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 > Joseph Murray Killed While Tending His Fields by Michael Adelberg Militiaman Joseph Murray was killed in his field outside of his farmhouse by a small Loyalist raiding party. Murray’s vulnerable location and anti-Loyalist track record made him an obvious target. - June 1780 - Joseph Murray was born in Ireland and came to America in 1767. He married Rebecca Morris and settled on a small, 43-acre farm in eastern Middletown Township, in between the Raritan Bay and the Navesink River. The location would prove important a decade later because it left the Murray farmstead vulnerable to Loyalist attack from two directions, and gave would-be attackers two potential escape routes. A Steadfast Supporter of the Revolution Murray was an early and faithful supporter of the American Revolution. In January 1775, he was among 35 men—including several future militia officers—who voluntarily mustered under David Forman in what may have been Monmouth County’s first militia company loyal to the county’s Committee of Correspondence and state’s Provincial Congress (and not its Royal Governor). While many of the privates in Forman’s company transitioned into officer positions as the county militia took shape, Murray remained a private. This is likely a reflection of his small estate rather than a lack of zeal. There is no reason to think that Murray was anything but steadfast in his support for the Revolution despite many of his neighbors hedging their bets and maintaining friendly contacts with Loyalists. In March 1778, Murray testified before the New Jersey Supreme Court against Joseph Leonard, the former Monmouth County Clerk , for "joining the Army of the King of Britain" a year earlier. Four other people testified against Leonard and four more testified in support of Leonard. The jury chose to convict Leonard "without going into the jury box." A year later, Murray filed a trespass charge against George Taylor, the former colonel of the county militia who turned Loyalist and raised a Loyalist militia . Taylor led several small raids into Monmouth County 1777. Taylor had apparently crossed Murray’s land on one of these raids and Murray decided to file charges against Taylor long after the fact. If Murray did not previously have influential Loyalist enemies at the start of the war, he did now. According to antiquarian sources, Murray was captured by Loyalists in 1779 and jailed in New York. But he escaped and rejoined the militia in January 1780. He took a horse from Edward Taylor (the disaffected father of George Taylor, still living in Middletown) and under his captain, William Schenck, arrested disaffected men (for reasons not stated). The Killing of Joseph Murray On June 7, 1780, Murray was given leave from his officers to return home. He went home, hitched a horse (perhaps Taylor’s horse) to his plow, and started plowing his fields. There, a three-man Loyalist party killed him. Garrett Hendrickson, Murray’s Lieutenant, stated that Murray, "after being home for a few hours, he was killed by three refugees, near his barn, and left a wife and four small children." Antiquarian sources add that Murray rarely slept at his house due to the danger, but went home to plant his fields before it was too late in the season. He was warned by his neighbors about the danger, and brought a musket into the field with him, but leaned the gun against his fence. Murray was rushed by the raiders as he turned his plow and was furthest from his gun. He was shot by the Loyalists but the wounded Murray then engaged the attackers. Murray was then bayoneted until he fell and died. The raiders were pursued by Murray’s neighbors but not caught. David Forman, Murray’s old commanding officer, wrote of his death in a letter to Governor William Livingston on June 9: "Joseph Murray was murdered by a party of Refugees while he was at his harrow in his corn field.” Forman argued that in light of “numerous distresses” (including Murray’s killing and a Loyalist raid against Middletown), Livingston needed “to exert yourself in establishing such a guard as will tend to restore, in some measure, the security to the County." Forman, writing from Freehold, took the opportunity to tell Livingston that he would not answer Livingston’s statewide alarm for marching men to Springfield to repel the British attack (other Monmouth County senior officers also ignored the alarm). "We are this minute to march from this village [Freehold to Middletown] & shall not have a single man for its [Springfield’s] defence." Murray’s wife, Rebecca, stayed on the family farm with her four children. While she was able to weather the war without further incident, it appears that the family suffered a drop in wealth. According to township tax lists, the family owned six horses and cows in 1778 but only three in 1784. In 1788, new depositions were taken about Murray’s death—this time to determine if Rebecca was eligible for a half-pay military pension. Murray’s militia-mate and neighbor, Thomas Hill, among the first to find Murray’s body after the killing, testified that: [He] went home with the said Murray and after a short time was going to a neighbor's, a short distance [away], when the deponent heard the report of a gun at the sd Murray's and in a short time after was alarmed with the news that the sd Murray was killed by three refugees, deponent sd he went immediately back when he saw Murray lay dead with his wound [still] bleeding, who had shot & bayonetted in several places. Rebecca Murray was awarded the pension. The killing of a middling farmer by a few unnamed Loyalists was a small event that did not merit newspaper coverage. But, put in context, Murray’s killing is an excellent case study of what the Revolutionary War was becoming in Monmouth County. Murray’s killing was not random: he was a known enemy of prominent Loyalists and Murray had recently taken actions that likely re-enflamed Loyalist antipathies toward him. His location near both the Raritan Bay and Navesink River made him an easy target. Murray’s modest estate sealed his fate—a wealthier man with Murray’s service record for would have been a militia officer. He would have been valuable in a prisoner exchange or commanded a ransom. To the revenge-minded Loyalists who went after Murray—taking him was riskier and less satisfying than killing him. Related Historic Site : Murray Farmstead at Poricy Park Sources : New York Historical Society, John E. Stillwell Papers, Box: 1730-79, folder: 1770-9; Monmouth County Archives, Loose Common Pleas, box: Common Pleas 1776-1777, folder: 1778; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 304; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p208; The Monmouth Connection, July 1998, p40-1; Monmouth Democrat, "A Hero of Middletown, New Jersey", November 14, 1895; David Forman to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, p 423. Francis Pingeon, Blacks in the Revolutionary Era (Newark: New Jersey Historical Society, 1975) p22. Monmouth County Historical Association, J. Amory Haskell Coll., folder 3, Document A; Depositions, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #10639; Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, unpublished at the Monmouth County Historical Association. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Reconstructing Monmouth County's Government by Michael Adelberg The Monmouth County courthouse in Freehold was the seat of county government. However, the Monmouth County government did not exist between December 1776 and March 1777. - February 1777 - As discussed in a prior article, the functions of the Monmouth County government—including law enforcement, courts, prison, county clerk, tax collection, etc.—ceased during the Loyalist insurrections of December 1776. Some of these functions, such as courts and tax collection, had not functioned effectively since the breakdown of the Royal government in early 1776. In February 1777, with the British in retreat and the Loyalist associations broken , supporters of the Revolution in Monmouth County now had the opportunity to rebuild their local government. Locating the county’s records and legal papers was a foundational challenge. Even before the Loyalist insurrections , County Clerk Kenneth Anderson was unable to gather papers from the prior County Clerk, Joseph Leonard. In November 1776, Anderson wrote that Leonard “refused to give over an order of delivery of sd records.” Five months later, on March 24, 1777, Anderson was still seeking the county’s records. On that day, he wrote Governor William Livingston: Since my return, have been with the Sheriff [Asher Holmes], constantly engaged in the militia for the defense of the county, so that I had not an opportunity to call on Mr. Leonard until a few days since. When I did, in the presence of the Sheriff, he [Leonard] informed me that the books, records & c. were removed by Lt. Col. Lawrence [Elisha Lawrence] - to what place he [Leonard] could not tell. It is unknown if the county’s legal papers were ever recovered. Lacking the resources and infrastructure to detain large numbers of people, state and Continental authorities declared a general amnesty for the disaffected. Those who would renounce their British oaths and take Continental oaths would be pardoned. Armed insurrectionists who menaced citizens were not permitted amnesty. But a policy needed to be improvised for Loyalist leaders who supported the insurrections without taking up arms. There were many such individuals in Monmouth County. Disaffected Leaders Drop Out of Local Leadership When Francis Gurney’s Pennsylvanians came through Middletown, they detained John Taylor. Taylor was the commissioner charged with administering British loyalty oaths in Middletown during the insurrection. General Israel Putnam asked George Washington if Taylor’s status as a British civil government official excluded him from the general amnesty. Washington responded on February 5: I never Intended to exclude any from the benefit of my Proclamation who were not particularly Active in persecuting, and destroying the Property of the friends to our cause. The case of Mr. Taylor & any others that are brot [sic] to you, or confin’d, must therefore depend upon this—As to the Circumstance respecting the Families of those who went over to the Enemy, previous to the Proclamation, it is not my Intention that they should be under any necessity of withdrawing themselves—provided their future good behavior warrants such Lenity towards them. Washington also advised that Loyalist leaders who wished to go behind British lines could do so as long as they left their valuables behind: “let no Property be convey’d with them.” Samuel Breese, the former Committeeman and first militia colonel for Shrewsbury Townships, posed another challenge. On February 11, he wrote Governor William Livingston: I am one among the number of conquered people in Monmouth County who have taken the benefit of Lord General Howe's proclamation and sworn allegiance, and alas, I cannot as yet get over my scruple for [taking] the oath to the States as required by General Washington, and the consequence of refusing is to me very terrible. If I may not have a dispensation, upon giving in good and sufficient security for my good behavior, then I will be obliged to ask your Excellency to favor me with a parole to remain on any farm or in the country unmolested with my family -- leading a quiet inoffensive life, which can be of no loss to the State. It appears that Breese was allowed to retire on his farm. At the same time that Taylor and Breese were negotiating their status. the New Jersey government sought to enforce that all officeholders, civil or military, take a loyalty oath. New Jersey required officeholders to take a two-part oath: 1. "I do sincerely profess and swear (or if one of the people called Quakers, affirm) that I do not hold myself bound to bear allegiance to the King of Great Britain, so help me God." 2. "I do sincerely profess or swear (or if one the people called Quakers, affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Government established in this State, under the authority of the people, so help me God." Devout Quakers would not swear allegiance, so they were permitted to “affirm” their allegiance instead. Refilling Local Government March 1777 was the first month in which some civil government functions returned to Monmouth County. Elections for county and township officers were held on March 11. The Shrewsbury Township election certificate has survived. The voters of Shrewsbury elected 21 officeholders including four men who were disaffected or of wavering loyalty (called “trimmers” because they trimmed their sails and blew with the wind). Table 1 demonstrates the mixed record of Shrewsbury’s 1777 officeholders. Over the course of the war, local elections appear to have been held regularly starting in 1777. However, disaffected individuals continued to serve in local government in Monmouth County’s three townships—Shrewsbury, Dover, and Stafford. This was a reflection of the disaffection of the voters themselves. There was also a need to ensure that Monmouth’s senior militia officers were