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 > Lt. Colonel Gurney's Campaign Against Monmouth Loyalists by Michael Adelberg Francis Gurney led a regiment of Pennsylvanians on a month-long campaign during which he scattered Loyalists and seized large amounts of provisions intended for the British Army. - January 1777 - On January 2, 1777, Pennsylvania troops, under Lt. Colonel Francis Gurney, routed the newly-raised Loyalist militia of Monmouth County in a short battle just east of Freehold. Yet even with the Loyalist militia scattered, other aspects of the embryonic Loyalist regime remained in place in Middletown and Shrewsbury —at least until Gurney toppled them. Dispersing the Remaining Armed Loyalists A week after the battle near Freehold, a group of armed Loyalists caught the attention of the Continental Army. On January 9, General Israel Putnam, stationed at Crosswicks, wrote: “The Tories of Monmouth County are again in arms, Col. Gurney marched today to suppress them; the militia of the neighborhood of Cranbury are embodied and impatient to join and assist them." Two days later, Putnam reported to Congress on the continued Loyalist threat: The Tories of Monmouth are making great head, ravaging and plundering and disarming the well-affected inhabitants. I have sent off 200 men with Colonel Gurney, he will be joining some of the militia. I have no doubt of hearing of his success in a day or two. The location of the armed Loyalists is not stated but it is probable that they were based near present-day Matawan. A Loyalist association led by the wealthy merchant Thomas Kearney was operating there. This part of Monmouth County was near the British Army base at Perth Amboy and there are mentions in antiquarian sources of a stockyard there for supplying the British. One of Gurney’s soldiers, Robert Strain, recalled seizing a ship, presumably near the stockyard. “They went to Middletown NJ where they took a prize supposed to be worth 100,000 pounds, and which supplied the whole army all winter." Gurney likely scattered the Loyalists near Matawan and then moved on. By January 14, he was in Shrewsbury where he scattered another Loyalist party. He then wrote to Putnam to request a cannon and wagons: I must beg you Immediately send me one field piece. I find the enemy have not got their vessels out of the creek [Shrewsbury River], and should the Artillery come in time have no doubt of taking them. We have more plunder or rather King’s stores than we can get wagons to carry off. I wish you would send forward all the wagons you can collect. I would advise a company to be sent to the Court House in order to press wagons and bring them down. Gurney also warned about a future confrontation with Loyalists: “I am just now Informed that the Enemy have landed a party at Red Bank to the northward of Black Point, and am determined to march that way immediately with about one hundred men.” The next day, a party of Pennsylvanians under Colonel Richard Humpton chased a Loyalist group into a waiting boat. The Loyalists “were obliged to make a precipitate retreat on board the English men of war.” The Curious Case of the Good Intent Gurney also wrote the Pennsylvania Court of Admiralty (New Jersey lacked an Admiralty Court until 1778) a lengthy letter about the schooner, Good Intent , commanded by Captain Sands. The vessel was “employed to transport supplies to the Fleet and Army of the King of Great Britain” until it beached near Black Point. Gurney took possession of the vessel and claimed its cargo of sugar, spirits, and clothing as a “lawful Prize & Booty of War.” He asked the court to consider the capture so that it “may be adjudged and condemned as forfeited and a lawful Prize." According to depositions taken by Gurney, the Good Intent went from Jamaica to Sandy Hook and communicated with the Light House. But it was too far away to be protected when a French privateer under Captain Morderet chased it. The Good Intent beached at Black Point. A sailor from the Good Intent testified: That after landing they all went up to a small house & there slept that Night. That the next Day they applied to the Inhabitants for assistance and about eighty or a hundred came down for that Purpose & got on Shore a very considerable Part of the Cargo. From Sandy Hook, the British saw the activity. They “sent a Tender & two armed Boats to prevent the same means from saving any more of the Cargo & Destroy the Vessel.” But the crew of the Good Intent and locals (many of whom were likely disaffected from Continental cause) now fought the British in order to preserve the valuable cargo and vessel. The sailor testified that the British “were beat off by the Americans. This deponent & two of the Crew took arms to assist in beating off the Enemy.” With his vessel in the hands of Whigs, the owner of the Good Intent , D. Chenier, issued a public notice: To all Persons whom it may or shall concern in the Monmouth County in the Jerseys, Be pleased to deliver Capt. Sands the sundry articles saved from the Schooner Good Intent cast on Shore from Jamaica as he commanded that Vessel. The status of the Good Intent was not quickly decided. As late as 1779, the Pennsylvania Court of Admiralty was seeking to determine who was entitled to the vessel and its cargo. Benjamin Randolph, a merchant from Toms River, testified that he was releasing his claim to the vessel’s cargo, some of which was stored with him. Randolph suggested that he was the one who told Gurney of the vessel and Loyalist stores at Shrewsbury. Randolph also said he “went to Black Point, took some Prisoners & returning found some stores at the House of one Hartshorne [probably Esek Hartshorne].” Randolph suggested that the French privateer did not have a valid claim to the vessel because he accepted a lesser payment: ”While the wagons were loading, Morderet asked leave to put a little box of his on the wagons and go to Philadelphia and had leave.” It is unknown whether the Good Intent and its cargo were condemned to Gurney, Sands, or Morderet. It is unlikely that Chenier received any compensation for the lost vessel. Like the Betsy , profiled in an earlier article, the Good Intent shows how complicated it was to determine ownership of captured vessels. Capturing Loyalist Stores While Gurney was at Shrewsbury, Col. Humpton’s Pennsylvania soldiers entered Monmouth County and seized Loyalist stores on January 15. The Pennsylvania Journal & Weekly Advertiser reported: “A party of Col. Humpton's Regiment… went to Shrewsbury in Monmouth, where they took a large quantity of cloth and other stores collected by a sett of Tories, who infest that county.” Sergeant William Young, a prisoner of the British at Perth Amboy, reported on January 18: “Colonel Gurney has taken 90 baggage Wagons… 9 of the 90 wagons taken from the Enemy by Colonel Gurney are ammunition wagons.” General Putnam also wrote of Gurney’s windfall on the same day: He has taken a good quantity of stores that were sent there for the Tories enlisted under Morris [John Morris] and Lawrence [Elisha Lawerence] – thirty-five wagon loads of which have arrived at Crosswicks, and the Col supposes that about one hundred wagon loads still remaining; he discovers more daily -- they chiefly consist of rum, wine, pork and broad cloth. I have thought it best to let Lt. Col. Gurney stay down where he is, until the militia of that county are well-embodied, so as to be able to defend themselves. On January 20, Putnam noted receiving three prisoners from Shrewsbury – two were junior officers in the New Jersey Volunteers , John Throckmorton and Charles Cook. The third was none other than Colonel Charles Read. Read was the Burlington County militia colonel who led campaigns against Upper Freehold Loyalists in July and Shrewsbury Loyalists in November. After being confronted by Monmouth County’s Colonel David Forman and refusing to take a loyalty oath to the Continental government, Read sought to go over to the British. But he was taken by the Continental Army and detained. Read had been “discharged on giving his word not to quit Phila without leave.” Caesar Rodney at Trenton wrote on January 23 that Gurney had taken "a very large quantity of stores that were lodged there [Shrewsbury] and guarded by Skinner's Jersey Volunteers. Forty wagon loads of them arrived at Princetown, a great quantity of clothes and other English goods." The next day, General Putnam wrote Gurney about "Mr. Crane at Toms River” who “has collected a number of men and seized a quantity of wine.” Putnam asked Gurney to coordinate with Crane on the seizure. The enthusiasm with which the Pennsylvanians confiscated goods placed them at odds with leading local Whigs at least once. On January 29, Gurney wrote Daniel Hendrickson, the colonel of the Shrewsbury militia: "I am sorry that your man did not stay by the wagon; there is not the least foundation for us keeping the wagon, and let it be found where it will; you shall not only have it and the horses, but be paid for the hire of the team." Gurney, it appears, seized Hendrickson's wagon and team by accident. Gurney’s campaign was important enough to be reported in the newspapers of far-away cities. The Providence Gazette reported that “a party of our men under the command of General Putnam have taken 96 wagons at Monmouth, in New Jersey, loaded with baggage and belonging to the parcel of Tories." The Virginia Gazette half-correctly reported that Gurney “has retaken all the Hessian plunder which was stored at Shrewsbury meeting-house, with their clothes and necessaries, to the amount of 120 wagon loads." This report reveals that the Christ Church in Shrewsbury, a focal point of Loyalism before the war, remained so during the Loyalist insurrection. An inventory of one of Gurney’s wagon trains was compiled by Captain Francis Wade, the newly-installed Continental Commissary at Allentown. The caravan carried: “55 barrels of fresh pork, 59 sacks of peas, 3 turces of rice, 1 half-pipe of wine, 7 casks of rum, 3 barrels of sugar, 1 cask of limes, 17 hatchets, 2 iron pots, 3 iron kettles, and a half cask of oil.” Its total value was £905. Wade also noted that 20 casks of rum had already "went forward by Colo. Humpton to Morristown" and one pipe of wine and sugar was sent ahead to Philadelphia. The End of the Campaign By the end of January, Gurney was back in Freehold. General Putnam wrote to Congress about the improved conditions in Monmouth County: "The affairs in Monmouth wears a favorable aspect. The people of that County will again return to their duties. Col. Forman is sent there to command and put them in proper state of defence." Gurney’s campaign occurred without the Monmouth County militia, which had dissolved during the December Loyalist insurrections. But one Monmouth Countian, Dr. Nathaniel Scudder, was an important guide for Gurney. Scudder described his role: I myself marched with them until the enemy was entirely dispersed & their stores at Middletown seized, when I was obliged to attend at Freehold, on both account of furnishing a team to haul them [Tory stores] off & endeavor to rally the militia of the county. When Gurney left Monmouth County on February 5, Scudder wrote a thank you note that was printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette “expressing my gratitude to Col. Gurney” for his service in “a country where so many of the inhabitants were inimical to the cause.” Scudder continued: I have the greatest reason to think the salvation of the property and security of the persons of many friends of freedom [are]… owed to the spirited exertions of the two detachments which marched into Monmouth. In short, those detachments have rescued the county from the tyranny of the Tories and put it in the power of their own militia to recover and embody themselves in such a manner as to be able to stand on their own defence. Indeed, Gurney’s campaign was a great success. Monmouth County would never again have a Loyalist association capable of governing. Whether, as Scudder suggests, the Monmouth militia was ready to defend the county is another matter; the newly-reconstituted Monmouth militia would suffer its worst defeat of the war only a week later, at the Battle of the Navesink . Related Historic Site : Christ Church Sources : Letter, General Israel Putnam, January 9, 17777, viewed at http://www.fold3.com/image/#18947576 (original at the National Archives); National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Brewer of PA, www.fold3.com/image/#10976408 ; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 4, p 771; Francis Gurney vs. The Schooner Good Intent, Tam Ploy Claimant, Register of the Court of the Admiralty of State of Pennsylvania, Jan. 28, 1779, transcribed by Michael White; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 386; Pennsylvania Archives, Papers Relating to the War of the Revolution,1859, v 3, p89; Pennsylvania Archives, Series 1, Vol V, p186; Francis Gurney vs. The Schooner Good Intent, Tam Ploy Claimant, Register of the Court of the Admiralty of State of Pennsylvania, Jan. 28, 1779, transcribed by Michael White; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 1, p 277; Letters of William Young, The Pennsylvanian Magazine of History And Biography. Vol.VIII, 1884, p269; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 178, item 159, #35; Pennsylvania Archives, Series 2, Vol I, pg 496; Caesar Rodney, Letters to and from Caesar Rodney 1756–1784, ed. George Herbert Ryden (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1933), pp. 170-1; Israel Putnam to Francis Gurney, Neilson Family Papers, box 1, folder: Rutgersania, Rutgers University Special Collections; Rutgers University Special Collections, Francis Gurney to Daniel Hendrickson, Hendrickson Papers, box 2; Providence Gazette, February 1, 1777; Virginia Gazette, February 7, 1777; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 8, 6 January 1777 – 27 March 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998, pp. 185–186; Francis Wade, Inventory, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mgw:7:./temp/~ammem_XXqo ::; Pennsylvania Archives, Series I, v5, p209; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 49; Gaillard Hunt, Fragments of Revolutionary History (Brooklyn: Historical Publishing Club, 1892) pp. 112-5; Pennsylvania Gazette, February 17, 1777 (CD-ROM at the David Library, #23302). 