners of war at Boudinot’s request brought him back into a leadership role. Boudinot wrote Covenhoven on January 17, 1778: I must again beg that you will exert yourself on this occasion, and add a few quarters of beef (say 10 or 12) and 100 bushels of Indian corn -- I enclose two passports for the sloop, and most heartily wish she may go off on the first open weather. Boudinot promised to pay for the provisions that could be raised. Covenhoven’s response has not survived but it was apparently encouraging because Boudinot directed an associate, "I hope you will soon receive a boat load of flour from Middletown Point." Covenhoven further responded on January 30: I have purchased a quantity of wood which is this day setting out for New York with a few lbs. of flour; I have also engaged a quantity of wheat… will be ready when the boat returns. The beef you desired to be sent I have not got & will be difficult to be had; purchased between two & three hundred bushels of rye. Covenhoven noted delays with shipping these goods to the prisoners in the winter because "the boat was froze up" at Middletown Point. Paroled Officers and the Special Status of Capt. Barnes Smock and Lt. James Whitlock Consistent with the social class-focused attitudes of the day, special attention was given to the captured officers. Several were paroled from prison to private homes on Long Island. However, two of the officers, Captain Barnes Smock and Lt. James of Whitlock, were denied this lenient treatment for several months because they had signed British protection papers during the Loyalist insurrections . The harsh treatment of Smock and Whitlock caught the attention of Elias Boudinot. In December 1777, Boudinot compiled a report to Congress titled, "State of Charges Against the Prisoners in the Provost of New-York.” It included this paragraph: Captain Smock and Whitlock discussed entering the service after taking oaths of Allegiance last winter to the King of Great Britain. They acknowledge the fact, declaring their faithful adhesion to their oaths as long as protected, but when the English left the Jerseys, they took the benefit of General Washington's proclamation. If this is a crime, it was equally so in the first instance, after submitting to our Government. Boudinot was not successful in negotiating parole for Smock and Whitlock. In March 1778, he wrote George Washington about Smock and Whitlock and a few other captured New Jersey officers who were denied parole on Long Island. “That having repeated my Applications for the relief of the seven remaining Officers in the Provoost, I could not succeed, and as the objections against the liberation of Smock, Whitlock and Skinner are rather trifling,” Boudinot called for a general prisoner exchange as the best way to help these men. The next month, April 1778, Boudinot and his British counterpart negotiated a "Draft of the Proposed Cartel for Prisoner of War Exchanges." That document lists eleven officers, including Smock and Whitock, who “remain yet unexchanged” as "the objects of particular exception” The cartel proposed to move these eleven men to the top of the list of men to be exchanged: We do hereby specially stipulate and declare, that the aforesaid officers shall be immediately exchanged on the terms of this cartel, for any officers of equal rank, or others by way of equivalent or composition; which have been or shall be delivered in lieu of them. The draft cartel was not immediately executed, but it appears to have helped Smock and Whitlock. A “List of Whig Officers on Parole on Long Island” compiled by Boudinot in August 1778 includes Smock and Whitlock as paroled in Brooklyn. Other documents related to the paroled officers corroborate this. The officers paroled to Long Island received vastly better treatment than the rank & file left in the British prisons, but parole was not without insults and dangers. Two Monmouth militia officers paroled on Long Island, Thomas Little and Tobias Polhemus, petitioned British general James Pattison on August 29, 1778, about “daily and repeated insults” from British troops: This treatment we bore with patience, but...they continued and their brutality [and] carried them so far as to beat us in a cruel manner. They openly declared that they came to our quarters with a formed design to perpetrate these violences and that they were determined to murder us. Attempts to win the exchange of these paroled officers failed more often than not. Lt Thomas Cook, a prisoner on Long Island, wrote to Nathaniel Scudder in August 1780: My brother informs that Lewis Thomson was sent here to effect an exchange, it has answered no valuable purpose to that end, the influence of such men is very little in this place. Had he been of my rank, it is possible it would have been done... I am at a loss to know the reasons why an exchange do not go on for me, the officers in general are in a very disagreeable circumstance [sic]; it is fifteen months since our bond was paid [permitting parole to Long Island] or the last Public supplies were sent to us. Edward Raser noted that the first five militiamen were exchanged in May 1777, probably due to serious illness. Most of the Monmouth prisoners came home as part of the general prisoner exchanges conducted in the summer of 1778. Once exchanged, Barnes Smock returned to the militia as captain of his Middletown company; he was captured again by Loyalist raiders in May 1780. James Whitlock was listed in a 1778 prisoner schedule as “broke parole.” For this offense, he was not exchanged until December 1780. He was probably very ill and died soon after this release. New Jersey Government Provides Relief to Families of Some Captured Militiamen New Jersey leaders sought to help the prisoners and their families. On September 20, 1777, David Forman petitioned the New Jersey Legislative Council for ongoing militia wages to the families of men captured at the Battle of the Navesink; the Council approved the petition on the same day, but apparently lacked the power to appropriate funds. So, in November 1777, Asher Holmes and Nathaniel Scudder petitioned the New Jersey Assembly "setting forth that a great number of militia of the county of Monmouth under their command have at different times been taken prisoner by the enemy, some of whom have perished in confinement, and other in their family are in great distress." They requested relief for the suffering families. It does not appear that the Assembly acted on the petition. However, in March 1778, the New Jersey Council of Safety, on which Scudder served, "Agreed, that there be paid to Col. Asher Holmes, the sum of £120 -- for use of the wives, widows and children, of such militia inhabitants of Monmouth County, who have either been taken prisoners by the enemy or killed in battle, & who appear objects of public charity, to be distributed among them at [his] discretion." Holmes received £120 for the relief of the following "suffering families": James Hibbetts, Peter Yateman, Samuel Hanzey, John Bowes, Abraham Marlat, Nathan Marion, Joseph Davis, William Norris, William Cole, Alexander Clark, Lambert Johnson, and Obadiah Stillwell. Why the families of these men merited relief while others did not was not stated. In June 1781, the New Jersey Assembly returned to the Battle of Navesink. On June 4, it voted 29-1 to give James Whitlock legal title to the estate of his brother, John Whitlock. The next day, the Assembly voted half-pay pensions (£2 S5 per month) to the wives of five men killed at the battle. They were: Isabella Hibbetts [widow of James Hibbetts], Mary Stillwell [widow of Obadiah Stillwell], Elizabeth Cole [widow of William Cole], Mary Winter [widow of James Winter], and Penelope Davis [widow of Joseph Davis]. Perspective By any measure, the Battle of the Navesink was the worst moment of the war for the Monmouth militia