supporters of the Revolution and in compliance with state law. On March 15 and 18, Governor Livingston exchanged letters with the New Jersey Assembly regarding irregularities among Monmouth County’s senior militia officers. The following problems were identified regarding the Monmouth County militia’s field officers: 1st Militia Battalion (Freehold and Middletown townships) "Lt Colonel Thomas Seabrook is said to have refused taking oaths to this State; if so, has forfeited his commission” “The Major, Mr [Asher] Holmes, is High Sheriff of the County, which two offices are incompatible, as no sheriff may leave his County - he ought therefore make his election” “In this battalion there is no Second Major" 2nd Militia Battalion (Upper Freehold, Dover, and Stafford townships) "Mr. Brearley [David Brearley] is Colonel of the 2nd Battalion, but is engaged in the Continental service” “The first Major is Elisha Lawrence [cousin of Elisha Lawrence, the Loyalist], who I am informed has accepted the enemy's protection, and refused taking oaths to Government” “This battalion is also without a Second Major" 3rd Militia Battalion (Shrewsbury township) "Of the Third Battalion, Daniel Hendrickson is Colonel, but is very infirm and said to be removed to Upper Freehold, while the battalion consists of the inhabitants of Shrewsbury." New militia elections were held on April 28 for captains and junior officers. These elections replaced officers who had joined the British and or refused to sign New Jersey’s loyalty oath. That same month, Asher Holmes, still in the role of sheriff, issued the first fines from the reconstituted Monmouth County government. The first general militia return was prepared on May 1. The return for the 1st Battalion has survived. It lists 484 rank and file as “fit & present”, 41 as captured by the enemy, and 126 as “absconded” (Loyalist refugees or in hiding). The controversial county-wide militia muster was a key element of David Forman’s (now a Brigadier General in the New Jersey militia) plan to expose the county’s remaining Loyalists and punish them under martial law . Both of these topics are discussed in other articles. Related Historic Site : Liberty Hall (William Livingston’s home) Sources : Kenneth Anderson to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 4, March 24, 1777; New Jersey Loyalty Oaths printed in Larry Gerlach, New Jersey in the American Revolution 1763-1783 A Documentary History (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1975) pp. 363-4; Kenneth Anderson to New Jersey Legislature, New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 14, #27; George Washington to Israel Putnam, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 8, 6 January 1777 – 27 March 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998, p. 256; Samuel Breese to William Livingston, Massachusetts Historical Society, William Livingston Papers; Shrewsbury Township Election, Monmouth County Historical Association, Steen Collection, box 2, folder 11; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, March 15, 1777, pp, 108-9; William Livingston, report, in Carl Prince ed., Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 280-1; Militia Elections, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #1046-1058; Militia Return, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 6, folder 7; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Treasury, State Auditor's Account Book, Sheriff Fines, Monmouth County, reel 181, pp. 195-203 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 > Pennsylvania Continentals Travel Through Allentown by Michael Adelberg Col. Samuel Miles commanded a regiment of Pennsylvanians that passed through Allentown on its way to eastern New Jersey; he was directed to return to suppress a Loyalist uprising. - July 1776 - As noted in a prior article, Pennsylvania soldiers were ordered to march to Monmouth County in early July to quell the Loyalist insurrection in Upper Freehold Township. That regiment, under Colonel Broadhead, delayed their march and ultimately played no role in the campaign against the insurgents. At least 3,000 other armed Pennsylvanians would travel across New Jersey in July on their way to join the Continental Army in the defense of New York and New Jersey. These men traveled through Allentown because it was an important crossroad connecting the Delaware River towns of western New Jersey with the towns and coastline of eastern New Jersey. A handful of Pennsylvanians discussed their time in Allentown. The first recorded incident in Allentown occurred on July 7. Lt. James McMichael was part of 1,000 Pennsylvania Flying Camp on their way to Perth Amboy. He recorded that "Capt. Farmer's gun went off accidentally, and shot a soldier of his own company" that day. The man was left behind under the care of locals. The orderly book of McMichael’s regiment offers additional information on the Pennsylvanian’s two days at Allentown. Perceiving the locals to be potentially mischievous or even dangerous, the regiment assigned "an officer's guard of thirty men to be mounted, five whereof to be placed with the wagons which are to be brought together as near as may be.” The purpose of the guard was likely to limit any pilfering or vandalism of the regiment’s supplies. The Pennsylvanians also placed a guard at the “commanding officer's doors," presumably to prevent an attack. An order was also issued to locals: "The tavern keepers are not to sell any liquor to the soldiers without an order from an officer." And if there was any doubt that the Pennsylvanians perceived themselves as camping amongst the enemy, the regiment’s counter-sign during its stay in Allentown was “Tory.” Colonel Samuel Miles’ regiment came through Allentown the day after McMichael’s and stayed one night. Miles’ orders for his evening in Allentown were similar: The men to cook provisions as soon as can be delivered & hold themselves in readiness to march at a minute’s warning – the tavern keepers not to sell any liquor without an order from the officer. Miles also ordered that “an officer’s guard to consist of thirty men mounted” should patrol the encampment. Miles made it to New Brunswick by July 9, but he would return later in the month in a belated attempt to quell the local Loyalist uprising. More Pennsylvanians continued through Allentown, some going north to New Brunswick, others going east through Freehold. On July 18, the New Jersey Convention recorded that Colonel Burd, with his regiment of “Associators” (temporary soldiers), had arrived at Middletown. They would have passed through Allentown and Freehold during their march. By July 26, General Hugh Mercer, commanding the patchwork of Continental forces in New Jersey facing the British on Staten Island, reported to the Continental Congress: There are now on duty, of the Pennsylvania Provincial Battalions and the Association of the same Province, three thousand rank and file in all -- contained from Bergen Neck to Middletown, and these are not the only troops who have joined. On August 10, Mercer further reported: “Our whole force, including N. Jersey militia, from Powles Hook to Shrewsbury, amount to eight thousand three hundred." It is not known whether the Pennsylvanians stationed in Middletown and Shrewsbury found the local militia uncooperative, as had Benjamin Tupper a few weeks earlier. Mercer also observed boats traveling the Raritan Bay and bringing food to the British at Sandy Hook: Shallops were sent with flour round to the fleet; but I am this moment informed by the officer of the guard on South-Amboy shore that soldiers appeared thick on their decks after getting round Billup's Point into Prince's Bay. This morning they fell down to Sandy-Hook. A flag was seen hoisted this morning on the Light-House, which is an unusual thing. Even after the surge of July, companies of Pennsylvanians continued to travel across New Jersey. On August 17, the company of Captain Algernon Roberts reached Allentown. He complained about “the extraordinary conduct of the innkeepers, who had grown insolent to the degree that we could scarce refresh ourselves.” But Roberts also commented on the great generosity of the Upper Freehold farmers: "We found the inhabitants very kind and hospitable, supplying us in a plenteous manner, as their circumstances would admit." Allentown would remain a critical crossroads and Pennsylvania soldiers would visit it again several more times during the American Revolution, some of which are subject of additional articles. Related Historic Site : The Old Mill Sources : McMichael, James, “Diary of Lieutenant James McMichael of the Pennsylvania Line, 1776–1778,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 16 (1892), 131–2; New Jersey Historical Society, collection 224, Orderly Book - Pennsylvania Regiment; Orderly Book, Col. Samuel Miles’ Regt., MG 224, New Jersey Historical Society; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 1165; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 139; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 56; General Hugh Mercer, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 178, item 159, #153, 178; Algernon Roberts, "A Journal of a Campaign from Philadelphia to Paulus Hook," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 7 (1883), p 459. 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 > Captain Thomas Creigher Sails the Monmouth Coast by Michael Adelberg The New York State Navy’s General Putnam, captained by Thomas Creigher cruised the New Jersey shore and attempted to provide security for American vessels in the summer of 1776. - June 1776 - As discussed in a prior articles, the British Navy took Sandy Hook in April 1776. They also set up a blockade of the now-rebelling colonies and sent ships and down the Jersey Shore. Eleven of the thirteen colonies responded by establishing state navies to patrol their shores, While New Jersey did not establish a state navy, in April 1776, New York Committee of Safety ordered ships to patrol the Jersey Shore in order to keep the sea lanes to New York City open. Historian Donald Shomette noted that the Committee of Safety first ordered two schooners, General Mifflin and General Schyler, to cruise the Jersey Shore in April. In addition, and George Washington’s Continental Army ordered the sloop Hester to patrol Raritan Bay. In comparison to British warships, these ships were very small. For example, General Putnam was "lightly armed, carrying only a dozen swivel guns" and only 30 men. On April 16, General Alexander MacDougall wrote John Jay about three ships. He also discussed the need to protect Little Egg Harbor on the Jersey shore (at the southern tip of Monmouth County). “You know that Egg Harbour is not in our colony, but it is frequented by the trade of Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey, and should therefore be secured.” Three days later, the New York Committee of Safety ordered Captain William Rogers to sail the Jersey shore: You are to cruise along shore on our coasts, any where between Sandy Hook and Cape May, or from Sandy Hook lo the east end of Long island. You are always too keep some inlet under your lee, so that you may secure a retreat from a superior force. Be careful to send such prizes as you may take, into some place of safety in the United Colonies. It is very necessary to have a good pilot on board, and also that you make yourself well acquainted on the coast. You are to assist any of the friends of the United Colonies by every means in your power, and assist to carry them into some place of safety; and where different objects for assistance offer at the same time, you are to give the preference to the vessels and inhabitants of this Colony. You are always and by every opportunity, to advise the Provincial Congress, or Committee of Safety of this Colony, of your proceedings. There appears to be only one record of Rogers sailing the Jersey shore. On May 22, Rogers reported to the New York Provincial Congress on his cruise a few days earlier: The 18th, we were off Sandy-Hook; saw but two ships in the bay; they did not send anything out after us, which we expected they would. I expected to find the schooner Putnam on this coast, but have not seen or heard anything of her; we have not seen a sail of any kind since we left cruising off Montauk but the ships we saw in at Sandy-Hook. It would be two other New York State Navy vessels—the General Schuyler and the General Putnam —that first engaged the enemy on the Jersey shore. Letters from Captain Thomas Creigher, commanding the General Putnam , in particular, document the difficult position of a single, midsized ship in protecting a long coastline menaced by large British warships. On June 20, Creigher recorded needing to avoid a larger British vessel during his first cruise of the Jersey shore: I am to inform you that on my passage here from Barnegat, I saw three sail of vessels plying to the northeast — they appeared to be three ships. I immediately hauled my wind to speak to them, the wind about north by west. After standing for them some time, I found one of them to be a very large ship, and was soon convinced she was a ship of war [probably the British