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 > Associated Loyalists Embrace Policy of Retaliation by Michael Adelberg Gen. Henry Clinton restrained Loyalists from murdering American prisoners in retaliation for abuses against captured Loyalists. Loyalist mistreatment in Monmouth County was a major flashpoint. - January 1782 - As noted in a prior article, in October 1781, the Continental Congress issued a manifesto promising eye-for-an-eye retaliation against captured British and Loyalists for atrocities committed against citizens of the United States. Emboldened by this manifesto, Monmouth County’s Association for Retaliation , a vigilante society, increased the quantity and severity of its acts against its real and perceived enemies. The movement toward more severe retaliation—through which a prisoner would be punished for abuses unrelated to his own acts—progressed on both sides. From New York, the Associated Loyalists were a body of embittered Loyalist refugees who raided into the American countryside in order to punish rebels and bring much-needed farm goods into New York (for which they were paid good prices from British commissary officers). But British commanders never liked the Associated Loyalists—resenting their independence and indifference to the rules of war. Henry Clinton, commanding British forces in America, called the Associated Loyalists "over sanguine refugees whose zeal has but too often outrun their prudence." British Leaders Restrain Retaliation The Associated Loyalists embraced retaliation largely due to events in Monmouth County. In January 1781, Loyalists were loaded in irons in the Monmouth County jail. Thomas Crowell (formerly of Middletown) of the Associated Loyalists loaded rebel prisoners in his custody in irons as an act of retaliation. But Crowell did not undertake more violent retaliation. Loyalist leaders understood that extra-legal murders were a step beyond what the British would tolerate, and an act that could ruin the reputation of men associated with it. The conversation about retaliation, however, continued. James Robertson, the Governor-General at New York wrote to Clinton on January 23. Robertson alluded to Clinton asking him if the civil government headed by Robertson might embrace a policy of retaliation. He acknowledged that Clinton "did not think it expedient to threaten military retaliation." Robertson noted Loyalist requests for retaliation but declined to embrace it himself, writing that Clinton "had already fallen upon a better expedient to recover the confidence of the Loyalists." The next day, Clinton wrote Lord George Germain, the British Foreign Secretary, about his discussions with Robertson and William Franklin (Chairman of the Associated Loyalists) about retaliation: In the cause of debate upon this subject, General Robertson having expressed himself of the opinion that it might be necessary for me to issue a proclamation threatening the rebels with retaliation for any injury they should inflict upon the Loyalists for having joined the King's Army; I told him that I thought punishments of that nature operated more properly in the civil jurisdiction and that a threat of retaliation from the Army would be altogether nugatory to the present hour. Clinton avoided taking a stand on the policy of retaliation; he simply stated that it was not a military matter. Germain had a warm relationship with Franklin and was likely lobbied by Franklin on the need for the British to embrace a policy of retaliation. Germain asked Clinton to offer a gesture of support for the Associated Loyalists if he would not accede to their request on retaliation. Accordingly, on March 9, Clinton wrote a public letter that was published in the Loyalist New York Gazette . Clinton (insincerely) expressed his “continued affection” for the Associated Loyalists and offered "assurances that no post, place or garrison in which Loyalists are joined with the King's troops will be surrendered on any terms which might discriminate between them." He remained silent on retaliation. Clinton’s letter was little solace for strident Loyalists who craved revenge. One such Loyalist was James Moody, who played a prominent role in the raid that razed Tinton Falls in 1779, and whose brother, John Moody, was a Loyalist horse thief killed in August 1781. Moody would write that the Associated Loyalists were "hand-in-glove with similar bodies of depredators on the American side" but were checked by the British, while American vigilantes went unchecked. Moody further wrote of the Associated Loyalists: “One of the objects of the organization was that the Associators could retaliate upon the Americans for outrages and murders committed upon the Loyalists.” And yet the British restrained them: Our Generals suffered these [rebel] executions of the Loyalists to go on, without ever attempting to put a stop to them by threatening to retaliate. Nay, they would not permit the Associated Loyalists to save their friends, by threatening to execute the Rebels, whom these Loyalists had taken prisoners, and they [the Loyalists] held in their own custody. However, Moody also understood that acts of retaliation might beget acts of retaliation from the other side, leading to a cycle of pointless escalation: “It is asserted by the enemy, I fear with good ground, that they are compelled to retaliate for the violences committed by the crews of [Loyalist] whaleboats.” This inspired Whig privateers such as Adam Hyler “that frequently land on Staten and Long Island without a pretense of authority and commit the same cruelties & depredations." Moody also noted that prisoners in the custody of hostile localities such as Monmouth County were subject to abuse. These prisoners should be put in custody of "Continental or State Commissaries of Prisoners." Associated Loyalists Embrace Retaliation There is little doubt that the leadership of the Associated Loyalists, and William Franklin in particular, wanted to kill a rebel prisoner as an act of retaliation. Thomas Leonard, formerly of Freehold, who had served as a major in the New Jersey Volunteers , recalled speaking with Franklin on April 1, 1782. He and Franklin discussed “the relief of Captain [Clayton] Tilton” (jailed in Monmouth County) and the murder of the Loyalist Philip White. Franklin said "he knew of no means to prevent the cruel & barbarous treatment but retaliation, which had been his sentiment from the first." Franklin reportedly said he would "order retaliation" were it within his authority. Two weeks later, Richard Lippincott, at the verbal direction of Franklin, murdered Joshua Huddy of Colts Neck. (The subject of another article .) Henry Clinton did not support Huddy’s execution. He called it "a very extraordinary outrage” and “an unprecedented act of barbarity." He concluded that, "I cannot too much lament the great imprudence shown by the Refugees." He accused the Associated Loyalists of showing only a "trifling" concern to Clinton's misgivings about retaliation. He ordered Lippincott's arrest and court martial to determine who was at fault. On May 1, Clinton stripped the Associated Loyalists of the power to cross enemy lines: "no expedition or excursion against the enemy shall take place from the posts under their [the Board's] charge, without his Excellency's particular orders." No such permission would be granted. The Loyalist publisher, Hugh Gaine, recorded on May 1: "Orders for this day for no farther hostilities at any of our ports, and the Refugees not to go out any more without orders." He also reported "much talk about poor Lippincott." Franklin laid low and then left for England to avoid Lippincott’s court martial and the building taint on his reputation. From England, Franklin stayed interested in the plight of Loyalists but now seemed to understand that the Associated Loyalists lacked the authority to execute a man as retaliation for an unrelated abuse. In June, he wrote Guy Carleton, Clinton’s successor, about the fate of Timothy Scoby and William Herbert, two more Monmouth County Loyalists jailed in Freehold and sentenced to death. Franklin complained: No crime is alleged against them, as we are well assured, but their Loyalty, and one of them was taken on shore going to purchase provisions, and the other within British lines. As it is not within the power of the Board to afford these poor Loyalists the relief they are entitled, especially as retaliation nor threats of retaliation, can be made by them [the Board] without the concurrence of the Commander in Chief, they must beg leave to subject the whole matter to your Excellency's determination. In Great Britain, the ethics of retaliation was debated through the end of 1782. In July, the magazine, The Political Magazine and Parliamentary, Naval, Military, and Literary Journal , printed several letters related to Lippincott’s court martial and rebel abuses. The editor claimed that retaliation, though unpleasant, was effective: This they did in two other instances previous to the death of Huddy and it produced the desired result in the quarter where it was done. Rebel murder and assassinations immediately ceased, and the Loyalists, when taken, were treated with humanity and exchanged; and their cannot be a possibility of doubt, but that had our Generals conducted the war upon the same politic and just principles, the lives of many hundreds of faithful British subjects would have been saved, and the war carried on in a manner humane and civilized. Yet, we lack evidence that American leaders were intimidated into kindness for Loyalist prisoners because of the brazen mistreatment of rebel prisoners. The march toward the ultimate expression of retaliation—murder—in April 1782 suggests the opposite was true. The Associated Loyalists’ embrace of murderous retaliation was stoked by the Association for Retaliation of Monmouth County. Historian Simon Schama labeled retaliation a "brutal vendetta.” He also observed that the escalation toward murderous retaliation was "no surprise" given that men on both sides were motivated by revenge more than any other principle. Related Historic Site : Morris-Jumel Mansion (New York City) Sources : Henry Clinton, The American Rebellion; Sir Henry Clinton's Narrative of His Campaigns, 1775-1782, with an Appendix of Original Documents (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1971) p 192; Alexander Lawrence Flick, Loyalism in New York During the American Revolution (NY: Columbia UP) p113-4; James Robertson to Henry Clinton, Great Britain Public Record Office, CO5/1089, p415-6; Henry Clinton to George Germain, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v93, reel 8, #413; Transcript of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/halew/Lippincott.html ; Cynthia Eldenberg, Jonathan Odell: Loyalist Poet of the American Revolution (Durham: Duke UP, 1987) p129-32; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Thomas Jones, History of New York During the Revolutionary War: And of the Leading Events in the Other Colonies at That Period (Ulan: 2012) pp. 481-3; Susan Burgess Shenston, So Obstinately Loyal, James Moody (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000) p 138; Anonymous Account in Jared Sparks Collection, Harvard U - Houghton Library, MS Sparks, 49.2, #141; Thomas Leonard’s deposition at Richard Lippincott’s Court Martial, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v107, #240-2, 261, 268; Board of Associated Loyalists to Henry Clinon, Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #187; Henry Clinton to Board of Associated Loyalists in Edward H. Tebbenhoff, “The Associated Loyalists: An Aspect of Militant Loyalism,” New-York Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 63 (1979), pp. 142-3; Simon Schama, Rough Crossings, (NY: Harper Collins, 2006) p140-2; Francis Bazley Lee, New Jersey as a Colony and as a State (New York: The Publishing Society of New Jersey, 1902), vol 2, pp. 249-50; Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Journals of Hugh Gaine, Volume I (New York: Dodd, Mead 81 Company, 1902), vol. 2, pp. 148, 152; Henry Clinton to George Germain, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v105, reel 8, #692-705; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) pp. 507, 511, 529; William Franklin to Guy Carleton, Great Britain Public Record Office, British Headquarters Papers, 30/55, #4768; The Political Magazine and Parliamentary, Naval, Military, and Literary Journal, July 1782, v 4, p 420. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Establishment of the Associated Loyalists by Michael Adelberg In 1780, New Jersey’s last Royal Governor, William Franklin, established the Associated Loyalists, a vigilante group. Potentially, 20% of the Associated Loyalists were from Monmouth County. - November 1779 - By the middle of 1779, thousands of Loyalists had been living as refugees in New York for more than two years—and they were frustrated. The British Army had stopped campaigning in the North and the navy had lost control of the waters outside of Sandy Hook. The confiscation and sale of Loyalist estates spiked their resentments, and so did a steady diet of reports of rebel abuse in New York newspapers. This May 1779 report is just one example. Continental authorities were reportedly "chaining men together by dozens and driving them like cattle, flinging them into loathsome jails, confiscating their estates, shooting them in swamps and woods, hanging them after mock trials; and all because they would not abjure their rightful sovereign." Officers, whether British or Loyalist, believed rebels were guilty of abuses against peaceable Americans whose only crime was remaining loyal to their King. Patrick Ferguson, a British officer who commanded and conversed with Loyalists daily (and raided Monmouth County twice) similarly observed: Ravages everywhere wantonly committed, without regard for sex or age, friend or traitor, and consequent alienation of every thinking mind from the Royal cause. Most of the houses are indiscriminately plundered, beds cut up and windows cut to pieces, the man robbed of their watches, shoe buckles and money, while their wives and daughters have their pockets and clothes torn from their bodies, and the father and the husband who does not survey all of this placid countenance is beat or branded with the name traitor or rebel. Establishing of the Associated Loyalists William Franklin, the son of Benjamin Franklin and last Royal Governor of New Jersey, emerged as the leader of an aggrieved set of Loyalists. In early 1779, the Loyalist Andrew Elliot wrote about the illegal lumber trade from New Jersey: "The refugees [are] all employed in cutting wood on rebel lands by which they make money and help keep the town well supplied; they wish much to be embodied under a command of their own." Franklin would soon provide Loyalists with “a command of their own.” On May 29, 1779, Franklin proposed a plan to General Henry Clinton, commanding British forces in America, to establish "a Board of Intelligence” through which Loyalists would be "united & employed for the purpose of procuring, digesting & communicating intelligence of the designs & motions of the enemy." The Board would take testimonies under oath, inspect captured letters, issue rewards for intelligence, maintain spies in rebel territory, and report useful intelligence to the British. While it is unclear if Clinton approved of this plan, the Board began forwarding intelligence to him in June. The Board of Intelligence soon gave way to a bolder endeavor. In November, Franklin and colleagues established the Board of Associated Loyalists. The Board sought broad powers to maintain its own: armed bodies, conduct raids, and capture and exchange prisoners. Clinton responded with suspicion. He did not ban the group, but limited its powers in two key respects. Clinton wrote that Associated Loyalist “descents” (raids) required the approval of a British officer and he further warned Franklin that "any persons whatsoever who shall attempt to pass the King's ships or posts or make a descent on the enemy, excepting on the above terms, shall be treated as disaffected persons or robbers." Clinton acquiesced to the Board regarding taking rebel prisoners and negotiating prisoner exchanges, but required that all exchanges be subject to the British-Continental negotiated prisoner cartel. Over time, the Associated Loyalists pushed past these rules. Historian Edward Tebbenhoff estimated that as many as 4,000 men participated in the Associated Loyalists but that, on any given day, the Associated Loyalist could only muster a fraction of their associators—as these men were employed in other pursuits. It is unfortunate that no list of Associated Loyalists has survived. On November 10, Franklin evaded Clinton’s request for a list, writing: “They are so scattered and have been so fluctuated from the practice of engaging themselves under different officers under different excursions that it is impossible to ascertain their numbers." While aspects of the Board’s powers remained at issue, the Associated Loyalists moved ahead. On November 24, the Board’s Secretary, Daniel Coxe, wrote Clinton about the Board’s formation. With false-sincerity, he stated: "We trust our conduct will always be such as to merit your Excellency's patronage and encouragement." A similar letter was sent to Admiral Marriot Arbuthnot, commanding the navy in America, two weeks later. The formation of the Associated Loyalist may have pushed Clinton to do more to govern Loyalists in New York. He wrote on December 15: "I have appointed Colonel Morris [Roger Morris] and William Bayard… to be inspectors of Refugees, from them chiefly, I will know what objects they desire and deserve." Clinton also complained about “a class of these men of more ardent & enterprising disposition, whose zeal & courage I have not been able to bend to useful purposes.” He went on: Their wish is to ravage from their oppressors the property which had often in the past been their own. Such dispositions, as they have induced the capture of obnoxious persons, militia, of forage wood and cattle, I was willing to encourage; but fearing indiscriminate depredations... I have endeavored to restrain their irregularities and invited proposals for introducing a certain discretion and subordination; these efforts have not yet had the wished for effect. However, it was not until spring 1780 that the Associated Loyalists publicly emerged. In March, they conducted a lottery to raise money for suffering Loyalist families; in June, they published a letter in the New York Gazette about the need for "the proposed association of Loyal Refugees." The emergence of the Associated Loyalists was watched in Monmouth County. On or about July 1, the county’s vigilant Revolutionaries founded their own extra-mural group to punish enemies, the Association for Retaliation . The Associated Loyalists, sometimes calling themselves "the Board of Refugees," advertised meetings in the New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury twice in October 1780. The delay likely was because of continued tensions with General Clinton. Tebbenhoff notes that Clinton had to be ordered to cooperate with the Associated Loyalist by British Secretary of State George Germain. It was not until December 1780 that the Associated Loyalists published their charter. In it, they noted that since start of the war: It