and many of the seventy-two men captured and their families suffered for years afterward. However, many other militiamen and their families suffered from militia service at other times for other reasons. A few examples are offered below based on postwar pension application narratives: Job Clayton : “His four older brothers were made prisoners by the refugees and confined many months in the Sugar House, at the City of New York.” William Johnson : "My father, a Whig, was robbed of between five and six pounds of hard money. I myself, was robbed of thirty pounds and my coat, vest and even my shoes.” Rachel Lake , regarding the service of her dead husband, John Smith: “She lost a child in his absence… They were robbed and plundered by a party of Tories one time during the war, and upon another occasion they were robbed of about twenty sheep, which were also driven off by the Tories." Rebecca Shepherd , wife of Captain Moses Shepherd (in the application of John Truax): "She was informed that the enemy intended to take her off, this information caused her to leave her home at night… the refugees took the slay [sic] & horses and brought them off to Sandy Hook." Altche Sutphin , regarding the service of her husband, Derrick Sutphin: “He was called out the same week as the wedding… when a fellow soldier by the name of William Thomson was killed on Middletown Highlands… The wedding party dared not remain overnight at the house, but dispersed early in the evening for fear of the Tories who would be upon them - that the bride remained at his house while the groom, the said Sutphin, was called out in the service." Mary Wall , regarding the service of her husband, James Wall: “She was sometimes left with small children and such assistance as could be secured in the affected state of the country exposed to the ravages of a cruel enemy without any male about the house… the enemy were always willing to make daring inroads into the county to capture those who were obnoxious to them or plunder their houses." Asa Woolley : "He suffered from the cold, his feet were frozen, his eyes much injured, so that he was not able to read for seven years. The injury arose from the flash of a gun when fighting the Enemy... he obtained a furlough from Captain [Richard] McKnight to visit his friends but in a few nights his comrades were taken prisoner, and carried to New York." Related Historic Site : The Prison Ship Martyrs’ Monument (Brooklyn) Sources : Ammerman, Richard, “Treatment of American Prisoners during the Revolution.” New Jersey History, vol. 78 (1960), pp. 263-5; Edward Raser, "American Prisoners Taken at the Battle of the Navesink," Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey, vol. 45, n 2, May 1970; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) p 321 note; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Cornelius Vanderhoff; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Job Clayton; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Linton Doughty; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Joseph Van Note of Ohio, S.11617; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Elihu Clayton; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Eldridge; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Matthias Hulce; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Garret Wikoff of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 28142503; Receipt, National Archives, Revolutionary War Rolls, Coll. 91, p195; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p111; John Fell's Journal, Brooklyn Historical Society, coll. 1974.225; Elias Boundinot to Congress, Library of Congress, Peter Force Collection, 7E, reel 3, Elias Boudinot Papers; Elias Boudinot to John Covenhoven, Elias Boudinot Letterbook, Wisconsin Historical Society, p63-6; Princeton University Library, CO230, Elias Boudinot to John Covenhoven; List of Officers, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #3994; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 214; Elias Boudinot to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 14, 1 March 1778 – 30 April 1778, ed. David R. Hoth. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2004, pp. 16–24; Elias Boudinot, The Elias Boudinot Letterbook (Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 2002) p114; Draft Prisoner Cartel, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 1, 1768–1778, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 466–472; List of Prisoners, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #3967; List of Prisoners, National Archives, Collection 881, R 593; Rufus Lincoln, The Papers of Captain Rufus Lincoln, ed. by James M. Lincoln. (Cambridge, MA 1903) p. 29-40; Samuel B. Webb, Correspondence and Journals of Samuel B. Webb (NY: Arno, 1969) v2, p123; List of Captured Officers, National Archives, Collection 881, R 593; Elias Boudinot, Accounts for Prisoners, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #3976; Thomas Cook to Nathaniel Scudder, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 93, item 78, vol. 5, #499; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, September 14, 1780, p 258; Thomas Little and Tobias Polhemus, Memorial, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Irvine-Newbold Papers, box 77, folder 29; List of Suffering Families, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #1148; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 22, 1777, p 28; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 214; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, May 22 and June 4, 1781, p 8-32; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 5, 1781, p 34; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Asa Wooley; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Smith; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, James Wall of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 20365758; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Johnson; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Truax; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Derrick Sutphin. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Monmouth Militia Takes Control of the Ship, Polly & Anne by Michael Adelberg New York’s Royal Governor, William Tryon, sought to supply the British Army in Boston by loading the Polly & Anne. The ship beached on the Monmouth shore and was taken. - December 1775 - Shortly after the capture of HMS Viper ’s 30-foot tend er vessel, a second ship in the service of the British military beached on the Monmouth shore. On December 23, 1775, the Polly & Anne ran aground on Manasquan beach during a storm. John Graham, a passenger on board the vessel, reported that the “vessel was laden by his Excellency Governor Tryon [New York’s Royal Governor William Tryon]” for the British Army at Boston. The vessel beached and was discovered by a party of Monmouth Countians that included John Morris. Morris was a former British Army officer who would become a battalion commander in the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers , but, at this time, Morris was supporting the Continental cause. Morris apparently notified the Shrewsbury Township Committee of Observation, acting as the de facto local government for the Manasquan neighborhood. The committee considered the stranded vessel being on December 26, 1775: Whereas information to this Committee is made that a sloop is come on shore at Manasquan loaded with fresh provisions entirely, such as beef in quarters, hogs and fowls, etc., and that there is reason to suspect that the cargo was intended for the use of the enemy at Boston as the persons on board of said vessel refuse to give any account of themselves or their intention. Therefore: Resolved, that David Knott and James Davis be a subcommittee to repair to the spot and make