frigate Lively] of about fifty guns. I then bore away for this harbor [Little Egg Harbor]. Creigher reported his next encounter with a ship, which came after cruising off Barnegat for five days: A sloop that was driven on shore by the Lively frigate, on the 11th of June. She came from the West-Indies, having on board about three hundred bushels of salt, with other goods. The owners were one Schenck & Vanvechten. The [Lively’s] ship' s boats, after she struck the beach, immediately boarded her, but the inhabitants coming to them, acquitted her without plundering. They [the British sailors] endeavored to set fire to her, but to no effect, as timely assistance prevented their scheme. Captain Creigher’s next letter was authored on July 9. He was at Shrewsbury; the General Putnam was being repaired at Shrewsbury Inlet (a waterway at present-day Seabright that connected the Shrewsbury River to the ocean). This followed a battle with a larger British vessel off Manasquan that drove the General Putnam into the beach. Creigher recorded what transpired after he was beached: I got all my arms and ammunition on the beach as the Enemy began a heavy firing on us; at last she hoisted out two barges and manned them with about 50 men; but as they approached the shore, we handled them so roughly that they were obliged to make a scandalous retreat. She [the British] continued her fire on the boat until after dark. At nightfall, the British ship captain apparently grew tired of firing on Creigher’s beached vessel and sailed away. The larger British vessel probably lacked a local pilot who could bring the ship close enough to finish off the General Putnam . Captain Creigher’s final letter was written from Cranberry Inlet (near Toms River) on August 23. Creigher noted that three days earlier he “fell in with a ship and sloop tender, about ten guns, the frigate being about a mile and a half from the sloop, and was determined to give the sloop battle, but could not bring her to battle.” Creigher broke off his pursuit and, instead, assisted “2 prizes taken from the West Indies by 2 different privateers.” One of the vessels, lacking a local pilot, “lay aground on the bar of Egg Harbour.” It took three days to float the vessel and bring it into port. But the valuable cargo of sugar, rum, and molasses validated the effort. Historian Shomette examined New York documents that narrate the demise of the New York Navy’s schooners on the Jersey Shore. On September 21, Thomas Quigley, serving under Captain Creigher, wrote a letter from Cranberry Inlet. General Putnam was out of supplies and the crew had quit the vessel. Creigher returned to New York without his ship. He reported to the New York Convention (the state’s legislature) on September 26: My vessel being very small and low in the water, my greatest ordinance being swivel guns, the shrouds very old and not trustworthy, the vessel very weak and leaky, which weakness proceeded from her lying on a bar and heavy surf breaking over her when I was run on shore by a [British] man of war, the people much exposed when under sail... which prevents them from lying in their beds, daily complaints being made by my people in this regard to the vessel's condition, and the season of the year advancing toward cold and story weather - This, gentlemen, is certainly the condition of the vessel. On October 7, the Convention ordered that the officers of the ship should be paid back wages. It also ordered the sale of General Putnam (presumably still beached at Cranberry Inlet). There is no record of the New York Navy sending additional vessels to patrol the Jersey Shore. The mediocre results of Creigher’s voyages did not dissuade Continental authorities from seeking to protect the Jersey shore with their own midsized vessels. On November 1, the Continental Congress's Marine Committee issued orders to the Captains of the Continental Navy sloops Fly and Wasp to cruise the Jersey shore. Informed by the experience of the New York vessels, the Continental ship captains were ordered to stay in shallow waters when facing a larger British vessel: You must be careful not to let any British frigate get in between you and the land… for they cannot pursue in shore and they have no boats and tenders that can take you; besides, the country people will assist you in driving them from the shore, if they [British] should attempt to follow you in. On the other hand, the captains were encouraged to risk their vessels for a good prize: "We should deem it more praiseworthy in an officer to lose a vessel in a bold enterprise than to lose a good prize by too timid a conduct." The voyages of the Continental Navy on the Jersey shore are discussed in another article . Related Historic Sites : National Museum of the U.S. Navy (Hampton Roads, VA) Sources : John Jay Papers, Columbia U., digitized, http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.01088&p=3&level=2&originx=0&orginy=0&fullheight=2768&fullwidth=2133ℑ.x=129ℑ.y=20 ; Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the state of New-York (Albany: Thurlow Weed, printer to the State, 1842) vol. 1, p414; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015); William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 4, p 204; Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v6, p 992-3; Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the state of New-York (Albany: Thurlow Weed, printer to the State, 1842) vol. 2, p279; Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v6, p 992-3"; Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the state of New-York (Albany: Thurlow Weed, printer to the State, 1842) vol. 2, p241; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 5, pp. 991-2; Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the state of New-York (Albany: Thurlow Weed, printer to the State, 1842) vol. 2, p279; Gardner W. Allen, A Naval History of the American Revolution (1912, 1940, reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), pp. 128-9. 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 > The Capture of the Blue Mountain Valley by Michael Adelberg Lord Stirling (William Alexander) was alerted to the vulnerable position of the Blue Mountain Valley south of Sandy Hook and led a flotilla of small boats to capture it. - January 1776 - By the start of 1776, the Continental Army had surrounded the British Army in Boston and invaded Canada. One of the bloodiest battles of the American Revolution had been fought at Breed’s Hill (Battle of Bunker Hill) outside of Boston. Rebelling Americans were also growing increasingly bold in their attacks on vulnerable British ships . The Blue Mountain Valley was a 100-foot British vessel that had sailed as part of a 24-ship convoy from London to Boston to supply the British Army camped there. The heavily-loaded vessel broke its rudder and was blown off course during a storm and made landfall on January 18 near Egg Harbor. It trudged north on the Jersey shore until it grounded on the Jersey shore, six miles south of Sandy Hook. On January 21, 1776, the pilot at Sandy Hook, William Dobbs, ferried a few men from the ship to shore at the request of the ship’s captain, Dempster. They headed for New York to alert the HMS Asia , the largest British warship anchored at New York at the time. Dobbs had already sent a boat ahead of the sailors to alert the New York Committee of Safety about Blue Mountain Valley and its vulnerable position. The New York Committee of Safety, knowing that the ship was in New Jersey waters, alerted New Jersey’s top Continental Army officer, Lord Stirling (William Alexander). The New Yorkers warned Stirling that the vessel had six cannon and a crew of at least 20 men. They also suggested that it was heavily loaded with ammunition. The Council of Safety concluded, “It would greatly serve the public cause if she could be seized.” Stirling, with 40 Continental Army volunteers, left in a pilot boat from Perth Amboy; they were soon joined by 80 more volunteers from the Essex County militia in several small boats. One of those volunteers, a man named William Marriner, would go on to lead a number of successful maritime raids against British shipping between 1778 and 1780. Together, the motley flotilla headed for the stranded ship. Stirling’s small boats were mistaken for British boats (antiquarian accounts suggest they were mistaken for fishing vessels) by Captain Dempster. So, Blue Mountain Valley did not fire upon Stirling’s boats as they rowed closer. The New Jerseyans came up on the ship and climbed aboard. Stirling’s men were too numerous to be resisted by the small crew of the Blue Mountain Valley . “We boarded her and took her without opposition,” Stirling would report. Stirling’s timing was fortunate. According to historian Donald Shomette, a boat with 15 men from the HMS Phoenix was on its way to help Blue Mountain Valley when Stirling boarded the vessel. One antiquarian narrative of the capture also suggests that Blue Mountain Valley had just floated off a sandbar when Stirling’s party arrived; the vessel might have escaped with just a little more time. Stirling reported to the Continental Congress that the Blue Mountain Valley carried: “107 tons of coal, 100 butts of porter, 15 tons of potato, 112 tons of bean, 10 casks of sour krout [sic] and 8 hogs.” He predicted that more British vessels would seek to supply the British and recommended stationing “four or six small vessels” near Sandy Hook to pick them off. This did not happen, but the state of New York would soon assign two sloops to cruise the New Jersey shoreline. Captain Dempster also provided an account of the capture of the Blue Mountain Valley . He wrote: They fitted out four vessels, about sixty men each, about 200 men, an overmatch as you may easily believe for a ship of four small guns, and sixteen hands after twelve weeks at sea, and hardly able to keep the ship from sinking. When the vessels made their appearance, I took from the vessels they [were] from the men-of-war, the officer commanding the party being dressed in the uniform of a Lieutenant of the Navy, and I did not then know my mate had been taken prisoner. They boarded the ship and carried her for about ten or twelve miles up a river from which two of the King's ships lay in a place called Elizabethtown, making a prize of the ship and cargo and myself a prisoner on parole. Stirling’s time off Sandy Hook also exposed him to something troubling – he apparently witnessed locals and Loyalists illegally traveling to British naval vessels in New York Harbor. He wrote: “Attempts have been made in this Province to break through the prohibition ordered by Congress to the shipping of lumber and provisions [to the British]. I have taken every step in my power to prevent it, and have laid the whole proceedings before the Convention of this Province.” Curbing illegal trade and emigration between the Monmouth shore and British interests would remain a problem for the next seven years. On January 29, the New Jersey Provincial Congress affirmed the seizure of the Blue Mountain Valley as legal, and the Continental Congress concurred two weeks later. The capture of the Blue Mountain Valley was reported in New York and Philadelphia newspapers. Word of the capture spread--even the Virginia Gazette in far off Williamsburg noted the capture. The cargo of Blue Mountain VAlley was sold at Elizabethtown on March 18. The British retaliated, if half-heartedly. On March 26, boats from the HMS Phoenix came into Elizabeth harbor. They re-took a small British vessel, Lady Gage (now the property of Stirling) and set fire to the Blue Mountain Valley . But locals rallied to defend the harbor and the fires were extinguished after the British withdrew. The Blue Mountain Valley was the third British ship taken off the Monmouth shore; the British Navy would soon increase in strength and take American ships along the New Jersey shore. Related Historical Sites : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Calendar of New York Historical Transcripts, (Albany, NY: privately printed, 1868) vol. 1, 220; Benson Lossing, Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution (reprint: Kessinger Publishing, NY, 2006) v1, p328-9; David Paul Nelson, The Life of William Alexander - Lord Stirling (Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama Press, 1987) p71; Peter Force, American Archives, (Force and Clarke: Washington, DC, 1837) Series 4, vol. 4, 1064; New Jersey State Archives, Dept of Defense, Military Records, Revolutionary War Copies, box 28, #6; "Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v3: p 867; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015); Larry R. Gerlach, Prologue to Independence: New Jersey in the Coming of the Revolution (New Brunswick, N.J., 1976), p 304; Coldham, comp., American Loyalist Claims (Washington, D.C.: National Genealogical Society, 1980), p 9; Franklin Kemp, The Capture of Enemy Vessels by Ground Troops in New Jersey 1775 – 1783, (privately printed: Egg Harbor, NJ), p 19; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 179, item 162, #384; Virginia Gazette, February 10, 1776; Fehlings, Gregory E. “ 'Act of Piracy': The Continental Army and the Blue Mountain Valley,” New Jersey History vol. 115, 1997, pp. 61-6; Peter Force, American Archives, (Force and Clarke: Washington, DC, 1837) Series 4, vol. 4, P851; Library of Congress, NY Gaz & Weekly Mercury, reel 2904; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 39 note; Peter Force, American Archives, v4: 913. Previous Next