has been often wished that some regular and efficient system was adopted for employing the zeal of that class of his Majesty's loyal subjects who were unwilling to become soldiers, though ardently inclined to take up arms and contribute towards reducing the rebels. The Board would coordinate Loyalist paramilitaries "for the purpose of annoying the sea-coasts of the revolted provinces, and distressing their trade, either cooperation with his Majesty's forces or by making diversions in their favour." The Board would conduct raids and take prisoners. They declared that "all captures made by associators will be their entire property." They noted that "the prisoners they take will be exchanged only for Associated Loyalists as the Board may name." Despite their independence, Associated Loyalist raiding parties would be supported with British ships, provisions, and hospitals. William Franklin was named to chair their seven-person board. Monmouth Countians in the Associated Loyalists In January 1781, the Board commissioned captains to raise companies of men; three--Richard Lippincott, Thomas Crowell, and Clayton Tilton—were Monmouth Countians. Lippincott reported on February 16 that he had raised 52 men, with two junior officers, Lieutenant John Woodward and Ensign John Irons. Since all three officers were from Monmouth County, it is probable that all or most of the 52 men were too. That same month, Franklin wrote that the Associated Loyalists numbered 500-600 men. If Crowell’s and Tilton’s companies were half the size of the Lippincott company, then roughly 100 Monmouth Countians were in the Associated Loyalists—nearly 20 percent of their membership—a remarkable figure from a single county, given that Associated Loyalists were recruiting from four states. Despite the large participation of Monmouth Countians in the Associated Loyalists, only a few postwar Loyalist compensation claims mention them. This is likely because the group fell into disrepute after Lippincott hanged Captain Joshua Huddy of Colts Neck (detailed in other articles). Lippincott’s application contains only a brief mention of the Associated Loyalists; John Leonard testified on behalf of Lippincott, "that he [Lippincott] was an officer with the refugees of New York & frequently was out with parties." Besides Lippincott, only one other Monmouth Countian explicitly discussed service in the Associated Loyalists. Jesse Smith, formerly of Shrewsbury, had William Franklin testify to his service. Franklin noted that Smith "was a very active and zealous partisan… particularly serviceable in bringing into New York, Lord Cornwallis' [Gen. Charles Cornwallis] men after the surrender at Yorktown.” Smith also “produced supplies for the navy & garrison at New York from the Jersies.” Franklin also noted Smith’s sacrifice: He was several times dangerously wounded; that I recommended him to Admiral [Robert] Digby who furnished him with twenty-five staves of arms, ammunition & provisions for the purpose of bringing off British prisoners kept by the rebels; that he is now greatly disabled, having had his right arm broke & several shot still remaining in him, which gives him great pain and renders him unfit to get his living by manual labor. All three Monmouth County captains were active. Thomas Crowell took prisoners, engaged in prisoner exchange negotiations with Colonel Asher Holmes of the Monmouth County militia, and was warned by the New Jersey legislature regarding his mistreatment of prisoners. He refused to hang Captain Barnes Smock in retaliation for abuses against Loyalists but testified in support of Richard Lippincott when Lippincott did so a few months later. Clayton Tilton was captured and indicted for murder in 1781. Rebecca Shepherd, wife of militia captain Moses Shepherd recalled his capture after the war: Samuel Carman came and & informed her husband that Clayton Tilton, a refugee of notoriety, was off & at home, her husband, John Truax and several more of his men went and took him - and brought the prisoner to their house. Tilton was exchanged and then attempted to negotiate another exchange. In March 1782, he led the incursion into Monmouth County that went badly and resulted in the capture of Philip White, who was subsequently murdered by his guards. Tilton was loaded in irons and convicted of High Treason, but exchanged. Like Crowell, he also testified about rebel cruelties at Lippincott’s court martial trial. Lippincott was the most active. In April 1780, he was in a raid that resulted in the murder of John Russell, Sr., and near death of John Russell, Jr. (the subject of another article.) He raided Toms River in early 1781, but was unable to take the ship that prompted the attack. He raided Manasquan in March and defeated the militia party there, and then captured a vessel near Egg Harbor. He captured a Monmouth County leader in April and then launched another raid from Sandy Hook in May. He attempted to negotiate a prisoner exchange in November without success. In April 1782, with the verbal approval of the Board of Associated Loyalists, he hanged Captain Huddy . The Disrepute of the Associated Loyalists The Associated Loyalists were known to the governments of New York and New Jersey, both of which appealed to the Continental Congress for help. The New York Assembly, in July 1781, wrote to Congress that parties of Associated Loyalists "come in small crafts to plunder, burn and destroy all in their power and carry into captivity unarmed citizens or lay them under parole.” It called on Congress “to stop the inroads and incursions of the Associated Loyalists." In December, Thomas Henderson of Freehold wrote the Continental Congress for the New Jersey Assembly. He called the Associated Loyalists "a new fangled body of Executioners” and further wrote: For the declared intention of distressing the Country [they] have commissioned a body of ruffians for the express purpose of plundering and destroying the well-affected inhabitants and kidnapping the most active defenders of the Country... and of carrying them into the loathsome dungeons of New York where, deprived of the necessities of life, they linger out a few days of painful existence till nature, overpowered by hardships, finds its relief to its sufferings in death. Henderson wanted Congress to threaten the British with eye-for-eye retaliation so that "the vengeance of an injured people may fall on British officers.” He called for New Jersey’s delegates to "press Congress not to make any empty declarations of purposes never to be executed." Henderson personally delivered the report to Congress. It is impossible to know the full activity of the Associated Loyalists. Newspaper accounts and the Board’s minutes mention their larger raids, including one against Toms River in March 1782. From these sources, we know that they raided north into Connecticut and Westchester County, east to the Hamptons on Long Island, and into New Jersey from Bergen to Monmouth counties. But small groups of Associated Loyalists made descents that were not explicitly authorized by the Board and went undocumented. For example, the small raid of Long Branch that led to Philip White’s capture would have gone undocumented were it not for White’s capture and murder being a prelude to Huddy’s hanging. Franklin claimed that the Associated Loyalists "occasioned alarm among the Rebels" because his men had "zeal to suppress the rebellion, heightened by the remembrance of the many insults & injuries they received." This ‘zeal” and “remembrance” of past injuries would push the Associated Loyalists to commit murder. In April 1782, Lippincott took Captain Huddy out of jail in New York, brought him to the Navesink Highlands, hanged him, and left his corpse swinging with a note proclaiming the act a retaliation for the murder of White, three weeks earlier. Retaliation was not a new idea in April 1782. After the surrender at Yorktown six months earlier, Franklin worried that the Loyalists with Cornwallis would “suffer death on account of their allegiance to the Crown” unless Clinton adopted a policy of retaliation. Franklin urged a proclamation: That retaliation shall be allowed to take place in the fullest context possible; or if this should be thought proper with respect to the British Army, that the Loyalists and refugees may have free permission to take and detain prisoners, & retaliate for the particular injuries they or their friends may sustain. Historian William Benton called the Associated Loyalists a "private army for personal reasons." In reality, the Associated Loyalists were much less than an army. They were a set of coordinated gangs tolerated by a British command unwilling to make the hard choice of reining them in. On the other side, the same dynamic existed between Monmouth County’s Retaliators and the New Jersey government. Related Historic Site : Harbor Defense Museum (New York) Sources : William Franklin to Henry Clinton, William Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, vol. 58, 60; Wallace Brown, The Good Americans: The Loyalists in the American Revolution, (New York: Morrow, 1969), p. 133; Ferguson quoted in North Callahan, Royal Raiders: The Tories of the American Revolution (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963), p 10; Joseph Williams discussed in Gregory Palmer, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (Westport, Conn. and London, 1984) p 934; Elliott’s letter is in B. F. Stevens, ed., Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives Relating to America, 1773–1783, [25 vols., London, 1889–1898], vol. 1, #115; William Franklin to Henry Clinton, William Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, vol. 74; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Henry Clinton to Lord Germain, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v99, #26; The lottery is noted in Wallace Brown, The Good Americans: The Loyalists in the American Revolution, (New York: Morrow, 1969), p. 107; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury, October 2, 1780, October 23, 1780; Transcript of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, microfilm, Library Congress; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Edward H. Tebbenhoff, “The Associated Loyalists: An Aspect of Militant Loyalism,” New-York Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 63 (1979), pp. 118-25, 127-39; William A. Benton, Whig-Loyalism: An Aspect of Political Ideology in the American Revolutionary Era (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1969) p 197; Loyalist compensation claims of Richard Lippincott and Jesse Smith in: Jones, E. Alfred. The Loyalists of New Jersey, (Newark, N. J. Historical Society, 1927) p 200. Rutgers University Special Collections, Great Britain Public Record Office, Loyalist Compensation Claims, D96, AO 13/111, reel 10; Rebecca Shepherd’s narrative is in National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Truax; George W. Kyte, “Some Plans for a Loyalist Stronghold in the Middle Colonies,” Pennsylvania History, vol. 16 (1949), p 179-87; William Franklin to Henry Clinton, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v93, reel 2, #454; Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) pp. 502-3, 529, 559 note; Clements Library, Proceedings of the Board of Directors of the Associated Loyalists, January 1781, p. 6; Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) pp. 604-7; Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Coll. D96, PRO AO 13/18, reel 6; William Franklin to George Germain, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, reel 12, #382, 399; William Franklin to George Germain, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, reel 12, #382, 399; George Germain to William Franklin, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v178, #455; New York Assembly to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, New York State Papers, v2, p430; The New Jersey Assembly’s report on the Associated Loyalists is in the Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, December 15, 1781, p 58; Franklin‘s estimate is in North Callahan, Royal Raiders: The Tories of the American Revolution (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963), pp. 244-5. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > John Van Kirk Infiltrates Pine Robber Gang by Michael Adelberg Quartermaster officer Moore Furman was asked to hire John Van Kirk after he infiltrated a Pine Robber gang and relocated inland for safety. Furman declined to do so and Van Kirk fell into debt. - January 1779 - As discussed in a prior article, the first notorious Pine Robber gang, led by Jacob Fagan, came together in the summer of 1778. From a lair in the swamps of Shrewsbury Township, they committed a number of robberies, most famously that of Captain Benjamin Dennis’ family. They nearly hanged Mrs. Dennis. Fagan’s return to the Dennis house (to search for stashed money) was spoiled when an informer alerted Dennis. Dennis and the militia laid in wait and shot Fagan. But while Fagan met a bloody end, his outlaw gang remained at large. John Van Kirk Infiltrates Pine Robber Gang On February 3, 1779, the New Jersey Gazette printed “A Letter from Monmouth” dated January 29. The letter discussed how Captain Dennis and his militia “went in pursuit of three of the most noted of the Pine Banditti, and was so fortunate as to fall in with them and killed them on the spot.—Their names are Stephen Emmons, alias Burke, Stephen West and Ezekiel Williams.” As with the hated Fagan, the bodies of the dead outlaws would suffer, “two of them, it is said, will be hanged in chains.” According to the letter, the Pine Robbers were infiltrated by John Van Kirk who informed the militia of the Pine Robbers’ intended journey to New York “to make sale of their plunder.” Of Van Kirk, the report read: He conducted himself with so much address that the robbers, and especially the three above named, who were the leading villains, looked upon him as one of their body, kept him constantly with him and entrusted him with all of their designs. Van Kirk's identity was revealed. The letter discussed his need to flee: The secret is out and of course he must fly the county, for the Tories are so highly exasperated against him that death will certainly be his fate if he does not speedily leave Monmouth. The Whigs are soliciting contributions on his behalf and from what I have already seen have no doubt that they will present him with a handsome sum. The demise of the Pine Robbers was big news and reported as far away as Maryland, where the state’s Journal , reported on February 16: A desperate gang of marauders, chiefly refugees, deserters from New York, were lately brought to condign punishment in a most striking manner. For months past, these miscreants had plundered Monmouth County with impunity, all measured to curb their excesses by their vigilance & sudden retreats into the Pine forests. The shootings of Emmons, West, and Williams effectively ended Fagan’s gang. This was celebrated. The New Jersey Gazette reported: “I question whether the destruction of the British fleet could diffuse more universal joy through the inhabitants of Monmouth than has the death of the above three egregious villains.” The New Jersey Gazette reports were printed as far away as New Hampshire. The complete letter is in Appendix 1 of this article. Another perspective on the death of the Pine Robbers was offered by Wiliam Corlies. Corlies was a Shrewsbury Quaker who had been captured, presumably while illegally trading with the British at Sandy Hook. He was jailed in Freehold when the bodies of the Pine Robbers were brought in; Corlies was asked to identify the bodies. He would testify about the incident three years later: He saw a Captain Dennis of the Rebel Service bring to Freehold Court House three dead bodies; that Captain Dennis being a Neighbor of his (the Deponent), he asked where those Men were killed; he replied they were killed on the Shore. Corlies testified on the brutal death of the Pine Robbers: That on coming to the spot, he (Dennis) surrounded them [the Pine Robbers] with his party; that the Men...begged for quarter, and claimed the benefit of being prisoners of War; he ordered them to be fired on, and one of them by the Name of Williams fell; that they were all Bayonetted by the Party and brought to Monmouth, and that he (Dennis) received a sum of Money for that Action. In a related incident, the Pine Robber, John Giberson, was killed a few weeks earlier: “John Giberson of the same group of villains, was killed about three weeks ago by a party of the militia near Toms River." A discussion of Giberson’s infamous career is in Appendix 2 of this article. The Pine Robbers outlasted these defeats. Lewis Fenton, a likely associate of Fagan, would soon prove far more dangerous than Fagan, at least until his death in 1779 . Jacob Van Note, “a