inquiry concerning the above affair and if they find sufficient reason therefore to secure the cargo at least and if necessary some or all of the persons until a hearing before this or the County Committee, and if assistance be wanting, that they call upon Capt. [Aaron] Longstreet and Capt. [Moses] Shepherd to attend with a sufficient party of militia. Militia apparently arrived at the stranded ship quickly—but whether the militia were from Shrewsbury or from Freehold is an open question. According to a surviving document, Graham “immediately was taken prisoner, by order of the Committee of Freehold , in Monmouth County.” A deposition taken from James Webb, another passenger, confirmed that the vessel’s cargo was intended for the British Army in Boston. A report compiled after the capture revealed that the Polly & Anne’s cargo consisted of dry goods and “a quantity of beef, pork, and other provisions.” As such, the Monmouth County Committee instructed Colonel David Forman to impound the cargo “except such articles as were perishable, which the Committee directed to be sold by Doctor Scudder [Nathaniel Scudder] and Doctor Henderson [Thomas Henderson].” The perishables were promptly sold and the proceeds were turned over to “the Congress of this Colony.” As for the ship’s crew, the Monmouth County Committee asked the New Jersey Committee of Safety to assist: “It is expected a number of persons belonging to said sloop will fall into the hands of this Committee; will be glad of advice on how to dispose of them.” The county committee received instruction to ”deliver to the seamen and passengers, all such clothing and other effects as belong to them.” Because the crew were New Yorkers, the Committee would deliver the prisoners “to the Provincial Congress or Committee of Safety” of New York. Dr. Thomas Henderson (also a militia major) brought the prisoners to New York, where he was deposed by the New York’s Council of Safety.. Henderson’s testimony revealed that the Polly & Anne was captained by a man named Haines, a known Loyalist who escaped confinement in New York in order to take the vessel and provisions into British lines. Henderson further testified that: “The casks and boxes found on board of the said sloop had labels nailed to them, but that all the labels were torn off. That among the labels torn off, he found one directed to General Howe, Boston.” Henderson further testified that three casks of wine on board the vessel were personally shipped by Royal Governor Tryon. Another Monmouth Countian, David Rhea, who accompanied Henderson, offered additional information on Captain Haines: He broke jail by breaking six grates out of a window, and stole a boat about midnight, and got on board of the man-of-war; that the sloop Polly and Ann was purchased for him about three days, or less, before the time of her sailing, and that she was purchased of Isaac Gidney. As of January 23, Captain Gaines and John Graham were still confined in New York. Graham petitioned for an early release from confinement due to his declining health. Their fate, and the fate of the other passengers on the Polly & Anne , is not known. The Polly & Anne was sold at public auction by Dr. Nathaniel Scudder, but money from the sale was taken by Loyalists, presumably during the Loyalist insurrection of December 1776. As late as June 1778, the New Jersey Legislature was still seeking to settle accounts related to the capture of the ship with Forman, Scudder and Henderson. Another capture of a British ship would soon occur. Related Historical Sites : New Jersey Maritime Museum Sources : Peter Force, American Archives, (Force and Clarke: Washington, DC, 1837) Series 4, vol. 4, P818; Peter Force, American Archives, (Force and Clarke: Washington, DC, 1837) Series 4, vol. 4, P1059; Proceedings of the Committees of Freehold and Shrewsbury, Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, First Series, 1846, pp. 192-3; Franklin Kemp, The Capture of Enemy Vessels by Ground Troops in New Jersey (privately printed) p 19; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 3, pp. 886-7; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Coll., State Library Manuscript Coll., #83; "Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html ), v4: p 1058-9; "Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html ), v4, p 1059-60; Calendar of New York Historical Transcripts, (Albany, NY: privately printed, 1868) vol. 1, 220; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 11, 1777, p 203-4; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 5, 1778, p 134, 165. Previous Next

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Admiralty Courts Held at Barton's Tavern in Allentown by Michael Adelberg In April 1776, the Continental Congress authorized privateers to capture British ships. The legality of 58 ship captures were judged at Admiralty Courts held at Gilbert Barton’s tavern in Allentown. - July 1778 - With the entry of France into the war, the British navy re-assigned ships away from the Atlantic Seaboard to protect other parts of its sprawling empire. The British now had less ability to protect ships coming in and out of New York. Privateering, by which American ship captains captured British and Loyalist ships with the blessing of the Continental and state governments, officially started in April 1776, when the Continental Congress sent states “blank commissions for private ships of war… for making capture of British vessels and cargoes.” But privateering along the New Jersey shore did not blossom until spring 1778, when the British naval presence weakened and bold Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) such as William Marriner—demonstrated that British defenses in Brooklyn were permeable. The capture of a ship was often a simpler matter than determining who had rights to the captured vessel and its cargo. Cases like that of the Betsy , captured after beaching on the Monmouth shore in November 1776, illustrate the months of dysfunction that could follow the capture of a ship. The state of New Jersey established an Admiralty Court address this problem. Admiralty courts heard competing claims on captured vessels, declared a rightful owner, ordered sales, and collected fees for the state. Historian Donald Shomette dates the establishment of the New Jersey Admiralty Court to an October 1776 law that empowered the Governor to call an admiralty court. It appears that the first adjudicated prize vessel was in early 1777. Richard Somers, commanding the militia at Great Egg Harbor, took the brigantine Defiance. The state lacked a regular admiralty court, but it appears that one was convened and it condemned the prize to Somers. The vessel was sold on the Tuckahoe River near Great Egg Harbor on March 12. Regular admiralty courts did not convene with public announcements, advertising that all claimants on the vessel could come forward, until fall 1778. Starting in 1778, and continuing into 1783, the State of New Jersey convened dozens of admiralty courts. While most prize vessels taken by privateers were brought into port at Little Egg Harbor or Toms River , the state chose to hold its admiralty courts well inland—perhaps because holding courts on the shore might prompt a British/Loyalist attack or spark riots from locals with a vested interest in the court’s decision. Allentown as Top Site for Admiralty Courts The majority New Jersey admiralty courts met at the tavern of Gilbert Barton in Allentown. The selection of Allentown as the host site for the majority courts was not accidental. Allentown was thirty miles inland and was connected to Egg Harbor and Toms River via roads. It was also close to Burlington, Princeton, and Trenton, seats of the New Jersey government. After June 26, 1778, when the British Army left Allentown on its march across New Jersey (leading to