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Competition for Continental Army Recruits in Monmouth County by Michael Adelberg Broadsides like this one were posted across New Jersey. Continental Army recruits were promised a bounty, a uniform, and, sometimes, land in the West. But few recruits were raised in 1777. - May 1777 - In the spring of 1777, there was a great need to bring men into the Continental Army. The soldiers who had enlisted in 1776 had served their time and most were heading home. George Washington’s army needed to be rebuilt against the professional British Army with long term troops. The Continental Congress focused on this need and recommended to the states that future enlistments run for three years or the length of the war. It also focused on widening the pool of recruits. Below is one example of a resolution passed with the goal of enhancing Continental Army recruitment: Resolved, that it be recommended to the Legislatures of each of the United States to enact laws exempting from actual service any two of the militia who shall, within the time limited by such laws, furnish one able-bodied recruit to serve in any battalion of the Continental Army, for the term of three years or the present war - such exemption to continue during the term for which the recruit shall enlist, and every such recruit be entitled to the Continental bounty and other allowances. Congress further recommended that the states permit "the enlisting of servants and apprentices” and allow debtors to enlist. It encouraged states to raise enlistment bounties. Initial bans against African Americans joining the army were reversed. Each state was responsible for raising its own troops and New Jersey—as the “crossroads of the Revolution”—responded by increasing its recruiting bounties and creating a new Continental Army regiment to be raised under Colonel Oliver Spencer. While Spencer was based in Essex County, his recruiters ranged across northern New Jersey and into Monmouth County. Across New Jersey but particularly in Monmouth County, young men who were willing to fight had many options—the New Jersey Continental Line, Spencer’s new regiment, David Forman’s Additional Regiment —and British service in the New Jersey Volunteers. Mark Lender, the premier historian of the Continental Army, observed that after an initial surge of patriotism in 1776, recruits to the Army were generally young and poor men lured by bounties. While there is no reason to doubt Lender’s generalization, there were some exceptions. Jonathan Holmes of Allentown, for example, enlisted into the New Jersey Line at Bordentown on January 6, 1777. He wrote his father: "I have this day joined the Light Horse, for I think it don't do to lie by as an idle spectator at this critical time." David Forman Complains about Outside Recruiters The efforts of the New Jersey Government to recruit men for the state’s Continental Line adversely impacted David Forman’s efforts to recruit men for his Additional Regiment. On May 28, Forman complained to the Continental Congress: By the laws of such State Legislatures we have too much reason to fear the recruiting service as it respects a certain part of the Army of the United States will be much impeded... we are sorry to find that certain laws passed by the Legislatures of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, that we are by no means considered to be on equal footing with the other Regiments [i.e., State Lines], but we are laid under such restrictions as amounting in all its consequences to an entire prohibition. Forman described his men as "persons warmly attached to American Liberty, who have not entered the service from lucrative or ambitious motives." He and the officers in his regiment were frustrated by the uneven recruiting practices. He called recruiting parity: "We therefore hope your Honorable House will consider our situation and put us on a respectable footing as those of the eight Regiments, by establishing our authority to equality in the different States." His memorial was referred to Congress’s War Department and it appears no action was taken directly related to it. Forman was permitted to recruit for his regiment from the body of captured Loyalist insurrectionists jailed in Philadelphia. However, those efforts produced only a handful of recruits. Other Tensions Created by Recruiting The New Jersey Legislature continued to focus on raising men for the Continental Army. In October, it appointed two recruiters from each county to raise troops for the Continental Line. For Monmouth County, Kenneth Anderson (the County Clerk) and Gilbert Longstreet were appointed. The state continued to raise bounties throughout the war, but in Monmouth County, there were allegations of bounty theft. John M. Covenhoven (known as John M. to distinguish him from other men of the same name) recalled that he "enlisted for six months under Capt. David Gordon,” but claimed that “Gordon cheated him of his bounty." Recruiting for the Army also created tensions with Monmouth County’s large Quaker community. Jacob Hall recalled an incident in 1780 in which: This deponent was then encamped at Freehold town when Capt. William Barton brought in a number of recruits for the Army, among them was young Solomon Ivins... That old Solomon Ivins (the Quaker Preacher) came to camp on horseback in order to induce his son to leave the company, and he would procure him a substitute. Solomon Ivins defied his father: “He would not leave the Army to please the old fellow; the said Solomon Ivins was a good soldier and served until the close of the war." The Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers were also campaigning for recruits. Colonel John Morris, looking to fill his 2nd Battalion, advertised for recruits in Loyalist newspapers in March and May 1777. He offered an £5 recruitment bounty plus "each man shall be entitled to fifty acres of land in this province at the expiration of the rebellion." Via former militia colonel George Taylor, recruiting handbills for the New Jersey Volunteers were circulated throughout northern Monmouth County. Taylor recruited on his various incursions into Monmouth County in the spring of 1777. The results of all of this recruiting activity in Monmouth County were generally unimpressive. Monmouth Countians did not join the state’s Continental Line in great numbers. It appears that only one company—under Captain Jonathan Forman—was raised for the Continental Line from the county in 1777. Forman’s Additional Regiment also remained small—topping out at around 100 men. The low number of recruits reflects the underlying reality that Monmouth County—despite the tumult—was a place of considerable economic opportunity in 1777. Young men had many opportunities including producing agricultural and maritime products for eager commissaries . Monmouth Countians could also participate in new industries in need of laborers—particularly salt-making and privateering. Economic opportunities aside, many Monmouth Countians remained unconvinced that Revolution was the right path. The ranks of the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers swelled in early 1777. Illegal trade with the British was lucrative and low-risk through most of the war. This was the underlying reason that relatively few Monmouth men served in the Continental Army. Related Historic Site : National Museum of the United States Army (Ft. Belvoir, VA) Sources : Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of John M. Conover of Pennsylvania, National Archives, p4-7; Advertisement, New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury, March 10, 1777; New Jersey State Archives, Dept of Defense, Military Records, Revolutionary War Copies, box 27, #16; American Memory Project, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collection/continental ; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Solomon Ivins; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 49, item 41, vol. 3, #179-80; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 8, p 394; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p122-3; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 10, 1777, p 200. Previous Next

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Monmouth County Prepares for Return of French Fleet by Michael Adelberg In October 1779, British Adm. Marriot Arbuthnot prepared Sandy Hook for attack by the French fleet. Concurrently, pilots were rushed to Monmouth County to guide the French—who never came. - October 1779 - In July 1778, a large French fleet anchored off Shrewsbury Inlet (connecting the Shrewsbury River to the ocean at modern-day Sea Bright). It had the firepower to destroy the British fleet at Sandy Hook but its largest ships, when loaded, sat too deep in the water to enter the Sand Hook channel. Compounding this problem, the fleet—particularly when it first anchored—was not well supported by the Continental or New Jersey government. It took a week to establish a steady flow of provisions and send reputable pilots. Those pilots counseled that the largest French ships sat too deep into the water to cross over to Sandy Hook. So, the French weighed anchor and left for Rhode Island. They eventually headed for the West Indies. In summer 1779, word arrived that the French fleet had left the West Indies and was heading northward. Neither the British nor Continental armies knew the location of the French fleet. In New York, the German Officer Heinrich von Feilitsch wrote: "Rumor is that a French fleet is expected here… it is assumed he [Admiral Charles Henri D'Estaing] will come again to Sandy Hook. Certainly, no one knows the truth." Ships stayed in port. Brooklyn Loyalist, R.W. Parker wrote: "The damned French fleet has disconcerted everything, I did expect to have cheated winter by getting southward, but I now apprehend I shall have to continue here." On September 13, George Washington ordered Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee back into Monmouth County : "I desire that you will, with the remainder of your corps, [go] to the County of Monmouth and take a position as near the coast as you can, without making yourself liable to a surprise." His primary job was to locate the expected French Fleet and establish communications. Gathering Pilots for the French Fleet By early October, efforts were underway to get the best Sandy Hook pilots into Monmouth County. Washington wrote New Jersey Governor, William Livingston, on October 4: It is essential that some good pilots should be ready to go on Board the French fleet the moment it appears perfectly acquainted with the entrance into New York harbor. Wm. Van Drill who resides in your State I am informed is one of the best that can be had. I shall be much obliged to your Excellency immediately to engage Mr. Van Drill to go down to Monmouth and join Major Lee at English Town… If there are any others on whose skill and fidelity we can depend within your Excellency's reach, I request they may be also sent. That same day, Nathaniel Scudder of Freehold, serving in the Continental Congress, wrote Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress. Scudder discussed his absence from Congress and the expected arrival of French fleet, "We expect the appearance of the Count [D’Estaing] at Sandy Hook every hour... Pilots are providing for him as soon as possible -- two of them lodged with me last night, and are gone down this morning." The identity of these pilots is unknown. Alexander Hamilton wrote about other pilots on the 6th: "Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Redfield are engaged to go on Board the French fleet as pilots. The former is well acquainted with the passage of the Hook and the latter with the navigation of the North River.” The pilots were Wiliam Dobbs, the resident pilot at Sandy Hook before the war, and William Redfield of Connecticut. Geroge Washington wrote of them on the same day in a letter to Congress: Two pilots—Capn Dobbs & a Mr Redfield set out a few hours ago for Philadelphia—and I should hope from the measures I have taken—that there will be others immediately with you—or on the Coast of Monmouth, ready to embark on board the Count’s Squadron. At least one prominent pilot was not available. The Loyalist New York Gazette wrote on October 13 about William Fundrum, "a very skillful pilot of our harbor" who had returned to New York. In July 1778 he was "forced aboard the French fleet" and counseled the French against sailing their large warships into the Sandy Hook channel, "he absolutely refused the undertaking as hazardous and impracticable." British Prepare Sandy Hook for Attack Rumors and falsehoods about the French fleet spread rapidly. In New York City, German officer, Johann Prechtel, wrote that "seventeen French warships arrived off Sandy Hook, they then turned back to sea." Colonel Isaac Angell in northern