noted Tory and horse thief” was killed by militia in 1780 after having a bounty on his head for more than two years. Another member of the gang, Jonathan West (brother of Stephen) would lose his arm, but remain an infamous partisan until he was finally killed near the end of the war. Other Pine Robber gangs—including those of William Davenport, and John Bacon would rise up in 1781. Their gangs would prove more prolific than Fagan’s. Van Kirk’s Difficulties after Gaining Notoriety On February 7, Governor William Livingston wrote Deputy Quartermaster Moore Furman, a senior officer charged with raising provisions for the Continental Army, about the death of the Pine Robbers: Sometime last month, Captain Dennis, who lately killed the infamous robber Fagan, with a party of militia, went in pursuit of the three of the most noted Pine-Banditti, and was so fortunate as to fall in with them and kill them on the spot. The Governor noted the role of Van Kirk in setting up the event: "The robbers looked upon him as one of their party... kept him constantly with him, and entrusted him with all of their designs." But Van Kirk was now exposed, "He must flee the country. The Tories are so exasperated against him that death will certainly be his fate unless he speedily quits Monmouth." Livingston asked Furman to employ Van Kirk as a teamster for the Army because "he has formerly been in the forage & wagon department... I take the liberty to recommend him to you." It appears that Van Kirk was not hired. On April 23, Van Kirk petitioned the New Jersey Legislature for assistance. He described why he was needed to bring down the Pine Robbers: Robberies committed by the miscreants being so frequent and their outrages against persons and property of many respectable lives of this county, became so insupportable that the petitioner determined to have the said Tory banditti extracted, or lose his life in the attempt - he accordingly consulted with Colonel Hendrickson [Daniel Hendrickson] of the Shrewsbury militia, who greatly approved and offered all assistance. Van Kirk then described infiltrating the outlaw gang: [He] put his scheme so effectually into execution that three of the principal ring leaders were shot dead & a list of 15 or 16 names of others given to the grand jury at Monmouth court house. In all this petitioner has done little more than any true friend and lover of his country - but has by his action rendered himself obnoxious to the disaffected citizens of Monmouth County, so that his life is in danger by residing among them, & not only so obliged for his personal safety to relinquish his property at the salt works which was to him considerable. As noted in a prior article , dozens of Monmouth County Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) from the shore moved inland for safety during the war. The actions that forced Van Kirk’s move were unique, but the decision to move inland was fairly common. Finally, Van Kirk noted splitting the $500 bounty for the death of Emmons with Captain Dennis, but it was inadequate: This contribution of 500 dollars which were equally divided between Captain Dennis and your petitioner will be far from indemnifying your petitioner for what he has suffered already in his property & absence from his father's family.... - he therefore humbly prays your Honorable board to take this case under consideration & make such further provision. Van Kirk was allowed to present himself before the legislature’s upper house, the Legislative Council, on May 24. The Council’s minutes recorded hearing "from John Van Kirk praying a consideration for assisting in destroying the Monmouth robbers." Van Kirk’s status continued to be a concern to Governor Livingston. On May 1, Livingston proposed a plan to George Washington in which twenty deserters of Count Kasimir Pulaski’s Legion would be embodied and turned into a posse to hunt down Pine Robbers: They [the deserters] offer to surrender themselves on condition of being under the Major [former commanding officer Burchardt] & serving in New Jersey... They are well-acquainted with the County of Monmouth and would be of great use in taking the Robbers of the Pines, especially with the guidance of Mr. Van Kirk, who with great address lately took a party of them, & has deserved public notice. Washington denied the request and the deserters were forced to return to the Continental Army. Likely with the help of the New Jersey government, Van Kirk was finally set up with a job. On August 11, the New Jersey Gazette advertised that John Van Kirk, at Cranbury, will "carry the papers from the printing office [in Trenton] on every Wednesday for the following terms" which included a nominal fee for delivery to nearby and safe Allentown and a large fee for delivery to far off and dangerous Middletown and Shrewsbury. Van Kirk was likely unsuccessful in this venture. That same month, William Barton, a Lieutenant in the Continental Army, wrote his father, Gilbert Barton, the influential tavern owner at Allentown: “I should be glad if you inquire to know what Van Kirk did with all of the money I sent in a letter directed to you for Able Ivins’ wife, was twenty dollars.” The following year, on August 22, Van Kirk, still at Cranbury, advertised for the return of a set of silver spoons taken from him in June. In February 1782, Van Kirk enlisted for one year in the New Jersey State Troops under Captain John Walton. He was one of 33 privates—a low status, low pay position for someone who had been a hero three years earlier. While serving, the Middlesex County Sheriff seized his farm outside of Cranbury. The 150-acre estate was advertised for sale on June 5, 1782. The Sheriff would use the sale to settle Van Kirk’s debts on June 24. Van Kirk was still living at Cranbury in 1789. That year he submitted a claim to the state for goods taken from him by Loyalists in January 1777. He claimed that he lost: 1 1/2 bushels of corn, 150 "sheaves of rye," and 2 barrels of cider. The value of the taken goods was less than L3. Van Kirk noted that "he never received any satisfaction" for these losses. He probably would have offered similar sentiments regarding his service in breaking up the Pine Robber gang. Related Historic Site : Shark River Park Appendix 1: New Jersey Gazette Report on the Death of Pine Robbers Extract of a Letter from Monmouth dated January 29, 1779 "The Tory freebooters who have their haunts and caves in this place, and have for some past been a terror to the inhabitants of this county, have, in the present week, met with a very eminent disaster. On Tuesday evening last, Captain Benjamin Dennis who late killed the infamous robber Fagan, with a party of militia, went in pursuit of three of the most noted of the Pine Banditti, and was so fortunate as to fall in with them and killed them on the spot.—Their names are Stephen Emmons, alias Emmons, Stephen West and Ezekiel Williams. Yesterday they were brought up to this place and two of them, it is said, will be hanged in chains. This signal piece of service was effected through the instrumentality of one John Van Kirk, who was prevailed upon to associate with them on purpose to discover their practices and to lead them into our hands. He conducted himself with so much address that the robbers, and especially the three above named, who were the leading villains, looked upon him as one of their body, kept him constantly with him and entrusted him with all of their designs. Van Kirk, of proper reasons, gave intelligence of their movements to Capt. Dennis, who conducted himself accordingly.—They were on the eve of setting off for New York to make sale of their plunder, when Van Kirk informed Capt. Dennis of the time of their intended departure, (which was to have been on Tuesday night last) and of the course they would take to their boats in consequence of which, and agreeable to the directions of Van Kirk, the Captain and a small party of militia planted themselves at Rock Pond near the shore, and shot Burke, West, and Williams in the manner above related. We were in hopes at first of keeping Van Kirk under the rose, but the secret is out and of course he must fly the county, for the Tories are so highly exasperated against him that death will certainly be his fate if he does not speedily leave Monmouth. The Whigs are soliciting contributions on his behalf and from what I have already seen have no doubt that they will present him with a handsome sum.—I question whether the destruction of the British fleet could diffuse more universal joy through the inhabitants of Monmouth than has the death of the above three egregious villains.—A certain John Giberson of the same group of villains, was killed about three weeks ago by a party of the militia near Toms River." Appendix 2: The Pine Robbers John and William Giberson Historian David Fowler researched the Giberson family of Upper Freehold. John and William Giberson, and many in their family, were Loyalists. John Giberson joined New Jersey Volunteers but, as with Jacob Fagan, he apparently deserted. John and William Giberson were apparently leading a Pine Robber gang along the Jersey shore by late 1778. John Giberson was killed near Toms River in early 1779. The New Jersey Gazette reported: “A certain John Giberson of the same group of villains, was killed about three weeks ago by a party of the militia near Toms River." William Giberson became infamous in December 1780 when he led twelve Loyalists across the state in an attempt to capture a New Jersey leader, likely William Livingston or Chief Justice David Brearley (also of Upper Freehold). He was indicted for horse stealing (a capital offense) shortly thereafter, but apparently remained an active horse thief through the first half of 1781 and he may have worked with William Clark and the Raritan Bay horse thieves. In August 1781, Silas Deane of the Continental Congress complained that "the trade of horse stealing flourishes amazingly" and called for a bounty on the head of "one Giberson of Monmouth." Governor Livingston responded on August 31 by placing a $200 bounty on the head of Giberson for "diverse thefts, robberies and felonies." By now, Giberson was operating from Clamtown (Tuckerton) in Burlington County, just south of Monmouth County. He was indicted in the Burlington County Courts that December for "waging war against the State." Antiquarian sources offer colorful stories of Giberson clashing with militia and narrowly escaping capture in two separate incidents in 1781. In July 1782, Giberson robbed the Burlington County collector, prompting another militia campaign to capture him. Militiaman Benjamin Bates described the capture of Giberson in his postwar veteran’s pension application. He also described Giberson’s remarkable escape in December: I found a villain by the name of Giberson, who was a noted refugee. He made his escape from the house and got into the woods. After searching a long time for him, I gave up and returned to our quarters. When I told Captain Davis that I had seen Giberson, he sent me back again to look for him, whilst engaged in searching for him, he suddenly jumped from behind a large black oak, he presented his gun and fired at me. As he presented, I drop down upon my knees and the load passed over me without hurting me. He then ran, I fired upon him and wounded him so that he fell and then went up to him and took him prisoner. He was afterwards taken to Burlington County Gaol where effected his escape, his sister having been permitted to visit him, they exchanged clothes. He went out and she remained in prison and the plot was not discovered until he had got too far to be overtaken. Bates’s story is corroborated by two other militiamen who remembered taking Giberson. John Pease recalled skirmishing "with a party of Tories at Clam Town, Little Egg Harbor, in Burlington County, when his party captured a Tory, one William Giberson, who was badly wounded in the skirmish, and was shot through his hip, and was carried and lodged in Burlington jail." Enoch Young recalled that he “was engaged with a party of refugees at Little Egg Harbor near Tuckerton in which the enemy was beaten and in which they broke the thigh of their captain, William Giberson, of the refugee company, took him prisoner, together with three of his men, and took the prisoners to Burlington jail.” Sources : Damages by British, Middlesex County Ledger, p 237, New Jersey State Archives Damages by British, Middlesex County Ledger, p 237, New Jersey State Archives; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Maryland Journal, February 16, 1779; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p197; New Hampshire Gazette report in Frank Moore, Diary of the American Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1865) v2, p125; Transcript of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/halew/Lippincott.html; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 37; William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 30-1; Petition, Monmouth County Historical Association, Haskell Collection, folder 22, document B; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, April 23, 1779, p 72; William Livingston to George Washington, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 80-1; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1779) p56; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Letters of Lt. William Barton, son of Gilbert Barton, 1777-1779, American Revolution Institute, Society of the Cincinnati, 13 A.LL.S., Washington, DC; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Muster Roll, National Archives, Revolutionary War Rolls, Coll. 89, p2, 6, 9, 11; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 169; Edwin Salter and George C. Beekman, Old Times in Old Monmouth ( Freehold, NJ: Monmouth Democrat, 1887) p 38; Lorenzo Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution, 2 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1864) vol 2 p 413; E. Alfred Jones, The Loyalists of New Jersey (Coll. of New Jersey Historical Society, Vol. X, 1927) p 264; Van Note’s death discussed in Nathaniel Scudder to John Scudder, New Jersey Historical Society, Letters: Nathaniel Scudder. Appendix 2 Sources : David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 120-135 and note 27; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, February 3, 1779, reel 1930; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 174-80; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Benjamin Bates of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 11027010; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Pease; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Enoch Young of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 24155756. 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 Baptists Reset Their Congregations by Michael Adelberg The Upper Freehold Baptists met at the Old Yellow Meeting House. Despite a succession of ministers, they were unwavering in their support of the Revolution throughout the war. - March 1777 - On the eve of the American Revolution, Monmouth County had a large Baptist congregation in Middletown (248 congregants) and a smaller one at Imlaystown in Upper Freehold (78 congregants). The two meetings were served by a single minister, Abel Morgan. He lived and preached in Middletown, but preached at Imlaystown one Sunday a month. The prior minister for the Upper Freehold meeting, David Jones, was an outspoken supporter of independence. While visiting Chester, Pennsylvania, in 1775, Jones preached, “Defensive War in a Just Cause, Sinless.” His sermon was published and widely distributed. After this, Jones was unable to safely return to Upper Freehold—which would soon be the scene of a Loyalist insurrection . Jones served as a chaplain in the Continental Army during the war and never returned to Monmouth County. When Upper Freehold was rocked by a second and more severe Loyalist insurrection in December 1776, the Baptist meeting suspended operations. After a period of irregular entries, on March 1, 1777, the congregation’s Deacon, Thomas Farr, recorded, “No meetings—these are troublesome times indeed.” The war years were hard on the congregation—it admitted twelve new members in 1776 and eleven new members at war’s end in 1783, but it only admitted a total of fifteen new members in the six years in between. Baptist Meeting Purges Loyalists While the Upper Freehold congregation was pro-independence from the start, the Middletown congregation only supported the Revolution after a “purging time” in 1777. On May 10, the meeting moved against its active Loyalist members. The church book recorded three votes: 1. In the first place was to consider whether we believe it justifiable, in sight of Holy God, to joyn [sic] the free States of America, to the utmost of our power, in defense of our rights and privileges, against our cruel enemies, who is now fighting against us with fire and sword, to deprive us of them. – Agreed. 