the Battle of Monmouth two days later), Allentown was safe from British/Loyalist attacks. Barton owned the village’s leading tavern. His loyalty to the Revolution was well-understood; he testified against Loyalist insurrectionaries before the New Jersey Council of Safety in 1777 and was the father of a Continental Army captain, William Barton. His tavern hosted Upper Freehold Township’s annual town meeting. Barton sold and leased livestock to the Continental Army even when it probably was not to his economic advantage. He was also a brother-in-law of Charles Petit of Egg Harbor, the shore’s most influential political leader and a man heavily invested in the flourishing privateer industry at Little Egg Harbor and the village of Chestnut Neck, just upriver from the harbor. The first New Jersey Admiralty Court was advertised in the New Jersey Gazette on June 6, 1778, but was not held until July 13. The long lag probably is attributable to the march of the British Army across New Jersey in late June. When it did convene, the court adjudicated: the captured sloop, Duck , claimed by Joseph Wade; the sloop, Hazard , claimed by Peter Anderson; the sloop, Sally , claimed by the "Abraham Boys"; the sloop, Dispatch , and the brigantine, Industry , claimed by Timothy Shaler; the sloop, Palm , the brigantine, Speedwell , the brigantine, Carolina Packet , and the brigantine, Prince Frederick , all claimed by John Brooks; and an unnamed schooner claimed by John Potts (of Monmouth County). It is noteworthy that the majority of the claimants were Pennsylvanians or New Englanders—a trend that would continue at future admiralty courts. In total, 60 trials adjudicating 58 prize vessels (two re-trials) were held at Barton’s tavern—far more than any other New Jersey Admiralty Court host site. 43 of these cases were held at Barton’s tavern in 1778 and 1779, after which other sites were used more frequently. (See table 7 for the list of vessels tried at Barton’s tavern.) The other sites to host multiple admiralty courts were: The Burlington County Courthouse, Rensselaer Williams’ House at Trenton, and Isaac Wood’s House at Mount Holly. In Upper Freehold Township, admiralty courts later in the war were listed as being hosted at the house of Benjamin Lawrence and “Randle’s Tavern.” Gilbert Barton died in 1782 (his will was dated February 21). Lawrence was his son-in-law and likely moved into Barton’s tavern, even if only temporarily. There is a good chance that Barton’s tavern and Lawrence’s house were the same place. Local historian John Fabiano notes that Barton’s tavern became Randle’s tavern when the Barton family sold it to the Randolph family (Randle was a nickname for Randolph). Adonijah Francis, the owner of Allentown’s other tavern, also hosted one admiralty court. James Green of Colts Neck became an innkeeper at Freehold later in the war and hosted an admiralty court; no other Monmouth County site hosted a court outside of Allentown. New Jersey Admiralty Court records no longer exist, but the admiralty court announcements printed in the New Jersey Gazette provide important information on what transpired in these courts. Through these announcements, we know the men who claimed the prize vessel, the men who were alleged to have lost or forfeited the vessel, and the type of vessel. John Burrowes, Jr., of Middletown Point, who served as captain in the Continental Army into 1779 (starting in David Forman’s Additional Regiment and later serving in the New Jersey Line ), became the Admiralty Court’s Marshal in 1780 and announcements carry his name after his appointment. He served as Monmouth County’s sheriff concurrently for two years. At least eleven Monmouth County militia officers took prizes during the war. All of these Monmouth County claimants, except Asher Holmes of Marlboro, lived near the shore. At least three of the captured vessels (probably more) had grounded on shore. The vessels taken by Monmouth Countians were a combination of captures at sea and vessels that grounded on the shore. Interestingly, two Monmouth County Loyalists operating ships out of Staten Island—Richard Reading and Thomas Crowell—lost vessels that were condemned at admiralty courts in Barton’s tavern. The most prolific privateer captains were from New England or Philadelphia. For example, Samuel Ingersoll of Salem, Massachusetts had four prizes condemned to him at Barton’s tavern and Yelverton Taylor of Philadelphia had three prizes condemned there. Raritan Bay’s most prolific privateer , Adam Hyler of New Brunswick, also had three prizes condemned to him at Barton’s tavern. These men were heroes in their day and a prize being condemned to a privateer was a cause for celebration. It is easy to imagine significant bar tabs being run up at Barton’s tavern on the nights when prizes were condemned. Hosting admiralty courts was, no doubt, good for business. Shortcomings of the Admiralty Courts Admiralty Courts did not end all controversies about claims on captured vessels. A 1780 Dover and Stafford townships petition to the New Jersey Assembly complained: A number of vessels have lately been stationed along the shores… and that there is no law of this State, as they allege, clearing ascertaining what proportions of said vessels or cargoes shall belong to captors of preservers, which has given occasion to many suits. Some prizes were indeed the subject of litigation and counterclaims long after the New Jersey admiralty courts finished their work. This was commonly because the provenance of the vessel was not known when the New Jersey admiralty court awarded the prize to the claimant. American vessels taken by British ships and then retaken by American privateers could bog down in long litigation. At least three of the vessels tried at Barton’s tavern were known to be American vessels taken by the British and then retaken by American claimants. For example, a January 2, 1782, admiralty court announcement noted that William Treen and Joseph Edwards ("of the whaleboat Unity ") claimed the sloop Betsy (not the same vessel discussed above) formerly captained by Joseph Burden. The Betsy was originally a New Jersey vessel taken by the British off the Delaware Bay before it was retaken on the New Jersey coast by Treen and Edwards. One particularly complicated case brought before the Admiralty Court in 1783 involved Colonel David Forman’s seizure of two vessels, Diamond and Dolphin , at Little Egg Harbor. They were owned by the New England privateer Nathan Jackson. Forman had evidence that Jackson was secretly playing both sides, operating as a Yankee privateer when convenient and trading with Loyalists in New York when his cargo could fetch a better prize there. The Admiralty Court awarded the vessels to Forman despite Jackson contesting the claim. The court’s decision was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court when Jackson sought redress there. Jackson then sought redress in the Continental Congress’s court to hear interstate disputes, apparently without success. This is the subject of another article. Curiously, it appears that many vessels taken as prizes on the New Jersey shore were never brought to the Admiralty Court. William Marriner, for example, captured a number of enemy vessels between 1778 and 1780. In May 1780, the Pennsylvania Gazette , advertised the sale of two prizes taken by Marriner near Sandy Hook, Black Snake and Rattle Snake , along with a pilot boat. These were apparently American privateers captured by the British navy, and then re-taken by Marriner. It does not appear that these prizes were adjudicated in admiralty court (based on court announcements) even though Marriner carried a Letter of Marque (privateer license) from the state. (Note: The Black Snake was purchased by Joseph Randolph of Toms River and re-commissioned as a privateer captained by Joshua