New York wrote on October 7, "We rec'd an account that Count D'Estaing was at Sandy Hook, and had taken all the British shipping and men." On October 9, Colonel David Forman, at Manalapan, predicted that the climactic battle for New York City would soon begin: Reports say the Count is determined for New York -- should that be the case, I have determined with myself once more to have the pleasure to visit with my military friends and share with the fatigue of the attack of New York. At Sandy Hook , as they had in July 1778, the British prepared for the French attack. Admiral Marriot Arbuthnot, commanding at Sandy Hook, wrote General Henry Clinton on October 4 about the need to strengthen defenses: I must entreat your Excellency to strengthen the former batteries [at the Hook] with many more guns than heretofore because my situation is very different from Lord Howe's [in July 1778], both from the weakness of my command and the strength of the enemy; nor will it be possible to make a strong impression without the assistance of a very strong shore battery. Clinton responded affirmatively the next day, "I think Sandy Hook worthy of my own protection.” The enhanced defenses at Sandy Hook were observed by scouting parties on the Navesink Highlands. National Scudder wrote, "They now have a number of men at Sandy Hook, erecting a fort & batteries with heavy cannon." Captain John Walton wrote, "the enemy at Sandy Hook are fortifying there, I believe they expect trouble soon & hopefully they will not be disappointed." Those same scouting parties reported on positions being taken by British warships to concentrate fire on Sandy Hook’s channel. One of those reported was printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette: "Ships lying at the Hook: Russell 74 guns, Capt. Drake; Europe 64 guns, Capt. Edwards; Reasonable 64 guns, Capt. Collier; Renown 50 guns, Roebuck 44 guns" and also "a chain of ships consisting of eleven sail, were to be sunk in the channel" to impede entrance into the harbor. Samuel Culper, Jr., a Continental spy in New York also wrote about the sinking of hulks off Sandy Hook: "The transports which I intimated are taking water and ballast was for the use of the ships at Sandy Hook. The pilots say that it is now very difficult to bring a vessel in, owing to the hulks which were lately sunken there." A week later, Culper reported on four additional hulks being sunk in the channel to block the French entrance. On October 20, George Washington wrote: We are making every preparation in our power for an extensive and perfect co-operation with the fleet (if it comes) while the enemy, whose expectation of it keeps pace with ours, are equally vigorous in preparing for defence. He also wrote of the defenses at Sandy Hook: They have already sunk eight, and have 12 more large Ships to sink in the Channel within the light House… they work incessantly; and will, it is to be feared, render the entrance into the harbor extremely difficult, if not impracticable. Major Lee at Freehold also reported on British defenses at Sandy Hook: The enemy’s strength at the hook consists in two 64, the Europa & Russell—the Raisonable, Renown Roebuck & Romulus. Besides these they have a few frigates & some armed Schooners. They have sunk ten hulks in the outer channel & have more ready to be sunk, some of those sunk have got afloat & reached shore. Not knowing where and when the French would arrive, Continental officers were sent to greet them at Cape May and Little Egg Harbor. Washington sent Alexander Hamilton to the Navesink Highlands on October 25. Although there were presumably pilots on hand by October 25, the Continental Congress sent an additional pilot, Captain Patrick Dennis, to Monmouth County on October 29. This occurred even as the British, according to a letter from Lee, began dismantling their defenses at Sandy Hook. "The heavy cannon placed in the batteries at the Hook, to secure the channel, was taken off." By the middle of November, doubts were being raised about the French fleet’s expected arrival. Interestingly, one of those reports came from the prominent Loyalist, William Smith, in New York. On November 16, he expressed doubt that the French would come to New York based on intelligence provided by "people from Shrewsbury." D’Estaing’s fleet did not return to Sandy Hook—Continental and British efforts on both sides of Sandy Hook were in vain. Instead, D’Estaing unsuccessfully besieged the British base at Savannah, Georgia. In spring 1780, new intelligence was received about the French fleet’s expected arrival on the Jersey shore and a new set of preparations were made. Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Marine Committee to Henry Lee, National Archives, Collection 332, reel 6, #230; Heinrich von Feilitsch quoted in Bruce Burgoyne, Diaries of Two Ansbach Jaegers (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p56; Heinrich von Feilitsch quoted in Bruce Burgoyne, A Hessian Officer's Diary of the American Revolution (NY: Heritage Books, 1994) p37; George Washington to Henry Lee, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 16, pp. 279, 367; R.W. Parker to Seth Norton, Naussau County Museum, Seth Norton Papers, L82.2.48; George Washington to William Livingston, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw160418)); George Washington to Henri D’Estaing In George Clinton, Public Papers of George Clinton, First Governor of New York, 1777-1795 (Albany: Hugh Hastings, 1904) vol. 1, pp 292-3; Nathaniel Scudder to Henry Laurens, Letters to Delegates of Congress, vol. 14, p22-3 ( www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html ); Alexander Hamilton to Congress, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 2, 1779–1781, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 198–199; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 22, 1 August–21 October 1779, ed. Benjamin L. Huggins. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013, pp. 642–643; George Washington to Congress, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw160434)) ; Isaac Angell, Diary of Isaac Angell (Providence, RI: Preston & Rounds, 1899) p77; David Forman to Nathanael Greene, University of Michigan, Clements Library, Nathanael Greene Papers, box 5, doc 23; Marriott Arbuthnot to Henry Clinton, B. F. Stevens, ed., Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives Relating to America, 1773–1783, [25 vols., London, 1889–1898], vol. 10, #1007, 1009; John Walton to Congress, Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 104, item 78, vol. 24, #187, 189; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 15, p 1166; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post; Morton Pennypacker, General Washington's spies on Long Island and in New York (New York: Long Island Historical Society, 1939) pp. 63, 258-9; George Washington to Marquis de Lafayette, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw160520)) ; Henry Lee to Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 2, 1779–1781, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 208–209; George Washington to Henry Lee, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 62, October 25, 1779; Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961) vol. 2, pp. 213-5; George Washington to Lord Stirling, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw170041)) ; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw170041)) ; Pennsylvania Gazette, November 3, 1779 (CD-ROM at the David Library, #27637); Marine Committee of Congress to Henry Lee, Charles Paulin, Out-Letters of the Marine Committee and Board of Admiralty (New York: Navy History Society, 1914) vol. 2, pp. 124-5; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) p 184. 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 Local Response to the Hanging of Joshua Huddy by Michael Adelberg Monmouth Countians were outraged by the hanging of Joshua Huddy. They sought redress from the Continental Army. General Henry Knox was the first army general to learn of Huddy’s death. - April 1782 - On April 12, 1782, a party of Loyalists led by Richard Lippincott, hanged Joshua Huddy on the Navesink Highlands . The hanging was an act of retaliation for the murder of the Loyalist Philip White two weeks earlier. The cycle of escalating retaliation between the vengeful Associated Loyalists based in New York and the equally vengeful Association for Retaliation in Monmouth County had been building for more than a year. With Huddy’s hanging, it finally reached a crescendo of eye-for-an-eye executions. The futility of vigilante retaliation is revealed by the note that was pinned to Huddy’s swinging corpse: We, the Refugees, having with grief long beheld the cruel murders of our brethren and finding nothing but such measures daily carrying into execution— We therefore determine not to suffer without taking vengeance for the numerous cruelties, and thus began and have made use of Capt. Huddy as first object to present to your views, and further determine to hang man for man as long as a Refugee is left existing. -- Up goes Huddy for Philip White. With only a few name changes, the exact same note could have been pinned to White’s body and delivered to the British base at Sandy Hook. Huddy’s body was discovered and brought to Freehold on April 13. Antiquarian sources claim that Huddy’s corpse was laid in the tavern of James Green, the former Colts Neck militia captain who had moved further inland for safety. A crowd gathered to pay respects and, no doubt, discuss the best way to exact revenge. Building the Case for Additional Retaliation By April 14, a petition to George Washington was drafted. The petition placed Huddy’s hanging in the context of a string of recent events and Loyalist atrocities. For example, the petitioners claimed that after Huddy surrendered his 25-man guard at Toms River on March 24, "five of Captain Huddy's men were most inhumanly murdered after his surrender." The petitioners rightly complained that Huddy had no role in the killing of Philip White. Loyalists had "told him [Huddy] that he was to be hanged for he had taken a certain refugee by the name of Philip White.” But Huddy was confined in New York City at the time of White's death, March 31. The petitioners also disputed the overblown rumors of White’s corpse being mistreated. The guards had not ”cut off his arms, broke his legs, pulled out one of his eyes." The petitioners concluded with a call for further retaliation: We do as a right look to your Excellency as the person in whom the sole of avenging of our wrongs is lodged, and who has full and ample authority to bring a British officer of the same rank to a similar end... and we with the fullest assurances rely upon receiving effectual support from your Excellency. The next day, a long memorial was compiled by fifteen of Monmouth County’s senior leaders: Colonel David Forman, Assemblyman John Covenhoven, Assemblyman Thomas Seabrook, Judge Peter Forman, Magistrate Richard Cox, Captain Joseph Stillwell, Captain Barnes Smock, Captain John Schenck, Colonel Samuel Forman, Attorney William Wilcocks, Colonel Asher Holmes, Major Elisha Walton, Captain Stephen Fleming, Lt. Colonel John Smock, and Captain Thomas Chadwick. The memorial was clearly informed by Daniel Randolph and Aaron Fleming. They had been captured with Huddy at Toms River, jailed with him in New York, and brought back into Monmouth County with Huddy. The memorialists explained their purpose this way: The murder [of Huddy] was attended with so much deliberate injustice and wanton cruelty that the circumstances ought to be preserved and made publick, not only to call upon the vengeance of his countrymen and to expiate the manes of the sufferer, but as a shocking instance of the blackness of that guilt on which human nature is capable. Huddy was lionized for the defense of his Colts Neck home when it was attacked by Loyalists: Capt. Huddy was one of the bravest men, a fit subject therefore of their cowardly inhumanity.