2. Whether the standing of our Church does not call for a purging time, when we are so divided in judgment and in practice, and further, whether or not those members have standing in our church, that do side with the enemy, ought to be laid under censure. – Agreed. 3. Whether or not David Burdge and Elias Baly [Elias Bailey], who have left this State and gone over to the enemy ought to be debarred from communion in our church, yea or nay. – yea. The meeting took other acts as well. John Taylor and James Grover were summoned to answer for their roles in administering British loyalty oaths. Edward Taylor and Mary Bailey were warned to “forebare talking so much against the present state, and in behalf of the enemy.” James Mott, Richard Crawford, John Walling, and Samuel Bray were appointed to counsel and monitor the disaffected congregants. Sixteen other congregants signed on to support them. The Middletown Baptists met again on May 24 to consider removing John Taylor and James Grover: The church laid before said Taylor and said Grover the charge, which was that they had sworn so many of their brethren and neighbors to swear true obedience to King George; the church then asked them whether they justified themselves in acting that part - they answered they did justify themselves, but was sorry they had done it because things had not turned out as they expected - upon hearing the whole affair, the church agreed to a man, except Edward Taylor, and then told said Taylor and said Grover they was disbarred from communion with the church. The congregation’s minister, Abel Morgan, was initially cautious toward disaffected members. As late as December 1777 he warned of "dispersion among the churches” and “discord and contention among neighbors" without directly criticizing Loyalists. But Morgan’s voice grew stronger after the British Army passed through Middletown following the Battle of Monmouth. They occupied and vandalized the Baptist meeting house and forced Morgan to preach in the woods. A year later, Morgan preached: “Our continent is filled with tears and blood, ravages and desolations abound, perpetrated by the English troops and, if possible, by the more wicked combinations of traitors among ourselves." Other Disturbances in the Congregations The Baptists of Upper Freehold never needed to purge the meeting of Loyalists, but the congregation did discipline several members. On June 16, 1777, it suspended “Candice, a Black woman… disguised with liquor” from the congregation. In December 1778, the meeting again moved against three members for poor attendance and acting with “no sense of guilt.” Another round of suspension in 1781 was meted out for non-attendance and drinking. The congregation never needed to punish any of its members for Loyalism. However, the Upper Freehold Baptists needed to find a new minister. In June 1777, they invited John Pittman, “a very promising young man," to be the congregation’s minister. It appears that Pittman relocated from Philadelphia to Imlaystown in September (as the British Army was threatening invasion of that city). Pittman co-served the Baptist meetings at Imlaystown and Cranbury. In March 1780, Pittman received luxury goods from Boston. This caused an argument with Joseph Cox, from one of the meeting’s leading families. The bad feelings escalated when Pittman insulted Joseph’s brother, Thomas Cox: Thomas Cox entered the following complaint or charge against him, that Mr. Pittman had represented him [Thomas Cox] as his worst enemy, and Mr. Pittman not giving him satisfaction was forbid preaching in the meeting house & warned to go out of the dwelling house. Pittman returned to Philadelphia in 1781. The next minister, John Blackwell, was not found until late 1782. As for Abel Morgan, he grew ill in 1784. The Middletown congregation recognized him as an “infirm” and hired a servant to tend to him. Morgan died in 1785. Related Historic Site : Old Yellow Meeting House Sources : Upper Freehold Baptist Records, Rutgers University Special Collections, reel 1; David Jones, Journal of Two Visits to Some Indian Nations on the West Side of the Ohio River, 1772-3 (Burlington, NJ: Isaac Collins, 1774) p V-VIII, 11; Defensive war in a just cause sinless. A sermon , preached on the day of the continental fast, at Tredyffryn, in Chester County, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N11160.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext ; Jones, David, 1736-1820.Baptist Meeting Minutes, John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v2, p 273; John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v2, p 273; Upper Freehold Baptist Records, Rutgers University Special Collections, reel 1; R.T. Middletditch, "Abel Morgan of Middletown", The Baptist Quarterly, 1874, vol. 8, p331-2; American Baptist Magazine and Missionary Intelligencer (Boston: James Lording, 1829) vol. 3, p443-444; Upper Freehold Baptist Records, Rutgers University Special Collections, reel 1; R.T. Middletditch, "Abel Morgan of Middletown", The Baptist Quarterly, 1874, vol. 8, p332; Norman H. Maring, Baptists in New Jersey: A Study in Transition (Valley Forge, Penn.; Judson Press, 1964) pp. 57-8, 69, 74; Upper Freehold Baptist Records, Rutgers University Special Collections, reel 1; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County, (Peck: Philadelphia, 1885) p 635; Upper Freehold Baptist Records, Rutgers University Special Collections, reel 1; Monmouth County Historical Association, Church Book, Upper Freehold Baptists (typescript); R.T. Middletditch, "Abel Morgan of Middletown", The Baptist Quarterly, 1874, vol. 8, p334. 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 > Company of New Jersey Volunteers Taken in Route to Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg Elisha Hart captained the Connecticut privateer, Retaliation. In October 1780, he sailed inside Sandy Hook and captured a small sloop carrying a company of New Jersey Loyalists to Sandy Hook. - October 1780 - Sandy Hook was the gateway between the Atlantic Ocean and the British headquarters at New York City. As such, it had enormous strategic importance in the Revolutionary War. Early in the war. The British recognized this fact by occupying the Hook continuously from April 1776 through the end of 1783—longer than any piece of the Thirteen Colonies. During that time, they stationed at least one frigate there as a guard ship. They also camped a company of soldiers—usually New Jersey Loyalists—at the lighthouse. British forces easily turned back attempts to dislodge them from the Hook in June 1776 and March 1777 . By 1780, however, with the British navy diverted to other parts of their colonial empire and much of their army fighting in the South, British control of Sandy Hook and the water around it was more tenuous. Raiding parties led by Captain John Burrowes, Captain John Rudolph and others harassed and captured small British and Loyalist vessels anchored at the Hook. More dangerous, small packs of New England privateers prowled the sea lanes to and from Sandy Hook—taking at least sixty ships within sight of the Hook over the course of the war. Among the most humiliating losses for the British was the capture of a sloop bound from Staten Island to Sandy Hook with a company of New Jersey Volunteers on board. These men were on their way to the lighthouse to become the new guard. The Providence newspaper, American Journal , reported on October 5: Capt. Hart [Elisha Hart] of Saybrook in Connecticut, being out on a cruize in the privateer sloop Retaliation, one day last week, ran into Sandy Hook to see Admiral Rodney's fleet; he passed the guard ship under English colours, soon after which he discovered a sloop coming down with a number of soldiers on board, bound to relieve the guard at Sandy Hook Point; as soon as they were within shot, he ordered them to come on board, but they refusing and attempting to row away, he ordered a few of his marines to fire into the sloop, and knocking open one of his gunports, threatened to sink her, on which he came alongside and took the prisoners on board, consisting of a Captain, Lieutenant and forty-six privates of the New Jersey Volunteers, with whom and the prize, Capt. Hart arrived at New London, Saturday last. Shorter newspaper accounts of the incident were reported in two Boston newspapers (The Independent Chronicle and The Spy ). Antiquarian and secondary accounts of the capture also exist. These accounts differ slightly on certain details. For example, the number of New Jersey Volunteers captured varies between 44 and 50 men taken. The Massachusetts Spy reported the capture occurred close to several British warships (“taken within two miles of Admiral Rodney's fleet and the same distance from the two guard ships”) but other accounts are vague about the proximity and presence of British ships. The Boston Independent Chronicle noted that the guard at the Sandy Hook was switched out every two months and that the Loyalist prisoners were imprisoned in Hartford. Lt. Colonel William Ledyard, commanding the Connecticut militia at New London, wrote George Washington of the capture: A privateer belonging to this place arrived here this day with a prize she took within Sandy Hook having on Board a Company of New Levies consisting of 50 Men which were bound from Staten Island to the Light House in order to relieve a guard there. Ledyard enclosed the results of interrogations of the prisoners for Washinton’s consideration. It is unfortunate that these documents and the identity of the Loyalists are unknown. By fall 1780, the fortunes of Monmouth County’s Loyalist soldiers had soured considerably. The units that they originally joined, the 1st and 2nd battalions of the New Jersey Volunteers, had been consolidated and re-organized a few times and most of the original Monmouth County officers were gone. Those who remained in the New Jersey Volunteers suffered from low morale, low supplies, and the monotony of low status assignments from British commanders. Some Monmouth Loyalists drifted into newer Loyalist units —including the American Volunteers under Major Patrick Ferguson. At the same time that Ferguson was marching his men to disaster at King’s Mountain, South Carolina, a company of New Jersey Loyalists that stayed on Staten Island was captured without a fight on their way to Sandy Hook. After these twin disasters, more Monmouth County Loyalists left the British military for Loyalist-led para-militaries, including the vigilante Associated Loyalists . Related Historic Site : New London Historical Society (Connecticut) Sources : Massachusetts Spy, October 12, 1780; Independent Chronicle, October 5, 1780; American Journal (Providence), October 5, 1780; The action of the Retaliation is discussed in Thomas Collier, An Account of the State Cruisers (New London: New London Historical Society, 1892) p19; William Ledyard to George Washington, To George Washington from William Heath, 30 September 1780,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-03441. 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 > Winter Storms Drive Five Ships onto Monmouth Shore by Michael Adelberg Christopher Marshall of Philadelphia was one of a few men who wrote about the powerful storms that hit New Jersey in January 1780. Five British vessels were driven ashore during the storms. - January 1780 - As noted in prior articles, the British naval presence around New York City and Sandy Hook weakened so much in 1779 that privateers were able to prowl the sea-lanes to Sandy Hook with impunity and Continental Army parties under Captain John Burrowes and Major Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee were able to raid Sandy Hook without reprisal. In addition, the weakened British navy was unable to rescue British and Loyalist ships when they stranded on shore—a risk made worse by winter. On December 30, Monmouth Militia captured the Loyalist brig, Britannia , near present-day Keansburg after it broke anchor at Sandy Hook and was driven ashore near present-day Keansburg. Storms on January 6 and 12, 1780, would lead to four additional captures. Shipwrecks from the January 6 Storm A large storm on January 6 resulted in the capture of at least two vessels along Monmouth County’s shores. The American Journal of Providence, Rhode Island, reported about the January 6 storm on February 1. The newspaper reported: We are informed that in the late snow storm, a large copper-bottomed brig of 20 guns and 120 men, belonging to the enemy, was drove ashore near Middletown Point, and about 80 of the men were taken prisoners, the rest having escaped in a boat; and that 20 hogshead of rum and 4 pipes of wine were found on board her. A British shore ship was also driven a shore at the same time. The report suggested that a total of 40 British and Loyalists ships were rumored to have washed ashore along the New Jersey and New York coastlines during the same storm. On January 10, Philadelphia's Christopher Marshall recorded on two shipwrecks on the Monmouth shore from the same storm: A twenty four gun frigate in the last storm was lost off Middletown Point near Shrewsbury, and crews of which mostly escaped in boats to New York, [also] the forty gun ship was drive ashore near Egg Harbor; one hundred crew was found dead aboard, the remainder, sixty in number, where happily relieved. Shipwrecks from the January 12 Storm The Providence and Virginia Gazette s both reported on the January 12 storm. They carried identical reports written the day of the storm: We have had accounts of vessels being drove ashore along the seacoast, in the late severe gales; but cannot find that any of them are to be depended upon, except that a brig of 12 guns, belonging to the enemy, is ashore near South Amboy, and a ship of 20 guns at Squan. Colonel Lewis Nicola, at Egg Harbor, reported to Congress on January 16 about a third ship lost day: "It was reported that a 40 gun ship was said to be lost off Egg Harbor, supposed to be the Romley as she was said to be last of the fleet that went with Genl. Clinton on board." Also on January 12, amidst the storm, Captain Peyton of Lee’s cavalry crossed the frozen Sandy Hook Bay in sleighs to raid the British base at Sandy Hook. The 40-man party achieved total surprise: capturing several men and $45,000 in counterfeit money at a house on Sandy Hook. They then burned three small ships before departing without any losses. This is the subject of another article . The British Response The British did not pursue Peyton’s raiders or seek to rescue any of the five vessels lost during the January the two storms. The British naval presence in New York City at this time is unknown, but it was likely underwhelming, as it was known that a British squadron had left the area in early January. The prominent Loyalist, William Smith, of New York wrote, with displeasure, on January 14 that "we hear of [privateer] vessels, some times 2 or 8, and once 13, appearing off the Hook, and going away again towards nights end." Smith noted that the iced-in British naval vessels were unable to pursue. The non-response to the ships lost on January 6 and January 12, as well as the non-responses to Peyton’s raid on Sandy Hook, and the continued privateer provocations just outside of Sandy Hook demonstrate the weakness of the British navy forces in January 1780. It also demonstrates a surprising lack of preparation by the British for the severe cold weather that iced-in their few ships. Even before reaching their nadir of power in January, it was understood that the British were much weaker. In October 1779, Colonel David Forman of Manalapan, who periodically went to the Navesink Highlands to observe the British navy at Sandy Hook, wrote "they are reduced to a position more to be pitied than feared." This is a stunning reversal considering that just two years earlier, British forces on the heavily fortified Sandy Hook (bristling with a dozen warships, a shore battery, fireships, and 1,500 troops) had faced down a massive French fleet that had sailed the Atlantic specifically to enter Sandy Hook. Related Historic Site : New Jersey Shipwreck Museum Sources : American Journal (Providence), February 10, 1780; Christopher Marshall, The Diary of Christopher Marshall (Amazon Digital Services, 2014) p 235; Virginia Gazette, January 29, 1780; Providence Gazette, February 12, 1780; Lewis Nicola to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 187, item 169, #191; Lewis Nicola to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I63, Letters from General & Other Officers, p 188; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) p 214; David Forman is quoted in Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 4, p 428. 