Huddy.) The New Jersey Court of Admiralty passed out of existence when the war ended. The courts certainly did not solve all of the problems associated with assigning a captured ship to a new owner, but it improved upon the vacuum that preceded it. Better documentation would shed greater light on whether most of the court’s proceedings were straightforward assignments of a ship to a single claimant, or contested affairs between individuals with conflicting claims. Whatever its shortcomings, the New Jersey Admiralty Court was a good example of the fledgling government quickly devising \a new institution to meet a need. Related Historic Site : The Old Mill Appendix: Table 7 : Prize Vessels Adjudicated at Barton’s Tavern Sources : Continental Congress authorizes Letters of Marque, Journal of the American Revolution , https://allthingsliberty.com/2019/09/massachusetts-privateers-during-the-siege-of-boston/letter-of-marque/ ; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 2, pp. 251-2, 258-9, 272; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 2, pp. 469-70; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 3, pp. 54, 60; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 3, p 330; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 3, pp. 385, 420; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 3, pp. 481, 486-7; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 3, pp. 513, 524; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 2, pp. 251-2, 258-9, 272; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 2, pp. 469-70; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, p 147; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 75; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015); William Nelson, Austin Scott, et al., ed., New Jersey Archives (1901-1917, Newark, Somerville, and Trenton, NJ: 1901-1917) vol. 5, pp. 139-140; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 5, p 170; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, p 358-9; Charles Hutchinson, Allentown, N.J. its Rise and Progress (Part 15), Allentown Historical Society; Petition summarized in: The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, March 13, 1780, p 157; Correspondence from John Fabiano; Huddy’s privateer commission is in Catalog of the Exhibition: Joshua Huddy and the American Revolution, Monmouth County Library Headquarters, October 2004. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > New Jersey Council of Safety Moves on Monmouth Loyalists by Michael Adelberg The aging squire James Grover was allowed to stay at home without punishment by the New Jersey Council of Safety despite being prominent in a Loyalist insurrection five months earlier. - April 1777 - In the early months of 1777, New Jersey emerged from a period of British occupation during which thousands of its citizens declared allegiance to Great Britain. In a number of counties, and particularly Monmouth County, civilian law enforcement and the courts were non-functional . The New Jersey Legislature stepped in to fill the breach; seizing on the example in neighboring Pennsylvania, it established a new Council of Safety on March 15, 1777. The New Jersey Council of Safety was a twelve-man board chaired by Governor William Livingston. Its appointed members included Dr. Nathaniel Scudder of Freehold. The Council would investigate the conduct of New Jerseyans suspected of undermining the New Jersey government or working against the Continental war effort. The Council had the power to overrule local government officials, call the Legislature into session, and detain enemies of the state. A subsequent law gave the Council the ability to appoint and remove local officials, but this controversial new power caused the Legislature to time-limit the Council’s existence to one-year from this expansion of power (to September 20, 1778). Council of Safety Early Docket Dominated by Monmouth County Cases The Council began meeting in early April 1777. It immediately focused on Monmouth County—which dominated the Council’s docket through the month. The Council’s earliest examinations concerned the Loyalist associations that fed the Loyalist insurrections in Upper Freehold , Freehold-Middletown , and Shrewsbury down the shore in December 1776. Depositions were taken regarding the conduct of Loyalist leaders, and lists of disaffected followers were compiled. The council also took an interest in the failed attempt of Samuel Wright and Henry Weatherby to raise recruits for the (Loyalist) New Jersey Volunteers . After amassing testimony against him, Weatherby was detained and brought before the Council on April 26; in exchange for signing a loyalty oath and posting a £300 bond for his future good behavior, he was released. Wright remained at large and was never brought before the Council. Only a few of the Loyalists and disaffected named in the depositions were brought before the Council. The rest were, presumably, administered loyalty oaths locally. The first Monmouth Countian punished by the Council of Safety was not Weatherby, but Moses Mount of Upper Freehold. The Council sent him to the Burlington County jail on April 10 for “maliciously and falsely saying and doing things encouraging disaffection... spreading false rumors concerning the American forces." Six days later, Mount petitioned for clemency: Your petitioner being sensible of his past misconduct and with a sincere heart that wishes well to the American cause, he begs your Excellency & Honorable House would favor him with another hearing & he hopes to convince your Excellency that his past misconduct was not so much owing to himself as to some designing people. Mount testified against other disaffected and was released. He supported the Revolution afterward. On April 10, after hearing from Moses Mount, the Council began considering Upper Freehold Loyalist associations led by Richard Robins and Anthony Woodward. It heard a confession from Thomas Fowler, a Loyalist insurrectionary recently captured by the Whig, Lewis Bestedo, and from Bestedo himself. It also heard from prominent Whigs Abraham Hendricks, William Imlay, and Alexander Montgomery of Upper Freehold. All three men gave testimony against members of the Woodward family. The evidence from these witnesses led the Council to declare that two prisoners, Jesse Woodward and Richard Robins, had committed treason; they were sent to prison in far-off Sussex County. Ring-leader Anthony Woodward was not tried because he was behind British Lines—though the Council would try and convict him of treason in June 1778 when he was captured. The Council was also concerned with the conduct of Captain Henry Waddle of Freehold. Waddle was an active militia leader early in the war—the first man to march the Monmouth militia outside the county (to defend Amboy from a rumored British attack in July 1776). He apparently became disaffected in the latter months of 1776. With Joseph Leonard, they hid Monmouth County’s records from the new County Clerk, Kenneth Anderson. The records ended up in the hands of Loyalists during the December 1776 insurrections and were lost to the new Monmouth County government. On April 11, Waddle responded to a summons to appear before the Council stating that a gout flare-up prevented his travel: I am extremely unhappy in being prevented by a severe fit of gout (which I am now confined in my room) from waiting on your Excellency & Council, as I think I can clear myself to the satisfaction of every one injurious suspicion. I hope your Excellency & Council will favour me with the reasons which they have for suspecting me & with the name of the accuser, that I may come prepared for my defence. Waddle never voluntarily appeared before the Council. He was arrested on July 19 and detained for five weeks. On August 30 he appeared before the Council, signed