—He has distinguished himself on a variety of occasions, one instance of which I cannot avoid mentioning: The summer before last, alone and unassisted, except by a woman [Lucretia Emmons], he defended his house against a party of nearly seventy refugees for several hours and where it was in a manner riddled with musket balls and in flames about him, he refused to submit until he obtained from his assailants safe and honorable terms: Among the number who were killed in that encounter was the famous Negro [Colonel] Tye, justly much more to be feared than respected, as an enemy, than any of his brethren of the fairer complexion. The memorialists then discussed Huddy’s capture at Toms River and after “his the brave little garrison” ran out of ammunition: Capt. Huddy also commanded the troops at the Block House on Tom’s River when it was lately reduced: He defended it most gallantly against vastly superior numbers until his ammunition was expended, and no alternative was left. The memorialists described Huddy’s capture in New York and then he, Randolph and Fleming “were put into the hold of a vessel. Capt. Huddy was ironed, hand and foot.” While on the boat, Huddy was told that he would be hanged: On Monday last, a certain John Tilton, a refugee, came to him, “that he was ordered (by the board of Refugees we suppose) to be hanged.” Capt. Huddy asked, “what charge was alleged against him?” Tilton replied that, “that he had taken a certain Philip White, a refugee, six miles up in the country, cut off both his arms, broke both his legs, pulled out one of his eyes, and then damned him and bid him to run.” To this Huddy answered, “It is impossible that I could have taken Philip White, I being prisoner closely confined in New York at the time, and for many days, before he was made a prisoner.” Justice Randolph confirmed what Huddy said and assured Tilton that he could not possibly be chargeable with White’s death; upon which Tilton told Mr. Randolph that “he should be hanged next.” This flimsy story must have been created by the murderous hearts of the Refugees, to cloak their villainy. The prisoners were confined on the guard ship at Sandy Hook until the morning of April 12. Then the memorialists wrote “some men, strangers to the prisoners, came below and told Capt. Huddy to ‘prepare to be hanged immediately.’” Huddy, reportedly, took the news bravely: He again said, He was not guilty of having killed White,” and that “he should die an innocent man and in a good cause,” and with the most uncommon fortitude and composure of mind, prepared for his end, and with the spirit of a true son of Liberty, he waited the moment of his fate, which he met with a degree of firmness and serenity which struck the coward hearts of his executioners with admiration. He even executed his will under the gallows, upon the head of that barrel from which he was immediately to make his exit, and in a hand writing fairer than usual. The memorialists then turned their attention to Philip White, whom they blamed for faking a surrender: “After he had laid down his arms in token of surrendering himself a prisoner, he again took up his musket and killed the son of Coll. [Daniel] Hendrickson.” White was taken by the mounted State Troop company of Captain John Walton, but again attempted an escape. His mounted guards rode in front of him and “several times” called for his surrender, “but he continued running.” When White leaped toward a bog “impassable by our horse” he “received a stroke in the head with a sword, which killed him instantly.” The memorialists claimed to be informed by “the voluntary and candid testimony of one Aaron White, who was taken prisoner with said Philip.” Aaron White was captured at the time at the same time as his brother, Philip. Shortly after making a statement about Philip White’s death, he escaped from prison and made it to New York. There, he gave a statement that claimed his first statement was largely false—due to pressure being put on him by David Forman and because he was never given a chance to review it. Aaron White gave a new, longer statement claiming that his brother’s death was premeditated murder by guards who openly discussed killing him, provoked his escape, and delivered several sword and gunstock blows before Philip White finally died. Affidavits from those same guards contradicted parts of the memorial above. Presenting the Case for Additional Retaliation The petition and memorial were extraordinary documents. While documents of the era were prone to emotional language, no Revolutionary-era Monmouth County document was written as strongly as the memorial. The memorial is also the longest protest document from Monmouth County from this era. Finally, while parts of the memorial are written in the first person (perhaps by Thomas Henderson), the memorial was submitted by fifteen authors. The Monmouth County petition and memorial were carried by Colonel David Forman (who provided Washington with intelligence on British movements at Sandy Hook and led Association for Retaliation) and Colonel Asher Holmes (the senior colonel of the Monmouth County militia and colonel of Monmouth County’s State Troops ). The co-presentation of the petition by Forman and Holmes was symbolically important, as the men were known rivals from antagonistic factions of Machiavellian Whigs vs. Due Process Whigs in Monmouth County. These factions clashed on topics related to law and order, prisoner exchanges , and compulsory purchases from reluctant farmers. Leaders from these factions had (literally) come to blows at the 1780 and 1781 county elections. The mutual outrage of Forman and Holmes at Huddy’s hanging was a powerful unity statement. Forman and Holmes apparently did not speak directly with Washington, at least not initially. Instead, they went to Elizabethtown, the base of operations for prisoner of war exchanges, and spoke with General Henry Knox and Gouverneur Morris (of the Continental Congress). Knox wrote George Washington on April 16 that “Genl. Forman is now on his way to you with representation of the hanging of Captain Huddy by the Refugees." Knox and Morris noted that the prisoner of war commissioners at Elizabethtown "seemed surprised & wounded by the information," They doubted that General Henry Clinton, the British Commander in Chief, would condone the action. However, they wrote that the Associated Loyalists "act on their own authority” and are only subordinate to Clinton’s authority “if he pleases to exert it." Forman, without Holmes, went forward to Washington’s camp and spoke with him. Washington took some time, likely to consult with attorneys and prisoner of war commissioners, and then wrote his first letters about the scandalous hanging on April 20. Forman returned home on April 19 and took another set of affidavits about the killings of White and Huddy—including statements from Huddy’s three guards—William Borden, John North, and John Russell. Forman then composed his own statement. Outrage over Huddy’s hanging influenced the courts in Monmouth County. In May, Monmouth County’s Court of Common Pleas, on which David Forman served as a judge, re-started the Loyalist estate confiscation process. And the county convened its fifth Court of Oyer and Terminer that same month—with Forman serving on the panel of judges. This court had more felony convictions than that of any of Monmouth County’s prior courts and imposed several capital convictions. Perspective The extraordinary unity shown by Monmouth County’s leaders regarding Huddy’s execution would not last. David Forman continued to lead the Retaliators in vigilante acts even as the British drydocked the Associated Loyalists who provoked brutal retaliation with their own brutal acts. The rivalry between Machiavellian Whigs and Due Process Whigs was enflamed again by the fall—as evidenced by the creation of a flurry of new Whig associations which likely came into existence, at least in part, as a counterbalance against the Retaliators. Meanwhile, the hanging of Joshua Huddy careened from a local to an international event . Soon, Washington would demand the body of Huddy’s executioner (Richard Lippincott) and threaten to hang a British officer if the man was not delivered. The British commander in chief would court-martial Richard Lippincott, but not turn him over. Senior officials in the American, British and French governments were pulled into months of diplomacy over two local acts in Monmouth County. Related Historic Site : Huddy Park Appendix: Letter from Monmouth dated April 15, 1782 printed in New Jersey Gazette, April 24 Last Saturday was brought to this place the corpse of Capt. Joshua Huddy, who was at about ten o’clock the day before most barbarously and unwarrantably hanged at Middletown-Point, by a party of Refugees.—The murder was attended with so much deliberate injustice and wanton cruelty that the circumstances ought to be preserved and made publick, not only to call upon the vengeance of his countrymen to expiate the manes of the sufferer, but as a shocking instance of the blackness of that guilt on which human nature is capable. Capt. Huddy was one of the bravest men, a fit subject therefore of their cowardly inhumanity.—He has distinguished himself on a variety of occasions, one instance of which I cannot avoid mentioning: The summer before last, alone and unassisted, except by a woman, he defended his house against a party of nearly seventy refugees for several hours and where it was in a manner riddled with musket balls and in flames about him, he refused to submit until he obtained from his assailants safe and honourable terms: among the number who were killed in that encounter was the famous Negro Tye, justly much more to be feared than respected, as an enemy, than any of his brethren of the fairer complexion.—Capt. Huddy also commanded the troops at the Block House on Tom’s River when it was lately reduced: he defended it most gallantly against vastly superior numbers until his ammunition was expended, and no alternative was left.—The refugees, like their British task masters, who employ them in every kind of infamous business, are always cruel in success and pitifully mean in adversity. After the brave little garrison was in their power, they deliberately murdered five soldiers asking for quarter. From Tom’s River, Capt. Huddy, Justice Randolph, and the remaining prisoners, were taken to New York, where suffering the various progressions of barbarity usually exercised upon those who are detained to a violent or a lingering death, those two gentlemen, with a Mr. Fleming, were put into the hold of a vessel. Capt. Huddy was ironed, hand and foot. On Monday last, a certain John Tilton, a refugee, came to him, “that he was ordered (by the board of Refugees we suppose) to be hanged.” Capt. Huddy asked, “what charge was alleged against him?” Tilton replied that, “that he had taken a certain Philip White, a refugee, six miles up in the country, cut off both his arms, broke both his legs, pulled out one of his eyes, and then damned him and bid him to run.” To this Huddy answered, “It is impossible that I could have taken Philip White, I being prisoner closely confined in New York at the time, and for many days, before he was made a prisoner.” Justice Randolph confirmed what Huddy said and assured Tilton that he could not possibly be chargeable with White’s death; upon which Tilton told Mr. Randolph that “he should be hanged next.” This flimsy story, which must have been created by the murderous hearts of the Refugees, to cloak their villainy, was the only charge against Capt. Huddy, and was the common subject of their conversation. From the sloop Capt. Huddy, with his fellow prisoners, were put on board the guard ship at the Hook, and confined between decks till Friday morning, the 12th instant, when some men, strangers to the prisoners, came below and told Capt. Huddy to “prepare to be hanged immediately.” He again said, He was not guilty of having killed White,” and that “he should die an innocent man and in a good cause”, and with the most uncommon fortitude and composure of mind, prepared for his end, and with the spirit of a true son of Liberty, he waited the moment of his fate, which he met with a degree of firmness and serenity which struck the coward hearts of his executioners with admiration.—He even executed his will under the gallows, upon the head of that barrel from which he was immediately to make his exit, and in a hand writing fairer than usual. The circumstances attending the death of the above mentioned Philip White were as follows: On Saturday, the 30th of March last, he was surprised by a party of our people, and after he had laid down his arms, in token of surrendering himself a prisoner, he again took up his musket and killed the son of Coll. Hendrickson; he was however taken by our Light Horse, and on his way from Colt’s Neck to Freehold, where they were conducting him, he again attempted to make his escape from the guard, who called on him several times to surrender, but he continued running although often crossed and recrossed by light horse, and desired to stop, and finally, when leaping into a bog, impassable by our horse, he received a stroke in the head with a sword, which killed him instantly. The above facts have not only been proved by the affidavits of our fiends who were present, but by the voluntary and candid testimony of one Aaron White, who was taken prisoner with said Philip. Captain Huddy was taken prisoner on the 24th of March, and kept in close custody with Justice Randolph, out of whose presence he never was until his hour of execution, which shows how impossible it was for him to have been concerned in White’s death, and that they must have known this was so. To show their intolerance yet further, they left the following label affixed to the breast of unfortunate Capt. Huddy -- “We, the Refugees, having with grief long beheld the cruel murders of our brethren and finding nothing but such measures daily carrying into execution— We therefore determine not to suffer without taking vengeance for the numerous cruelties, and thus began (and I say may those lose their liberty who do not follow on) and have made use of Capt. Huddy as the first object to present to your views, and further determine to hang man for man as long as a Refugee is left existing. -- Up goes Huddy for Philip White.” Sources : Waldo Wright, "The Captain Asgill Affair", The Dalhousie Review, 1962, vol. 42, p 453; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, April 24, 1782, reel 1930; New Jersey Gazette excerpted in William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 420; Henry Knox to George Washington, in Jared Sparks, Correspondence of the American Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown & Co) p500; Affidavits printed in Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 63-4; The Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, Provincial Archives of New Brunswick, Provincial Archives of New Brunswick (gnb.ca) ; Michael Adelberg, “The Transformation of Local Governance in Monmouth County, New Jersey during the War of the American Revolution,” Journal of the Early Republic , vol. 31, n3, Fall 2011, pp. 467-98. 