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's Attack on Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg The thick-walled Sandy Hook Lighthouse was attacked at least twice. David Forman broke off his attack against the British guard at the lighthouse when a British warship joined the battle. - March 1777 - For the British, Sandy Hook was a critical asset. By possessing it, the British controlled access between the Atlantic Ocean and New York City—their headquarters in the rebelling colonies. Sandy Hook was also a base from which the British received Loyalist refugees and provisions via illegal trade from New Jersey. As the war progressed, Sandy Hook became the base from which Monmouth County’s Loyalist partisans struck back at their former neighbors. For these same reasons, Sandy Hook was an attractive target for Monmouth County’s Whigs (supporters of the Revolution). In May 1776, Continental troops captured a British party at the freshwater spring at the bottom of Sandy Hook, and in June, a Continental regiment under Colonel Benjamin Tupper attacked the Sandy Hook Lighthouse. But after the 25,000-man British Army arrived in America on June 29, 1776, Sandy Hook became unassailable to the outmanned and outgunned Monmouth militia that stood guard against it. In February 1777, the Monmouth militia opposite Sandy Hook was routed at the Battle of the Navesink ; roughly one hundred militiamen were killed or captured. David Forman’s Attack on Sandy Hook Still, Sandy Hook remained an alluring target for ambitious Americans leaders and, in early 1777, David Forman was that ambitious leader. In the prior year, Forman had commanded a regiment of Flying Camp (short term Continental soldiers) during the disastrous New York campaign, broke up a Loyalist association in late 1776, and raised approximately one hundred fresh Continental recruits for his “Additional Regiment ” in early 1777. The New Jersey government commissioned him a Brigadier General over the Monmouth militia on March 5, 1777. With the ability to attach militia to his Continental regiment and command the combined force, Forman moved quickly against Sandy Hook. Forman’s attack on Sandy Hook is not discussed in surviving British or Continental military papers, but it is documented in two Loyalist newspapers. On March 8, 1777, the New York Journal reported: “It seems an attack was made at the Light House at Sandy Hook yesterday morning by about 250 rebels, horse and foot, but they were repulsed by the garrison, consisting of no more than about 30 men." The New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury provided a little more detail: About 250 of the rebels made an attack upon the Light House at Sandy Hook. By the bravery of the men posted there, and by the cannon of the Siren posted near the spot, they were beat off with some loss. From the many attempts at the Light House, it seems their favorite object. These brief newspaper accounts are complemented by four recollections from Monmouth Countians who noted the attack in their post-war veteran’s pension applications. From these accounts, we learn that the attack was conducted after a heavy snowfall and that the militia was not beaten by the garrison at Sandy Hook (as claimed in the New York Journal ). The attack was broken off when a British warship sailed around Sandy Hook, fired on the attackers, and prepared to land men behind Forman’s party. Forman retreated in order to avoid being cut off and trapped on Sandy Hook. Aaron Reid recalled that "he marched under General Forman with the Monmouth militia to Sandy Hook to take the Light House, but the British defeated them in their object and they were forced, after a little skirmishing, to retreat.” John Reid remembered that “In the early part of the year 1777, there was snow on the ground, he marched with the militia under Col. [Asher] Holmes and General Forman to take the light house on Sandy Hook, then in possession of the British and refugees. They was defeated in that object of their expedition by the British shipping which lay in the bay and they were obliged to retreat or be cut off by the British landing in their rear.” William Hays' recalled, “He went with the militia under General Forman to take the light house... the snow was half a leg deep. They attacked the Light House" but "General Forman said the vessel left her anchoring ground and went around the point of the Hook, and fearing that they might land in his rear and cut them off - he gave them orders to retreat, which they did." William Chambers remembered participating in more than one attack on Sandy Hook: "Several attempts were made to take it, but they were unsuccessful owing to the cannon not being heavy enough." Two of the militiamen reference at least one other attack on Sandy Hook by Forman. But these brief mentions do not provide details on this second action. There are remarkable commonalities between Forman’s March 1777 attack and Benjamin Tupper’s June 1776 attack on Sandy Hook. In both cases: 1.) a large American force marched up Sandy Hook and attacked a smaller British party stationed in the Sandy Hook Light House, 2.) the attacking parties lacked the heavy cannot necessary to damage the light house and seriously threaten the sheltered British, and 3.) the Americans were forced to retreat when a British warship joined the battle. It is curious that Forman repeated Tupper’s miscalculations. Perhaps Forman had little knowledge of Tupper’s attack; Forman was in New York with George Washington’s Army when Tupper attacked Sandy Hook. Tupper’s letters on his attack on Sandy Hook note a lack of cooperation with locals. So, it is possible that Forman had only vague knowledge of Tupper’s failed attack and launched his attack believing his force and position was superior to Tupper’s. While the attacks of Tupper and Forman on Sandy Hook were futile, resourceful Americans would find other ways to menace Sandy Hook later in the war (via raids and privateer ambushes of British shipping). The rebels never expelled the British, but they most certainly harassed them and forced the British into a defensive crouch later in the war. Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : David C. Munn, comp., Battles and Skirmishes of the American Revolution in New Jersey (Trenton, N.J.: Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Geology, 1976) pp. 91-3; Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Journals of Hugh Gaine , Volume I (New York: Dodd, Mead 81 Company, 1902), vol. 2, p 21; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Chambers; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Reid of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 14359840 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Aaron Reid; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Hays. 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 > First Moves Made to Stop Illegal Trade from Monmouth County by Michael Adelberg Livestock illegally brought to the British were sometimes carried in barges or ferries. Other times, livestock were waded into water and pulled aboard small ships captained by Loyalists. - October 1776 - Even before the British Army landed on Staten Island and Sandy Hook in early July 1776, Monmouth Countians were trading with British ships in New York Harbor. In December 1775, the Shrewsbury Township Committee of Observation wrote “that suspected persons are buying up wheat in order for transportation and actually have sent off a vessel loaded with wheat.” The Committee worried that the vessel was headed for the British Army, so it: Therefore it is resolved that the Colonel order a party of militia to be ready to secure such vessel or vessels until such time as the Committee are well assured and satisfied that the rules of the General Congress are not transgressed and that all such exportations are not for the use of our enemies. Just a month later, illegal trade between Monmouth County and British ships in New York Harbor was observed by Lord Stirling in January 1776. The illegal trade almost certainly expanded with the arrival of 25,000 hungry British soldiers and commissary officers willing to offer specie for fresh provisions. The Monmouth County militia, though dysfunctional in much of the county, was the primary check against the burgeoning illegal trade. Middletown militiaman, Jacob Lyle, recalled that his first duty was to “guard the King's Highway, so called, that led from Sandy Hook to Philadelphia... and to prevent [the enemy from] getting supplies from the residents of New Jersey." Other militiamen recalled performing similar service. The first arrests made by the militia are described in the July 29 minutes of the New Jersey Convention (the state legislature): Jacob Wardell, Joseph Wardell and Peter Wardell, persons apprehended by a detachment of Monmouth militia on account of furnishing provisions to the enemy, were brought before the house and witnesses examined. The next day, the Convention fined Jacob Wardell £28 for the costs of detaining and transporting him and his kin; Joseph and Peter Wardell were discharged after posting £500 bonds for their future good behavior. The illegal trade between Monmouth County and British traders apparently grew in the second half of 1776 as British battlefield victories emboldened disaffected Americans. On October 10, the Continental Congress requested that New Jersey Governor William Livingston assign a militia company to protect the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River and another company “to be stationed at or near Shrewsbury to intercept or put a stop to the intelligence said to carried on between the Tories and Lord Howe's fleet." Interestingly, when Governor Livingston acted on this directive, he called out a company of Burlington militia to perform the task: You are hereby directed to detach one company of fifty men from the battalion under your command to be stationed near Shrewsbury to intercept and put a stop to intelligence said to be carrying on between the Tories and Lord Howe's Fleet. It is the express requisition of Congress that this be immediately done. The decision to send in Burlington County militia is almost certainly a reflection of the Governor determining that a Shrewsbury militia company could not be trusted to police illegal trade in which some of those same militiamen were likely participating. In November 1776, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard its first case related to a Monmouth Countian engaging in illegal trade with the British. John Corlies of Rumson (in Shrewsbury Township) “did voluntarily & unlawfully aid, assist and help certain persons to send & convey provisions, to wit, eight quarters of beef, to the enemies of this state.” That same month, Colonel David Forman of Manalapan (Freehold Township) led a campaign against Loyalist insurgents which included impounding livestock from the disaffected and others living along the shore to prevent the animals from being exported to the British. While the efforts to restrain illegal trade with the British in 1776 may have punished or quashed the efforts of a few individuals, it was clearly unsuccessful. By April 1777, illegal trade with the British was flourishing again. On April 18, George Washington wrote the Continental Congress’s Board of War about an illegal trading ring that involved Lawrence Hartshorne and Obadiah Bowne of Shrewsbury, in cahoots with New York merchant John Murray: Bowne and Hartshorne, near Shrewsbury in Monmouth County, purchased Continental Money in N. York at a great discount, carry this money to Philada and there buy Flour &ca under pretence of Shipping it to the Foreign Islands, but send the Vessels to N. Yk [New York]. As those persons are well known in Philada [sic] they may easily be detected. Owen Biddle of Congress’s the Board of War responded to Washington on April 21: The mischievous practices of the Murrays of New York & Hartshorne and Bowne of Shrewsberry, is what we had some reason to suspect but never before had it in our power to detect them. John Murray lately left this City, we shall use our endeavours to apprehend him and bring him to justice—Bowne & Hartshorne reside at Shrewsberry if they could be apprehended by orders of your Excellency, perhaps it might deter others from such Practices in future—we shall give orders to the Naval Officer to scrutinize the destination of all Vessels agreeable to your Excellency’s recommendation. On April 26, Washington revealed the difficulty of catching illegal traders: "As I have no proof of Hartshorne and Bowne’s ever having been concerned in the practices I mentioned in my last, I cannot apprehend them. I gave you the hint, that if the thing should have been so, and they should return to Philada again upon the same errand, you might keep a watchful Eye upon them.” Other Monmouth Countians traded in the shadows and under aliases. William Hartshorne, alias Thomas Meadows, maintained a relationship with a New York Loyalist under the alias of John Steady: “It gives me great pleasure to renew our former acquaintance and correspondence and if any narrow souled scoundrel will say that by doing so I act a traitor or transgress any just law, he lies in his throat.” Hartshorne promised to find out about a quantity of tar that Steady had purchased but feared that it was lost. He discussed a mutual friend, (under the alias “Thom Druid”) and noted a shipment of materials to New York carried by "Burke, Prevost & c., we find it has happily got over." At least one trader felt no need to operate in the shadows. Colonel Samuel Forman, wrote of confronting Edward Williams about trading with the enemy. Williams responded, "I have a right to make the best market I can for it [his salted pork] and as to disaffection, thou must judge as thou pleases." On the British side, direct evidence of illegal trade from Monmouth County is fragmentary because it was frequently conducted through Loyalist intermediaries (so-called “London Traders”). One such example is a receipt issued from Captain Garrett Keating on June 4, 1777. Keating was the senior Army officer at Sandy Hook at the time. He issued a receipt for 34 lbs. of soap, 20 lbs. of tobacco "for the men under my command." The receipt was issued to Lt. Samuel Taylor of the New Jersey Volunteers , formerly of Shrewsbury, who was also stationed at Sandy Hook at the time. The supplies were nearly certainly acquired by Taylor from disaffected traders in Monmouth County. Perspective By the middle years of the war, the illegal trade was so prolific that it earned the derisive nickname of “the London trade .” London Traders were middlemen who went from Staten Island and Sandy Hook to the Jersey shore where they picked up goods from disaffected farmers and ferried those goods into British lines. The New Jersey Supreme Court tried cases 245 against Monmouth Countians between 1776 and 1784. The majority of those cases (126) concerned charges related to crossing enemy lines or supplying the enemy. In a prior study, the author demonstrated that Monmouth County’s disaffected gained wealth during the Revolution at a greater rate than the general population. Specifically: Total Population (n=1,251) 42% gained land 47% gained livestock Disaffected Population (n=272) 60% gained land 53% gained livestock *Analyzed population limited to Monmouth Countians in tax lists in both 1778-1779 and 1783-1784. Land gainers acquired at least 25 acres of land. Livestock gainers added at least two head or horse or cattle. This provides powerful evidence of the profitable and widespread scope of the London Trade. Related Historic Site : Sultana Education Foundation (Chestertown, MD) Sources : Proceedings of the Committees of Freehold and Shrewsbury, Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, First Series, 1846, pp. 192-3; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of Jacob Lyle of New York, National Archives, p45-6; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p138-9; Lorenzo Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists in the American Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown, 1864) vol. 2, p 592; Journals of the American Congress, (Washington, DC: Way and Gideon, 1823) vol. 1, p538; William Livingston to Colonels of the Burlington County Militia, Massachusetts Historical Society, William Livingston Papers, Minutes, Lord Stirling; Hartshorne Family Papers, MCHA, box 2, folder 19; New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #34552; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 9, 28 March 1777 – 10 June 1777, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999, pp. 198-199, 213-215, 270–271; Dennis P. Ryan, "Six Towns: Continuity and Change in Revolutionary New Jersey, 1770-1792" (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1974) p 187; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Loyalists Collection, New Jersey Volunteers, box 3, uncataloged #4; New Jersey Supreme Court Records, microfilmed at the New Jersey State Archives; Michael Adelberg, “Destitute of Almost Everything to Support Life: The Acquisition and Loss of Wealth in Revolutionary Monmouth County, New Jersey,” in The American Revolution in New Jersey, ed. James Gigantino (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2015). Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Scandals Mar the Sale of Loyalist Estates by Michael Adelberg Gilbert Van Mater was given three slaves by his Loyalist father. They were taken from him and sold with his father’s estate. This and other scandals marred Monmouth County’s Loyalist estate sales. - March 1779 - As discussed in the prior article, auctions of Loyalist estates were held in Monmouth County starting in March 1779. Within a month, 70 estates were sold at public auction. Given the rush of activity and lack of precedent for holding these auctions, some irregularities were inevitable. But what occurred greatly exceeded mere irregularity. The affairs of Monmouth County’s Forfeiture Commissioners - Samuel Forman, Kenneth Hankinson, Jacob Wikoff, Joseph Lawrence - would be a concern of the New Jersey government for several years. New Jersey Legislature Considers Problems with Monmouth County Estate Auctions The first Loyalist estate auction occurred in Freehold on March 17. Just a week later, a petition was sent to the New Jersey Legislature regarding the “great & grievous complaints… made against the present, as well as the former proceedings of the Commissioners appointed by Law for taking charge of and disposing of the forfeited estates.” The legislature was asked to hear witnesses “so that justice may be done to the Commissioners.” Petitioners included Colonel Asher Holmes, commanding the Freehold and Middletown militias and Captain John Schenck, hero of the April 1778 raid against Brooklyn . Another petition against the Forfeiture Commissioners, dated May 8, was soon sent to the Legislature. The petitioners alleged three misconducts: (1.) “not advertising sd real estate agreeable to law,” (2.) “not selling to the highest bidder,” and (3.) “selling the whole movable estate of an individual together, without letting people in general know what it [the estate] consists of." Holmes and Schenck signed this petition, along with other three militia officers (Barnes Smock, James Walling, and Hendrick Hendrickson), and other prominent citizens. On May 17, the New Jersey Assembly considered petitions "setting forth that the Commissioners of Forfeited Estates in said County have been guilty of misconduct in execution & trust reposed in them.” It appointed a committee to investigate. The Legislative Council, the upper house of the legislature, established a commission of its own on May 25. In June, Colonel David Forman, who purchased four confiscated estates, complained about one of those estates. Forman claimed he was misled regarding the value of Hendrick Van Mater’s estate. He wrote that the sale was conducted “without producing any inventory.” The estate “sold for something more than eleven hundred pounds… the commissioners then being asked for an inventory, said it had formerly been appraised for seventy pounds." The records of the Forfeiture Commissioners record that Forman purchased the estate for £2,725. The New Jersey Assembly read the petition and ordered depositions taken regarding the allegations. Another scandal heard before the legislature involved the “Red House”—a handsome home in the village of Freehold that had belonged to John Longstreet (who became a Captain in the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers ). At this auction, Mrs. Jane Forman was favored in her bidding against David Rhea, the Quartermaster agent for Monmouth County. Forman had made it known that she was buying the house for Longstreet’s orphaned family and the crier, an act of charity, rigged the bidding to get her the house. Depositions were taken and the auction was reversed—Rhea ultimately took the house. In September, the New Jersey Legislature renewed its interest in the irregularities of the Monmouth County auctions. On September 20, John Van Mater, brother of Loyalist Daniel Van Mater, petitioned the legislature on behalf of Gilbert Van Mater, son of Daniel. The petition argued: Several Negroes who had about twelve years ago been given by Daniel Van Mater (now a refugee in New York) to his son, Gilbert Van Mater, now seventeen years of age, were by the commissioners of the County seized and sold as property of Daniel Van Mater. The Assembly referred the Van Mater to the courts because “the law is adequate to the relief of the petitioner." But the petition re-started discussion about events in Monmouth County. Hearings Held into Forfeiture Estate Auctions The next day, the Assembly again considered the Loyalist estate auctions in Monmouth County. It summoned ten prominent Monmouth Countians to testify. The four Forfeiture Commissioners were also summoned; they requested more time because “many of their witnesses are not yet arrived.” The Assembly proceeded on September 22. Albert Covenhoven testified to irregularities in the sale of the Van Mater estate. He testified that "any person purchasing should pay the money immediately” and “that several persons said they could not buy a house on those terms.” He also testified that: The goods were not present, but a mile or two distant; that several moveable estates were sold altogether, as Daniel Van Mater's, Hendrick Van Mater's & several negroes, as a man, wench & boy of Daniel Van Mater's were sold altogether, and not present. He also testified that parts of John Longstreet’s estate were arbitrarily divided: “An inventory was produced & shewn, that sundry articles were crossed out, which articles were not to be sold." William Covenhoven testified to four irregularities at three auctions: (1.) “bids were made so fast that he could not distinguish them, nor knew when the minutes were out, at length the crier said it was Schenck's." (2.) “goods were sold, that there was some goods there, but not all, thinks the whole of the moveable estate was sold to Mr. Forman." (3.) "Mr. Forman held the watch when Leonard's place was sold, that they were bidding as fast as possible, when it was said time was out." And (4) "They sold waggons at Middletown for Stout’s place, which was said to be at Smock's Point, sold for £20, that the buyer afterwards got the waggons & said he would not take £100 for it." John Schenck testified to bidding against Major Elisha Walton on Thomas Leonard's estate: “Mr. [Samuel] Forman said the time was out, & lowered the watch as he spoke, that as the word left Mr. Forman's, major Walton bid £25 more." The bid was allowed to stand and Walton won the estate. Five respected Monmouth Countians (Captain John Schenck, Judge Kenneth Anderson, Sheriff Nicholas Van Brunt, Magistrate Garrett Longstreet) testified to auction bias in favor of “Mr. Dennis”: “They bid slow, then [the crier] put it off & took off an hour.” The crier then resumed the bidding and “run it on a while & then adjourned it five minutes." Then "Col. Forman said the time was out. After which Mr. Dennis bid £50, that he [they] saw the watch, that Dennis bid was near a quarter of a minute after the time was out." Three auction criers (Daniel Harbert, Tunis Vanderveer, Joseph Schenck) hired by the Forfeiture Commissioners testified and asserted their innocence. Nathaniel Scudder testified in support of them, saying he "attended the sales one day & thought it was fair and equitable.” Justice Longstreet and Sheriff Van Brunt partially contradicted their earlier testimony by stating that the auctions they attended "were very fair." Cornelius Covenhoven testified that “they [the auctions] was fair from what was to be seen." Tunis Vanderveer (not the crier) testified in support of the auctions, stating that "the sale was put off an hour at his request” to give him the chance to appraise the estates. In so doing, Vanderveer unwittingly admitted to receiving preferential treatment from the Commissioners. That same day, the Commissioners protested “that the charges [against them] are uncertain, vague & indeterminate.” They argued that the courts were better venues for considering the complaints against them “as the charges against your petitioners, if true, are all cognizable in the usual courts of law.” The Forfeiture Commissioners also prayed that “they may at least be allowed to be heard by council.” Finally, they asked to be compensated for the “very heavy expense procuring a great number of witnesses in their behalf which are kept here at an enormous charge.” It is not clear if the Commissioners testified, but on September 29, the Assembly heard a bill to remove them. The next day, the Legislative Council issued a report on their conduct identifying six examples of misconduct. The commissioners: (1.) "did not advertise certain lands one month [prior] in New Jersey Gazette before the day of sale"; (2.) "did not in advertisements particularly describe the premises being sold"; (3) "sold at Middletown fourteen plantations or tracts of land, not only a very stormy day when few people could be expected to attend, and [sold] some of them greatly under their saleable value"; (4.) "pretended to sell, by watch, or minute, though in some instances they took bids and struck off lands after the expiration of the time limited; yet in other cases the lands were struck off and the sale declared, while the people were bidding very fast"; (5.) "sold sundry articles to a very considerable amount without showing the same to the purchasers, that they might judge their value"; and (6.) "sold the personal estate of several persons in a lump, without letting the people know the particulars of which they consisted." The report condemned the Monmouth Commissioners for the "impropriety and illegality" of the auctions. The Council then heard a resolution stating: That Samuel Forman, Kenneth Hankinson and Joseph Lawrence, Commissioners appointed for taking charge of forfeited estates, having abused the trust reposed in them, to the great injury of the State, ought to be discharged from their appointment. However, the Council did not vote on the resolution to remove the Commissioners. On November 10, the Assembly re-heard the bill to remove them and also opted not to vote on the bill. The Legislative Council returned to the Monmouth Forfeiture Commissioners on December 16. That day, it debated a new resolution to remove them from office, but the resolution failed by a 5-6 vote. The Council then passed a resolution, 8-3, to refer to the charges against the Commissioners to the state’s Attorney General. The Attorney General be & is hereby ordered to commence as an action on behalf of the State, of at least one hundred pounds damages against the Commissioners, for selling the forfeited estates in Monmouth, for the neglect of their duty & the illegal conduct in the execution of their offices as Commissioners; and that he prosecute to the same effect without delay. The Council declined to vote on another resolution to remove the Commissioners on December 21. Continued Problems with Estate Forfeiture Auctions With their positions secure, the Commissioners returned to their duties. In January, they advertised in the New Jersey Gazette that estate purchasers "are desired to make immediate payment or be prosecuted without any distinction.” The advertisement was printed for three consecutive weeks. The threatening tone may have led to new complaints against the Commissioners. The New Jersey Assembly again debated a bill to remove the Commissioners in February, but never voted on it. Other bills were considered in March and September, but they were never voted on either. In October 1780, the Legislature received a new petition, with 72 signatures, complaining of the conduct of the Commissioners. The Assembly re-read the bill to remove the Commissioners, but declined to vote. Meanwhile, the Commissioner who kept the financial records, Jacob Wikoff, resigned. In his resignation, he said he “faithfully served in said office” but resigned due to unspecified “difficulties and inconveniences.” His books include curiously large expenses, such as: £912 in court fees; £1,005 in attorney fees; £1,191 "cash paid for collecting, keeping, selling & c. forfeited estates," and £4,916 for "commissions on" estates. These last two entries likely include fees paid by the Commissioners to themselves. Disappointed by the scandals and lower-than-expected revenues, the New Jersey Legislature suspended Loyalist estate auctions in June 1781. Later that year, the State attempted to assert control over the Forfeiture Commissioners. A November 24 report compiled by the Council noted that Jacob Wikoff still owed the state £688. A month later, Governor William Livingston criticized Forfeiture Commissioners for profiteering by taking in high-value currencies and paying out low-value currencies (several currencies were used in Revolutionary New Jersey). He wrote, "[they] have plundered us out of thousands by trading with money, and afterwards paying us at great depreciation." In 1782, the State appointed an agent in each county for examining and settling the accounts of the Forfeiture Commissioners—Joseph Stillwell for Monmouth County. With this new check in place, auctions resumed. But Stillwell soon became embroiled in a dispute with Sheriff John Burrowes, who sued Stillwell in the New Jersey Supreme Court for refusing to partition a 1,200-acre confiscated estate in Dover Township (thereby making it unaffordable to all but a few potential purchasers). In 1785, the Forfeiture Commissioners still had unsettled accounts with the State. In March, Samuel Forman, one of Monmouth Commissioners, wrote in the New Jersey Gazette regarding “the particular circumstances of the Monmouth Commissioners' supposed debt.” He wrote: The subscriber thinks it very right that delinquents should be exposed, but does not look on himself as one. The supposed debt had been paid twice; the payments returned to the disadvantage of the state. A receipt in discharge is now given. But the accounts of the Monmouth Forfeiture Commissioners remained unsettled for another decade. Finally, on November 14, 1795, the Assembly sought to settle matters regarding “that final judgment against a number of fugitives, whose estates were forfeited.” New Jersey newspapers then advertised a hearing would be held regarding fifteen Loyalist estates “to provide for the restoration of certain minutes or records of the court of Common Pleas in the county of Monmouth which have been lost, embezzled or destroyed.” In March 1796, the Legislature passed a law authorizing Monmouth County’s Court of Common Pleas “restore” the missing records and settle accounts. North Carolina and Georgia also suspended Loyalist estates. Historian Esmond Wright argued that the confiscation of Loyalist estates, whatever the defects, were useful because they kept potential Loyalists at home and at least nominally loyal. That may be true, but the unprofessional conduct and likely corruption of some of the commissioners was an unquestionable blemish on the new nation, and Monmouth County’s auctions were among the worst. Related Historic Site : Monmouth County Historical Association Museum Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 35, #81; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, box 35, #81 and #83; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 14, #41; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 37, #78; Monmouth County Commissioners for Forfeited Estates, Rutgers University Special Collections; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 48; Richard C. Haskett, “Prosecuting the Revolution,” in American Historical Review, vol. 49 (April 1954), pp. 585-6; Riccards, Michael P. "Patriots and Plunderers: Confiscation of Loyalist Lands in New Jersey, 1776–1786," New Jersey History, vol. 86 (1968) p 18-24; Allan Nevins, The American States during and after the Revolution, 1775-1789 (1924; rpt. New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 1969), p 508; Esmond Wright, ed., Red, White and True Blue: The Loyalists in the Revolution, (New York: AMS Press, 1976) p 146; Petition, New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 14, #46; "Monmouth County, New Jersey - Forfeited Estates in the Revolution in the Revolution," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 10, July 1925, pp. 316-21; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, May 13, 1779, p 97; "Forfeited to the State: Curious Documents of the Revolutionary Period," Red Bank Register, October 27, 1897. Monmouth County Historical Association's articles file; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, April 23, 1779, p 101; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1776) p35, 38, 57, 67, 94-5; Account Book, NJ State Archives, Dept. of Treasury, Auditor's