a loyalty oath to the New Jersey Government, and was released. Later in April, the Council tried four of Middletown’s most prominent pre-war citizens—John Taylor, James Grover, Daniel Hendrickson (of Middletown, not Shrewsbury’s militia Colonel), and Revaud Kearny. Taylor, who led the Middletown Loyalist insurrection, sought to get his friend, Grover, excused from appearing before the Council. This was despite the admission that Grover administered British protection papers during the Loyalist insurrection: He [Grover] still continues in a poor state of health, I am told has not been out of his house since he was taken; he has been a friend of the American cause, and I believe he is still so, which, if I am not misinformed, he can bring convincing proofs of. I am told he is accused of taking submissions, which I believe to be a fact, he is situated on the water and if he refused, he might have been taken prisoner himself. He did sign certificates as a Magistrate and had been one of many years, tho' he had often told me that when a new commission was issued, he would not qualify [refuse office]. He is a man of seventy years, has taken oath before Genl. Putnam, and is expected to remain quiet with his family. Kearney was charged with "maliciously and advisedly reviling the Honorable Congress of the United States and of measures adopted by the same Congress… and encouraging disaffection & manifestly tending to raise tumults and disorders in the State of New Jersey." Taylor and Kearney appeared before the Council, posted bonds for their future good behavior, and were released. Grover, having already taken an oath, was not compelled to appear before the Council. Kearney went home to Keyport, where he retired from public life, but remained openly disaffected. His diary notes several wagers with leading Whigs over the outcomes of war-related events. Council of Safety Continues to Hear Monmouth County Cases Inevitably, the Council would be forced to consider the fate of the 200+ Monmouth Countians jailed in Philadelphia and Fredericktown, Maryland . The first prisoner considered was John Throckmorton of Colts Neck (Shrewsbury Township). He was a junior officer in the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers before being captured in late 1776, On May 23, John’s father, Joseph Throckmorton, petitioned the Council "on behalf of his son… praying that he might be indulged so far as to have his son removed into this State & confined at his home in Colt's Neck.” Despite offering to post a massive £3,000 for his son’s release the Council never acted on the request. John was likely involved in a prisoner exchange late that year. He rejoined the British Army only to be captured again. Starting in late 1777, the Council started permitting relatives of jailed Loyalists, if they posted bonds, to bring their kin back from Fredericktown. The Council also considered and ultimately supported a plan to recruit jailed Monmouth Loyalists into David Forman’s Additional Regiment —a time-consuming initiative that yielded only three recruits. The Council intervened on behalf of one the prisoners, Jacob Cooper, by awarding him prisoner of war status, "as it appeared that he had joined the enemy & was enlisted with them before publication of the act for punishing traitors." As a prisoner of war, Cooper would be jailed with British soldiers rather than common criminals, and would be subject to prisoner exchange (prior to exchange, Cooper was paroled home to Shrewsbury after Thomas Curtis of Shrewsbury posted a bond pending good behavior.) Twice, on December 12, 1777 and on May 29, 1778, the Council of Safety authorized the Monmouth County Sheriff (Asher Holmes) to send Loyalist women into British lines. The husbands of the nine women included Maj. John Antill of the New Jersey Volunteers and two men who would become infamous Loyalist partisans later in the war (John Tilton and Clayton Tilton). It is unclear if the women requested to go to New York or were exiled. Council of Safety Banishes and Returns Richard Waln Quakers posed a challenge for the Council of Safety, and New Jersey authorities more broadly. Strict Quakers refused militia service or even paying militia fines—this put them at odds with the new government. But they were also non-violent and not necessarily a threat to the Revolution. Richard Waln, a millowner from Upper Freehold, is an example of a Quaker who was considered by the Council of Safety more than once. In October 1777, Waln was brought before the Council, where he refused to take an oath to the New Jersey government. As punishment, he was banished to British lines (recently-captured Philadelphia). Waln spent eight months there. On June 17, 1778, as the British were quitting the city, Elizabeth Drinker wrote of Waln leaving for New York City: “Richard Waln took leave of us this day… have gone on board one of ye vessels, as also have many of ye inhabitants.” In August, Waln sought to return home to New Jersey, writing the Council of Safety: When your Petitioner was in Philadelphia (where he had permission to go) he received a message from several Gentlemen in high office in New Jersey informing him that he may come back upon taking the test [loyalty oath]. That being willing to comply herewith & not withstanding any offense, it came that your petitioner has since understood that an application to your Board is necessary -- He therefore requests that you will permit him to return home to his family & estate in New Jersey, & he will detain himself as a good subject. On August 25, the Council of Safety agreed that Richard Waln could return home if he posted a bond, stayed with his family in Upper Freehold, and agreed to answer any charges against him at the next Monmouth Court of Oyer & Terminer. He was put under supervision of Lt. Colonel Elisha Lawrence (not the Loyalist of the same name). Waln weathered the next five years without serious incident, even hosting a party of sailors walking across New Jersey after a daring escape from prison in New York. Waln was again in trouble with his neighbors at war’s end. Both houses of the legislature read petitions against him on May 28, 1783. The minutes of the Assembly record that the petitioners set forth: The great inconveniences that arise to them and others from an obstruction of the floating or rafting of lumber down Crosswicks Creek, occasioned by the mill dam of Richard Waln; and praying leave to present a bill to oblige the said Richard Waln to make proper waterways for rafts to go through. The petitioners were invited to make their case at the next session of legislature. Council of Safety Gives Way to County Courts As 1777 progressed, New Jersey’s counties returned to convening their courts and punishing criminals. The Council of Safety increasingly meted out temporary punishments pending a regular trial in the county courts. On December 7, the Council of Safety authorized the first Monmouth County Court of Oyer and Terminer (the court that heard political and capital crimes) to meet on January 20, 1778. In 1778, the Council of Safety’s activities tailed off as county courts re-assumed their historical role. When its authorization expired on September 20, 1778, there was no move in the legislature to re-authorize it. The Council ceased to exist. Perspective The New Jersey Council of Safety was a useful stopgap put in place during a time period in which the courts were not functioning in much of the State. Its broad powers and lack of accountability to the citizenry made liberty-living New Jersians suspicious of it. However, in balance, the Council carried itself with transparency (including published minutes) and moderation. Ultimately, the Council considered the political crimes of 47 Monmouth Countians; more than half of these deliberations occurred in April-May 1777. See table in the Appendix of this article. In all but a few cases, the punishments were lenient—most of the political criminals were released upon taking a Loyalty oath or posting a bond. This is consistent with the generally lenient policies of the Continental and British governments in the first half of the war, both of which declared general amnesties for ordinary citizens who were lured into bad conduct by the devious lies of the other side. Related Historic Site : The Grover House (home of James Grover) Appendix: Monmouth Countians Brought before the New Jersey Council of Safety See t able 2 . Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Council of Safety, Deposition of William Sands; New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War documents, #32, Deposition of Samuel Knott; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives of History, Council of Safety, depositions and examinations regarding Henry Weatherby; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives of History, Council of Safety, Examinations of John Longstreet and Peter Schenck re Henry Weatherby; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives of History, Council of Safety, Examination of Sundry Persons; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives of History, Council of Safety, box 1, document #34; Undated receipts and documents, New Jersey Council of Safety, New Jersey State Archives, box 2; Deposition of Thomas Potter, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 4, April 7, 1777; New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #36642-36644; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives of History, Council of Safety, box 1, document #74; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 301; New York Public Library, Diaries Collection, Revaud Kearney; Henry Waddle to New Jersey Council of Safety, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 4, April 11, 1777; Henry Waddle to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, pp. 302, 305; Deposition, Alexander Montgomery, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War Documents, #28; Deposition, William Imlay, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War Documents, #29; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 22. Peter Coldham, American Loyalists Claims: Abstracted from the Public Record Office (Washington, DC: National Genealogical Society, 1980) p 360; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 23; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 1, #64. New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 4, April 16, 1777; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 300-1; William Livingston to Monmouth County Gaolkeeper, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 4, April 16, 1777; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 24-5; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 24; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 24-5; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 25; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 26; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 27; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 28; John Taylor to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 1, #65; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 29; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 30-2; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 31; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 33; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 34; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 35-6; Cornelius G. Vermeule, "The Active New Jersey Loyalists," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, LII (1934), p88; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 36; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 37. Jones, E. Alfred. The Loyalists of New Jersey, (Newark, N. J. Historical Society, 1927) p 135; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 37; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 37-8; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 38; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 38; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 7; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 41-2; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives of History, Council of Safety, Thomas Woodward; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 50-1; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 54; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 50, 53; John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v5, p104-5; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 55-6; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 55-6; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 92; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 59; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, pp. 311 note; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 60; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 94, 127-8; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 102; John Jordan, Colonial and Revolutionary Families of Pennsylvania: Genealogical and Personal Memoirs (New York: Lewis Publishing, 1911) v. 2, p804; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 143-4; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 159; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 163-4; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 164, 168; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 172; David Bernstein, Minutes of the Governor's Privy Council, 1777-1789 (Trenton: New Jersey State Library, Archives and History Bureau, 1974) p 59, 64; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 1, p 514; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 195; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 239; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 242; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 243; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 245; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 251; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p202-3; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 253; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 249-50, 254; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 264; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 243; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) pp. 268-70; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 271; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 7; Richard C. Haskett, “Prosecuting the Revolution,” in American Historical Review, vol. 49 (April 1954), pp. 582-4; Hunt, Agnes, Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution, (Cleveland: Western Reserve University Press, 1904) pp. 79-82. 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 > Dysfunction in the Monmouth County Militia by Michael Adelberg New Jersey Militia reenactors demonstrate a firing drill. The early Monmouth militia included several companies that did not muster and others officered by Loyalists. - March 1776 - Across New Jersey, in the spring of 1776, white men between ages 16 and 60 divided themselves up into districts and began drilling in new militia companies that were loyal to the New Jersey Provincial and the Continental Congresses. The prior militia structure under the Royal Government ceased to operate. However, in Monmouth County, the early militia was not united in its support of the two Congresses. John Longstreet, who would become a captain in the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers later that year, was a militia captain in Freehold. He described his militia company as a 70-man association which called itself the “Loyalists of Freehold.” Longstreet’s company probably existed parallel to other militia companies, neither aligned nor hostile. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, Longstreet’s men earned the derisive nickname “the Tory company.” Longstreet soon took his men to Sandy Hook and joined the British Army on July 15, 1776. Contemporary descriptions of “the Tory company” are supported in the post-war Loyalist compensation application of John Throckmorton, who noted that he was a Lieutenant in Longstreet’s Loyalist Company, and Longstreet was his captain. Another gradation of loyalty was evident in the Grenadier Company captained by Henry Waddle of Freehold. Waddle’s company, unlike most militia companies, was not raised from a specific neighborhood – it appears that Waddle’s men came from Freehold and Shrewsbury Townships. Waddle’s company was the first Monmouth militia company to muster and march outside of the county –marching to Perth Amboy in April 1776. Waddle was a known opponent of British policies who supported the Continental Association and Whig committees, but Independence appears to have been a breakpoint for him. On July 2, 1776, the same day that the New Jersey Provincial Congress adopted a new constitution separate from British control, Waddle resigned from the militia. He claimed that gout prevented further service. His resignation was accepted by the New Jersey Provincial Congress but Waddle was forced to appear before the New Jersey Council of Safety to declare “his peaceful intentions.” Though disaffected from the new government, Waddle never became an active Loyalist. In neighboring Upper Freehold, the militia was also troubled. In June, Colonel David Brearley (who led the township militia and would soon join the Continental Army) wrote the Provincial Congress twice about disaffection among his men. The first time, Brearley wrote "respecting certain disaffected persons in Monmouth County" and then he wrote again about "disaffected persons in his Regiment.” The Provincial Congress responded first by summoning two of the leading voices in a bloodless Loyalist insurrection , Richard Robins and Moses Ivins. They would not appear. This and other troubling events in Upper Freehold prompted the New Jersey Provincial Congress to send in militia from Burlington County and Pennsylvania to establish order. Shortly after that, on July 23, James Mount, a “field officer” in the militia had his commission “revoked” by the New Jersey Convention (the renamed Provincial Congress). While the revocation’s reason is not stated, it is probable that Mount was found to be cooperating with the township’s insurgent Loyalists. Shortly after that, Guisebert Giberson resigned his militia captain’s commission, which was accepted by the Convention on August 2. Giberson and Mount would both become active Loyalists. Outside of Freehold and Upper Freehold, there was even greater dysfunction in the Shrewsbury Township militia. Balthazar DeHart, an attorney who was in Shrewsbury in June, was deposed about disaffection in Shrewsbury in July: Saith that he was informed by Captain Jacob Dennis, a Militia officer, who had been ordered to guard Deal shore, in that Township, that he could scarce persuade a man to go there with him; and that the examinant knows that his brother, who is another Militia officer there, could by no means prevail on his men to go to defend that shore—the Whigs telling him they expected that if they went there, they would be delivered by the Tories to the enemy on their landing; and that he was informed by the said Captain Dennis, that the inhabitants along Deal shore told him they did by no means thank him for guarding them, and that they would much rather have the [British] Regulars than the Yankees there. Indeed, Colonel Samuel Breese, Dennis’s commanding officer, struggled with disaffection across the township. David Brearley reported to the Provincial Congress about Breese’s frustration: The Colonel at Shrewsbury has offered to resign, making great complaints of the backwardness, "to say no worse," as he expresses himself, of his people; "so few of whom," he tells us, "are ready to turn out (hiding themselves and deserting their homes)... We have ventured to encourage him with the expectation of their assisting him. On July 9, the New Jersey Convention (the renamed Provincial Congress) accepted Breese’s resignation: “Colonel [Samuel] Breese has resigned his commission of the Third Battalion of militia in the County of Monmouth, assigning for reason the general backwardness of the people.” Beyond Breese, two other two original militia Colonels, Joseph Salter and George Taylor showed disaffection for the Continental cause. Salter, who resigned immediately upon selection in late 1775, would support the Loyalist insurrections . For this and likely other suspect acts, he was arrested and detained in Trenton in 1777. He converted to Quakerism—perhaps out of religious conviction or perhaps to strengthen his case for avoiding militia service . In late 1776, Taylor became an active Loyalist and a great enemy to Monmouth County’s new leaders. However, there were also areas of the county where the new militia was stronger. It appears that the majority of militia companies in Freehold and Middletown townships were functioning by July. On July 6, David Brearley observed that "the Freehold and Middletown people who form the large battalion are, we believe, very hearty & willing to assist as much as possible.” That heartiness would soon be tested, as 200 of them soon would be summoned to put down a Loyalist insurrection . Related Historical Sites : Museum of the American Revolution Sources : Monmouth County Historical Association, Genealogical File, folder – Waddell; local history source reports the resignation of Capt. Henry Waddell of the militia on 7/2/76; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 6, p 1635; Peter W. Coldham, comp., American Loyalist Claims (Washington, D.C.: National Genealogical Society, 1980), p 12 and 489. Jones, E. Alfred. The Loyalists of New Jersey, (Newark, N. J. Historical Society, 1927) p 132 and 166. Gregory Palmer, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (Westport, Conn. and London, 1984) p 501 and 863. Rutgers University Library Special Collections, Great Britain Public Record Office, Loyalist Application Claims, D96, AO 13/18, reel 6; Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v1: p 37-8; John Jordan, Colonial and Revolutionary Families of Pennsylvania: Genealogical and Personal Memoirs (New York: Lewis Publishing, 1911) v. 2, p804; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p138-9; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and Council of Safety of New Jersey (Trenton: Naar, Day, and Naar, 1879) p 497; Troop Return, Henry Waddle, New Jersey Historical Society, collection 4, Revolutionary War Collection, item 7; Officers of 2nd Regiment of Monmouth Militia to New Jersey Provincial Congress, New Jersey Provincial Congress Coll., MG - 6, #17, #102, New Jersey Historical Society; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 2009) pp. 451, 460; David Brearley’s letters are summarized in Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 2009) pp. 451, 460; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p130, 136; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 6, pp. 1621-5, 1630; "Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v6: p 1625; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 602-3.;; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p138-9; Peter Force, American Archives, (Washington, DC: Clarke and Force, 1837) 4th series, vol. 6, pp. 1657-1658; Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v6: p 1657; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p229-32; John E. Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, 5 vols. (New York, 1903), vol. 1: p 191. Previous Next