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 Brearley Leaves Continental Army for the Supreme Court by Michael Adelberg David Brearley served as a Lt. Colonel in the Continental Army from 1776 into 1779. Difficult service made him willing to leave the army to become Chief Justice of New Jersey Supreme Court in July. - July 1779 - David Brearley was born in 1745 in Hunterdon County. He went to Princeton, studied law, and established a law practice at Allentown. He was an early and outspoken critic of British policies whose father was briefly arrested by Royal authorities. Brearley was the first colonel of the Upper Freehold militia before being mobilized as Lt. Colonel in General Nathaniel Heard’s New Jersey Flying Camp. He was with the Continental Army through the disastrous New York Campaign of 1776. Brearley was then commissioned the Lt. Colonel of the new 4th New Jersey Regiment of the Continental Army. Except for a furlough to be with his wife, Elizabeth, as she died in August 1777, Brearley served with the Army stoically through the difficult Philadelphia Campaign (fall 1777), the famous winter at Valley Forge, and the Battle of Monmouth . Brearley served faithfully but not silently. Along with Colonel Israel Shreve, he returned to New Jersey in February 1778 to advocate for better provisions for his men, shivering at Valley Forge. He appealed to the New Jersey government: The condition of the New Jersey troops is such that it would be criminal to keep silent longer… New Jersey soldiers are as brave as any. Why they should be neglected is a problem in politics hard to explain. Brearley also returned to Allentown in March to look in on his motherless children, but before he did, he was one of six officers to sign a memorial to the Continental Congress complaining about the inadequate provisions available to the Army. Leaving the Continental Army While the Continental Army’s winter at Valley Forge (1777-1778) is more famous, the winters of 1778-1779 and 1779-1780 were harsher on the men. The New Jersey Line shrunk from four to two regiments in 1778, but, even with the downsizing, the New Jersey government still struggled to recruit and provision its soldiers. On April 17, 1779, Brearley, Captain Jonathan Forman and Forman’s three junior officers signed a letter to the New Jersey Assembly complaining of the lack of provisions for the troops and the inflation that depreciated their pay. Three weeks later, Captain Forman wrote bitterly about the indifference of the New Jersey Legislature to its state’s soldiers. He sent near-identical letters directly to George Washington and Governor William Livingston on May 8. After mentioning past petitions to the state legislature, he stated: It will be proper to inform your Excellency that the officers of the Jersey Brigade have repeatedly at almost every session of the Assembly since 1777 memorialized upon the necessities of the troops, but we have the misfortune to inform your Excellency that not a single resolve was entered into the minutes on our favor. Forman threatened mass-resignation from New Jersey’s line officers: We have lost all confidence in our Legislature, reason and experience forbid that we should have any… We have the highest sense of your ability and virtue, the execution of your orders has given us pleasure, that we love the service and we love our Country; but when that Country gets so lost to virtue & justice as to forget to support its servants, it then becomes their duty to retire from that service. However, Forman did not resign. Brearley, as his commanding officer, may have convinced Forman to stay in the service. He remained in the Army until 1783, and was even promoted to Major. Washington wrote General William Maxwell, commanding Brearley’s regiment. He was unsympathetic: Our troops have been uniformly better fed than any others—they are at this time very well clad and probably will continue to be so—While this is the case, they [the complaining officers] will have no just cause of complaint. It is important that any misconception on this point should be rectified. Washington, however, took the complaint as an opportunity to lobby for his men. He forwarded Forman’s letter to John Jay, serving in the Continental Congress, warning that: “This is an affair which Congress will no doubt view in a very serious light.” He discussed that “the distresses in some corps are so great… that officers have solicited even to be supplied with the cloathing destined for the common soldiery.” Washington concluded: “The patience of men, animated by a sense of duty and honour will support them to a certain point, beyond which it will not go.” He ended the letter by warning of the “extreme danger” of a mass officer resignation. Meanwhile, Forman’s letter to Livingston apparently prompted action from the New Jersey Assembly. Washington wrote of a letter he received from Livingston: I have this moment received information that the Assembly have made some provision for their troops. It seems there was a compromise upon the occasion. The officers withdrew their remonstrance, and the Assembly went into the business. It is lamentable, that the measure should have been delayed, ’till it became in a manner extorted. Notwithstanding the expedient adopted for saving appearances, this cannot fail to operate as a bad precedent. After months of discontent, Brearley apparently readied to leave the Army. In May, he was ordered to prepare his men for a difficult campaign against the Iroquois and marched with them to Easton, in northeast Pennsylvania, where the campaign would soon begin. The prospect of spending months in the wilderness might have been the final nudge Brearley needed to look for other forms of service. He likely exchanged letters with New Jersey leaders about the state’s vacant Chief Justice position (Chief Justice Robert Morris resigned on June 10). On July 1, General John Sullivan, commanding the Army in Northeast Pennsylvania, wrote, "Lt Col Brearley having business of importance which calls him to New Jersey has leave to retire from the Army and settle the same." On July 2, Brearley recorded that he "retired from Wyoming." Soon, he was home in Monmouth County. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court On July 22, Brearley wrote the Continental Congress "that the State of New Jersey, to which he belongs, has lately appointed him Chief Justice of the State, an office important & honorable, but not lucrative.” He noted that the state “requested him to retire from the Army and enter upon the duties of that office” and “that he is determined to comply with the request; but is very desirous of holding his rank in the Army without pay." Congress dismissed the request, noting in its minutes: "Resolved, that the desire cannot be complied with." Brearley was in Philadelphia on July 25 when he received this news and presumably informed friendly members of Congress that he was leaving the Army to become New Jersey’s Chief Justice. Some sources suggest he served his first day as New Jersey’s Chief Justice on July 27 (the first day of the 3rd Monmouth County Court of Oyer and Terminer ) although Brearley would later state that August 4 was his first day of service. Despite Congress denying Brearley’s request to maintain his commission, he apparently never resigned, and this became a source of controversy. On September 4, Brearley wrote to Colonel Shreve, commanding the 2nd New Jersey Regiment, regarding complaints about him. Brearley wrote defensively that "they charge me with wishing to serve individuals, [but] so would every gentleman that wishes to do justice for his Country.” He then asked Shreve to deliver a tough message to the junior officers who wanted his commission: You therefore will please inform these gentlemen who wish so much for my promotion, and it is very uncertain when I shall or whether I shall resign at all; for when I was at Philadelphia, I was advised by some gentlemen of high rank and knowledge not to resign. Brearley did not resign until July 1780, and it apparently took the intervention of George Washington to force the matter. Washington wrote Brearley on July 7: I have to request that you would be so obliging as to inform me by the earliest opportunity at what time you were appointed as the Chief Justice of this State. My reason for this request is that a board of officers of the Jersey line ought to take rank from that time. Brearley replied on July 11: "I am to inform your Excellency, that I was sworn into Office as Chief Justice the fourth day of August last." Even at this time, he did not explicitly resign. Some sources suggest that Brearley finally resigned on March 17, 1780—eight months after he left the army. Brearley’s reluctance to resign was not without precedent. Monmouth County’s two other high ranking Continental Army officers behaved similarly: Lt. Colonel David Rhea did not resign his commission until summer 1780, despite leaving the army to serve as Monmouth County’s Quartermaster agent in 1778. Colonel David Forman lost command of his regiment in early 1778, but maintained his commission through the entire war. Brearley left Allentown and moved to a fourteen-acre farm outside of Trenton, but the job of Chief Justice kept him on the road much of the time. Over his decade of service as New Jersey’s Chief Justice, the state’s courts gradually professionalized and the irregularities that plagued New Jersey’s first courts steadily lessened. As Chief Justice, Brearley attended Courts of Oyer and Terminer on which he sat with a panel of county judges. These courts heard the most severe and politically-oriented charges. Brearley participated in meting out several death sentences, including many in Monmouth County. Brearley presided over Holmes v Walton , a case involving the seizure of silks from John Holmes and Solomon Ketchum of Middletown by Major Elisha Walton. While the goods were almost certainly acquired illegally, Holmes and Ketchum were not given a fair jury trial. The seizure was upheld by Judge John Anderson and a six-man mini-jury that was treated to free liquor by Walton. Holmes, lacking an appeal under the law, hired an attorney, William Wilcocks, a former Judge Advocate for the Continental Army, who filed a case before the New Jersey Supreme Court. Brearley likely knew of all of this as he became Chief Justice and was well-acquainted with Wilcocks, with whom he served in the Army. Brearley heard the case In September and invalidated the seizure of the silks on the grounds that the New Jersey law under which the seizure was made was unconstitutional (because it did not give Holmes a full jury trial, a right guaranteed in New Jersey’s Constitution). The case is the first known example of judicial review in U.S. history, and established the power of the courts to void a law as unconstitutional. However, Brearley took ten months to issue the ruling in order to give the New Jersey legislature time to amend the law. As Chief Justice, Brearley was able to take on special assignments, one of which was to host and serve on a multi-state commission to settle the boundary dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania over rights to northeast Pennsylvania. In late 1782, Brearley and the commission sided with Pennsylvania. At the end of his tenure, Brearley participated in the Constitutional Convention where he played a prominent role in advancing the “New Jersey Plan” for the new national Congress—a plan premised on all states having the same number of Congressional delegates regardless of their size. Brearley was also active in devising the Electoral College as a compromise between big and small states, and a check against a popular demagogue who might temporarily win the favor of an electoral majority. After the Convention, Brearley returned to New Jersey and played a leading role in getting the state to ratify the United States Constitution. He was an elector for New Jersey at the Electoral College that elected George Washington President, and then was appointed a federal judge by Washington. He died in 1790—having accomplished a remarkable amount in only 45 years of life. Related Historic Site : St. Michael’s Episcopal Church Sources : T.H. Pyle, David Brearley: America’s Most Important Forgotten Founding Father, unpublished manuscript in the possession of the Allentown Historical Society); William Stryker, The New Jersey Continental Line in the Indian Campaign of 1779, (1885) p 15; New York Historical Society, Fairchild Collection, item: Jonathan Forman; Selections from the Correspondence of the Executive of New Jersey, From 1776 to 1786 (Newark, NJ: Newark Daily Advertiser, 1848) p 146; Dennis Ryan, A Salute To Courage The American Revolution as Seen through Wartime Writings (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979) p 151; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 20, 8 April–31 May 1779, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2010, pp. 439–441; Diary, New Jersey State Archives, Revolutionary War, Manuscripts Coll., box 2, #12; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 14, p 861; Gen. John Sullivan to David Brearley, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I41, Memorials to Congress, v1, p475; David Brearley to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, Remonstrances to Congress, I43, p53; David Brearley to Israel Shreve, Pennsylvania Historical Society, Dreer Collection, David Brearley, September 4, 1779; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mgw:2:./temp/~ammem_wnJq:: and “To George Washington from David Brearley, 11 July 1780,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified November 26, 2017, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-02439 . 