Acct. Books, Book B, Ledger A, reel 181, #468; Petition, Monmouth County Historical Association, J. Amory Haskell Collection, folder 22, Document C; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, September 20, 1779, p 167; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, September 21, 22, and 30, 1779, p 170-187; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 14, #48; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, box 38, #83; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 35, #83; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, box 14, #49; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1779) p89; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1776) p35, 38, 57, 67, 94-5; Leonard Lundin, Cockpit of the Revolution the War for Independence in New Jersey (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) pp. 286-8; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 29 and November 10, 1779, p 10; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, February 23-24, 1780, p 120-122, 124-126; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, March 7 and 9, 1780, p 144-161; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, September 14, 1780, p 259; Jacob Wikoff to Thomas Seabrook, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 15, folder 7; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 30 and November 3, 1780, p 10-16; J. T. Main, The Sovereign States, 1775-1783 (New York: New Viewpoints, 1973), pp. 290, 314; Ruth M. Keesey, "New Jersey Legislation Concerning Loyalists," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 79 (1961), p 90; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1781) p16; William Livingston’s sentiments are in Riccards, Michael P. "Patriots and Plunderers: Confiscation of Loyalist Lands in New Jersey, 1776–1786," New Jersey History, vol. 86 (1968) p 22; New Jersey appoints Joseph Stillwell as estate forfeiture agent, New Jersey State Archives, Dept of Defense, Military Records, Revolutionary War Copies, box 10, #43A; Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, December 14, 1782, p 59; New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #5188; Petition, New Jersey Gazette, June 25, 1783; New Jersey Gazette, March 28, 1785; A List of Names of Those Persons Whose Estates were Confiscated, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Audit Office, Class 12, Volume 85, folios 43-46; New Jersey Chronicle, January 2, 1796; The Laws of the State of New Jersey, (Newark: Matthias Day, 1800), p198-9. Previous Next

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Second New Jersey Volunteers During the Monmouth Campaign by Michael Adelberg Recruiting notices like this one were circulated through Monmouth County in June 1778. While recruiting efforts produced many recruits in 1777, only a few new Loyalists came forward in 1778. - June 1778 - As discussed in prior articles, in July 1776, Monmouth County Loyalists established the 1st and 2nd battalions of the New Jersey Volunteers (often called “Greens” based on the color of their coats). While the 1st Battalion suffered defeats and the capture of its senior officers, the 2nd Battalion was, according to historian Todd Braisted, the most successful of the original five New Jersey Volunteer battalions and appears to have had a special relationship with a British artillery regiment. In fall 1777, the 2nd Battalion was one of a small number of Loyalist units selected to join the British Army on its campaign to take Philadelphia. The 2nd Battalion was still with the British Army when it quit Philadelphia and withdrew across New Jersey in June 1778. The Second Battalion was commanded by Lt. Colonel John Morris, a former British Army lieutenant from the Seven Years War who lived on the shore, near Manasquan. Morris joined the British Army within days of its landing at Sandy Hook. He grew his battalion in 1777 to more than 200 men. According to a printed British troop return from February 1778, "Colonel Morris's regiment of Jersey Volunteers (with General Howe), green uniform" was 350 men—but this number is likely exaggerated. With France’s entry into the war in February 1778, the British chose to consolidate forces in New York—which meant quitting Philadelphia. On May 20, as they prepared to march, the New Jersey Volunteers were told to switch from green to red-uniforms, but there were no new uniforms for Morris’ men. They were ordered only to "wear their new clothing when fitted." It appears that Morris returned to New York without his men. With the march at hand and without their colonel, the officers of the 2nd Battalion increased discipline ahead of the march. On May 23, two deserters from his battalion, John McCue and John Conolly, were sentenced to 500 lashes—a sentence that likely would kill the men if carried out in full. As the British Army marched across New Jersey, the New Jersey Volunteers actively recruited. One handbill that was printed and circulated promised a bounty and western land in exchange for joining: Heroes… who are willing to serve his Majesty King George the Third, in defense of their Country, laws and constitution, against the arbitrary usurpations of a tyrannical Congress have now the opportunity of manifesting their spirit, by assisting in reducing to obedience their too long deluded countrymen, but also acquiring the polite accomplishments of a soldier, by serving only two years, or during the course of the war. Enlistees would be rewarded "with 50 acres of land, where every gallant hero may retire, and enjoy his bottle and lass. Each volunteer will receive a bounty of five dollars, besides arms, clothing and accoutrements.” There is no evidence that recruiting efforts were particularly successful. The New Jersey Volunteers continued to recruit while in Philadelphia, but his efforts brought in only twelve new men, according to an April 1778 troop return. The 2nd Battalion of New Jersey Volunteers during the Monmouth Campaign The British Army chose to rest for a day at Freehold on June 27. Officers turned a blind eye to plundering while compiling a "Return of Number of Men, Wagons, Women and Children Victualed at Monmouth." The return included a line about the 2nd Battalion. Their numbers at Freehold: 129 fit & present men and 4 women. The unusually low number of women (most regiments listed at least 15 women) might have been because a number of Monmouth women, back in their home county, left the army to visit family. That same day, the British Army convened a court martial of Chaddock Butler of Upper Freehold. Butler was arrested for stealing a British Quartermaster horse and "going directly the contrary way to that which the troops were marching." Butler claimed he was a Loyalist supporting Morris’ men: On being advertised to the rebels, on account of carrying three men of Colonel Morris's corps to New York, he was obliged to leave his own habitation & come to his uncle's who lives on the road the Army had passed, & meant to go to the King's Army, which he had just joined. Butler said he temporarily took the Quartermaster’s horse in order to pursue a rebel who rode off with one of his uncle's horses. "He took him [the horse] with the intention to return him & not steal him." Capt. Richard Robert Crowe (who captained a company of “Negro Pioneers” in the British Army) testified in support of Butler. Crowe said Butler was from a Loyalist family and "had been obliged to leave his father's on account of the situation of public affairs.” Butler returned the horse and was acquitted. On the morning of June 28, many of the 2nd New Jersey Volunteers guided the regiments guarding the British baggage train toward Middletown. The Battle of Monmouth was fought behind them. A German officer, Capt. [?] Heindrich, wrote of leaving Freehold before 6 a.m. with the "Jersey Volunteers." The baggage train was attacked by Monmouth militia and state troops led by Joshua Huddy. Heindrich wrote that "various attempts were made to capture the baggage, but these failed." That evening, while the British Army waited on the battlefield, the baggage train’s guard "encamped below Middletown." Although they were from Monmouth County, the 2nd Battalion of New Jersey Volunteers were not used as guides during the Battle of Monmouth. A British troop return noted the presence of 89 “Refugees” and 17 men from “Skinner’s corps” besides Morris’s men. Many of these men were Monmouth Loyalists who served as guides; two of whom died on the battlefield. Burlington County’s Colonel Israel Shreve of the New Jersey Line wrote his wife shortly after the battle: What is most pleasing, they had two guides, Sam Leonard and Thomas Thomson, who both lived in this neighborhood, and both killed in the first action; Leonard was lying down, took with a cannon ball in the left shoulder and came out his belly. Another guide was Chrineyonce Van Mater, jailed for his role in the capture of Richard Stockton and John Covenhoven in 1776. The New Jersey Gazette noted: "the enemy, in their late passage through Monmouth County, released Van Mater; who, having piloted them through the neighborhood, went off with them to New York." The 2nd Battalion of New Jersey Volunteers continued to pilot the front of the British Army toward Sandy Hook, their departure point. A return of Loyalist regiments on the Monmouth Campaign was compiled on July 10. It listed the 2nd Battalion as having four men killed, six captured, and one deserted during the march. The four fatalities occurred on June 27 and June 28, suggesting the men were lost in skirmishing, quite possibly against Monmouth militia. Other Loyalist regiments on the march did not lose as many men: the West Jersey Loyalists and Maryland Loyalists each had one man killed; the First Battalion of Pennsylvania Loyalists had no fatalities. The men in Morris’s battalion captured during the march across New Jersey were William Rogers, Vincent Swem, Roger Wilson, Richard Marigson, Jacob Fagan, and Joseph Grooms. All were taken in Monmouth County, June 26-28. They were jailed in Morris County until August, when they were transferred to the Monmouth County jail. The most noteworthy of the captures was Jacob Fagan. Fagan was indicted twice for larceny before the war before becoming a Loyalist and joining the New Jersey Volunteers. After his capture, he must have escaped jail. He then led an infamous Pine Robber gang. He was killed by a militia party in October 1778; his body gibbeted and hung on a public road. The 2nd Battalion of New Jersey Volunteers after the Battle of Monmouth After the Battle of Monmouth, the 2nd New Jersey Volunteers marched to Middletown where it appears John Morris rejoined them. A July 1778 Muster Roll demonstrates that the Monmouth Campaign was hard on the 2nd Battalion. The data below demonstrates the battalion’s diminished size and strength: John Antill (Maj.) 2 Officers 4 NCOs 3 Other 32 Privates 9 Fit and Present 15 On Command Cornelius Wardell 2 Officers 5 NCOs 0 Other 27 Privates 6 Fit and Present 15 On Command John Colden (Maj.) 3 Officers 5 NCOs 0 Other 31 Privates 11 Fit and Present 8 On Command Cornelius McLease 3 Officers 5 NCOs 0 Other 29 Privates 8 Fit and Present 8 On Command Norman McLeod 3 Officers 5 NCOs 0 Other 35 Privates 15 Fit and Present 11 On Command A full battalion had eight companies with 50 or more privates in each. Loyalist battalions rarely reached this size, but Morris’ five quarter-strength companies were small by any standard. Two additional desertions—Oliver Talman and Peter Miers—were noted on July 10. The term “on command” was a catch-all term for assignments outside of camp. Half of the fit men were on assignment—probably at Sandy Hook and the Navesink Highlands—where Morris was salvaging horses and supplies left by the British Army prior to its evacuation to New York. While the British Army returned to New York on July 5, Morris and his men stayed on Sandy Hook and the Navesink Highlands. A July 11 document lists “Navesink” as its location. On July 20, General Henry Clinton noted Morris’ location in Monmouth County, relaying intelligence on the French fleet which arrived off Sandy Hook on July 11. Lt. Coll Morris is busy in collecting intelligence of the position of the French Guard upon their Watering Parties. He means, I find, to be more particular in his Inquiries; as from the matter he has already collected, it seems practicable to make a successful attempt upon their Post. The next day, Morris met with Admiral Richard Howe, commanding the British fleet. Howe wrote: He has shown me the position the French had taken on Waddel’s Hill, from whence I conclude it is totally impracticable to make any attempt upon them. I conceived yesterday, that they were posted on this Side the Neversunk River. Our only caution on this side seems confined to any design that should be meditated, by the Neck, on Sandy Hook. Great threats are made, I find, against us on every part. Despite demonstrating his value to the British High Command, Morris was apparently becoming dispirited. He criticized the British Army’s plundering during the Monmouth campaign. He wrote General James Pattison to request standing orders that no British party leave camp without an officer in order to limit plundering. Pattison was not swayed: With respect that an officer must always be detached with men, I should imagine that upon reconsideration of the matter, you will see how incompatible it is with the rank of a commissioned officer to be sent with detachments of four or six men. Pattison acknowledged that Morris was ill and expressed hopes that his "lameness" would improve. Morris also lapsed in disciplining his men. He permitted one of his privates, Jacob Wood, to desert and live as a fisherman at Sandy Hook in exchange for supplying him with fresh fish. The arrangement was exposed in a court martial that must have embarrassed Morris. Braisted noted that Morris was insubordinate to Courtland Skinner (the general commanding the New Jersey Volunteers) in 1779, and retired from active service. His battalion would be consolidated with other undersized New Jersey Volunteer battalions. It would lose its special relationship with the British artillery regiment and the commanding officer who made it the most successful of the original five New Jersey Volunteer battalions. The demise of Morris and his battalion is discussed in greater detail in another article. Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany, 1778, vol. 40, p 91; Troop Return, William Drummond, Library of Congress, MMC - Courtland Skinner, box 11; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Loyalists Collection, New Jersey Volunteers, box 1, 2L; Troop Return, NJ State Archives, Adjutant General's Loyalist Manuscripts, microfilm; Oliver DeLancey, "Orderly Book of Three Battalions of Loyalists," Collections of the New-York Historical Society (1916), vol. 6, pp. 75, 84; Israel Shreve to Polly Shreve, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Dreer Collection, Series 52:2, vol. 4; Stephen Kemble, The Kemble Papers (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2009) vol. 1, p 585; Van Mater’s release is described in William Dwyer, The Day is ours! - November 1776 January 1777: An Inside View of The Battles of Trenton and Princeton (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p 34-5; Philip Katcher, Encyclopedia of British, Provincial, and German Army Units 1775-1783 (Harrisburg PA: Stackpole Co., 1973), p 78; Troop Returns, Library of Congress, MMC - Courtland Skinner, box 6; Troop Return, Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - British Sources; Court Martial records, Great Britain Public Record Office, War Office, 71/86, #151-8. (Photocopies from Don Hagist.); Bruce Burgoyne, Journal of the Hesse Cassel Jaeger Corps (New York: Heritage Books, 1987) p43-7; Troop Return, Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - Loyalist Forces; Troop Return, National Archives of Canada, RG 8, “C” Series, Volume 1854, page 20; Muster Rolls of New Jersey Volunteers, Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies, www.royalprovincial.com ; National Archives of Canada, RG 8, “C” Series, Volume 1854, page 20; Clements Library, U Michigan, Henry Clinton Papers, 6/28/78, Return of Persons Victualed at Monmouth; Troop Return, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v93, reel 4, #226; Henry Clinton to Richard Howe, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 445; Richard Howe to Henry Clinton, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 467; Troop Return, William Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, vol. 68; James Pattison to John Morris, Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - British Sources; A History of the Second Battalion of the New Jersey Volunteers, http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/rhist/njv/2njvhist.htm . Previous Next