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 Soldiers Participate in Campaign against Iroquois by Michael Adelberg In summer 1779, New Jersey’s Continental Line marched into Pennsylvania to punish the Iroquois Indians for past frontier raids. About 100 Monmouth Countians participated in the campaign. - July 1779 - As described in another article, spring 1779 was a hard time for the New Jersey troops in the Continental Army. The state was unable to properly pay or provision its men. So, the soldiers of the New Jersey Line were in poor condition and foul disposition when they received orders to march west into Pennsylvania and campaign against the Iroquois Indians. Six Monmouth Countians—Captain John Burrowes, Lieutenant William Barton, Sergeants Michael Errickson, Moses Sproule, Thomas Roberts, and Privates Benjamin Paul and Henry Johnson—kept journals or wrote letters during parts of the campaign. This article highlights their documentation of the campaign. Before the Campaign Thomas Roberts of Middletown Point (serving under Captain Burrowes) recorded that his company left its camp at New Brunswick on May 29 and reached Easton on June 5. That day, the Army hanged three soldiers for desertion and made a fourth run the gauntlet. After spending a few days at Easton, the company marched further west. Michael Errickson of Freehold wrote of additional discipline on June 12: "three men hanged in presence of our troops and a great multitude of inhabitants, for murder & robbery." Lieutenant Barton of Allentown wrote his father, Gilbert Barton, from the village of Wyoming, Pennsylvania on June 22: Very few Indians seen near here lately – they supposed to be spies only… This place is composed of a few log huts and a fort on the river Susquehanna, which is a beautiful river. Our living is tolerable good as the woods abound with wild hogs of which the soldiers kill numbers. Barton complained of the “horrid roads” and inactivity: “We are laying here doing little or nothing, but hope soon to go on from this place.” A week later, Sergeant Roberts compared Wyoming favorably to Middletown Point: "The land is very good for wheat or anything that is put in the ground, the shad lay on the river and on the shore as thick as most bunkers on the Middletown shoar [sic]." But Roberts also noted damage from Indian raids, "the buildings is destroyed on both sides of the river for 20 miles." Errickson also noted the destruction, writing on June 27 that he "marched nineteen miles in the shadows of death." The New Jerseymen stayed put through July. On July 22, Lt. Barton wrote again from Wyoming: We have been retarded here much longer than was expected on account of some part of our provisions that was intended for us being entirely spoiled and unfit for use… The Genl says he is determined to march in a few days or he will not go... We are to march the first for a place called Tioga, to which place we can take our provisions in boats, but from there up on horses – thirty days flour and all of our baggage as there is no other way of conveyance. It appears that we shall return when that is exhausted. Barton also took a swipe at two Monmouth County officers who were apparently ducking service: “The savages have very lately been doing some mischief at Minisink, for particulars I refer you to Mr. Rhea [David Rhea] and Capt Combs [John Combs], they seem to avoid this place with great caution.” Other Monmouth officers were also getting excused from the campaign. On July 1, General John Sullivan, leading the Continental Army in northeast Pennsylvania, granted leave to Lt. Colonel David Brearley of Allentown, "Lt Col Brearley having business of importance which calls him to New Jersey has leave to retire from the Army." Brearley would become New Jersey’s second Chief Justice . On July 5, Errickson recorded that "Captain Burrowes set off this evening for Philadelphia on public business." Private Henry Johnson of Middletown wrote his father from Wyoming on July 22: "The Injenes [Indians] have done a great deal of mischief here, but we lie undistressed by them. We expect to march in about a week after the Injenes, when we return I know not." Sgt. Roberts recalled finally marching to the frontier line on July 29 where he saw "buildings were burnt by the savages.” Barton wrote of leaving Wyoming that same day: Upwards of one hundred boats arrived the day before yesterday with stores & a like number of wagons yesterday from Easton, which will enable us to proceed. I am wanted to remain at this garrison but believe I shall not. If I do, shall endeavor to get home before long. The Iroquois Campaign About August 1, Sullivan’s troops entered Indian County. Sgt. Sproule of Englishtown wrote of frequent transportation challenges. On August 2, he wrote, "several of the packs consisting of ammunition & provisions was lost on account of a [steep] defile & darkness." On August 3, the men had to "lay still this day to collect the cattle & c. which had strayed during the last night." A few days later, "three bullocks was lost when they fell down a defile." At the end of the month, Sproule wrote that "the roads being so bad that the baggage wagons overset at different times, which retarded the march." Despite the challenges, the soldiers soon came upon Iroquois settlements. On August 12, Sgt. Roberts noted that the troops were ordered to be ready for combat; the first skirmish occurred the next day. Roberts recorded that as the men fired a village, they skirmished with an Iroquois party-- killing seven and wounding eight before the Indians fled. There were two more skirmishes in the next three days. Sproule wrote of entering an Iroquois village on August 13, where he "found the enemy had abandoned the town in great confusion… the army then went to destroying corn" and razing the village. After days of advancing, Errickson wrote on August 17 the "troops was weary, very fatigued.” That same day, the Iroquois exacted some revenge, sneaking into camp, killing three cattle, and scalping a sentry. Not coincidentally, Lt. Barton wrote a melancholy letter to his father that day: I have undergone a long and fatiguing march and retain my health perfectly as I ever did in my life. Yet I must confess time passes on but tediously in this horrid Indian country where there is nothing to cheer & divert one’s mind--unless it is barely thought of against returning to Jersey after reducing those infernal savages. God grant it may not be too long they meet the destruction they justly merit. The next day, Barton wrote again, describing the court martial and lenient punishment of Upper Freehold’s Isaac Robins: He was sentenced to have ten lashes only, and had he not been favored surprisingly, it would have been one hundred. Richard Jobs was ordered to flog him and to favor him likewise, which he did, for you could hardly perceive that he had been whipt at all. Errickson wrote of more court martials being held on August 22, including a court martial of a Sergeant Wilson who was "reduced in rank" and forced to run a gauntlet. Errickson wrote that this "made me very sorry, by all accounts he was not guilty." By late August, Captain Burrowes, had returned from Philadelphia and rejoined his men. On August 25, he wrote of the need to quit campaigning: "The season of the year is advancing when we should begin to think about winter quarters, as the men are poorly clothed and not above one in 12 have a blanket, and the nights here are already very cool." Despite his worries, General Sullivan and the campaign went forward. Burrowes wrote on August 27 of the men feasting at an Iroquois field: We got this night to a large flat… where corn grows such that cannot be equaled in Jersey… contains about 100 acres of beans, cucumbers, simblens, water-melons and pumpkins. We sat until between one and two o'clock feasting on these rarities. Indeed, the men ate so well that General Sullivan cut the men’s rations on August 30 and, according to Burrowes, “it was agreed and answered with three cheers." Burrowes noted that "the men find a good deal of plunder in every town and settlement we come to... the savage villains continue flying before us and generally leave their villages a few hours before we enter them." While Burrowes showed contempt for Iroquois fighters, he was impressed by their agriculture and villages. On August 30, he wrote: “The land exceeds any I have ever seen, some corn stalks measure eighteen feet, and a cob one foot and a half long.” Then, he wrote of an ample fruit orchard at the next settlement. And a week after that, Burrowes wrote of the Iroquois village of Cashong: “The houses new and built very neat and appeared that they were whites that lived there.” More often, Burrowes wrote about the difficulties of the campaign. On August 31, he wrote that "the country is very mountainous, makes our march very tiresome" and the next day the men marched "through a most horrid swamp." A week later, Burrowes worried that food was now scarce, "Living is already hard. We eat meat twice in three days & bread once in four or five. The country abounds with corn and beans which we live solely on, salt is very scarce." According to Errickson, there was frequent skirmishing. The New Jerseyans battled with Iroquois and Loyalist allies on August 28 and 29. Among the enemy killed on 29th were "one Tory, one Neggar." Having scattered the resistance, the New Jerseyans fired on the fields on August 30, took “plunder of all kinds” and scalped four Indians. Meanwhile, Sproule recorded that on August 28, "the troops went to destroying the corn & c., with which this place abounded." On August 30: "this day was spent destroying corn." On August 31, he was sent "to destroy what crops of corn they could find." The brutality of the campaign worsened. Sgt. Thomas Roberts wrote on August 30: “Found four Indians and scalped them and brought them into camp . . . besides a great deal of plunder of all kinds.” The same day, Lt. Barton wrote, “Toward noon they found them and skinned two from the hips down for boot legs; one pair for the Major and the other for myself.” The next day, the New Jersey troops captured two Indians and "skinned their legs & dressed them for leggings." Sproule recorded that two weeks later, the New Jerseyans found two soldier corpses "mangled in a most inhuman and barbarous manner, having pulled the nails out by the root, tied them to a tree and whipped them with prickly ash, threw darts at them, stabbed them with spears, cut out their tongues & off their heads." Captain Burrowes also reported on two corpses (possibly the same men): We find Lieut. Boyd and one of the men... their heads cut off and scalpt [sic]. They had been whipped horribly. Their body's are spread all over and Boyd's partially skinned. Such is the barbarity of these savage villains. The campaign continued through September. Errickson wrote that on September 8, the New Jersey troops burned an Indian village and the surrounding fields which Erickson estimated at “50 acres of corn, 50-60 houses.” Errickson recorded that on September 6 "most of the day was employed in destroying the corn & c., and collecting the cattle" and on September 8, 400 men went to raze an Indian village. On September 15, Errickson wrote: "the whole of the troops this morning, with great cheerfulness, went about destroying the corn & c. at this post." The same day, Burrowes estimated the destruction: "It is judged we have burnt or destroyed about sixty thousand bushels of corn and two or three thousand of beans." The destruction continued. Errickson wrote that on September 23: "most of the day was taken up destroying the scattered towns & c. within two or three miles around this town." Benjamin Paul, a private from Monmouth County, recalled an encounter at an Iroquois village. The soldiers found one old squaw remaining. She refused to serve as a guide or leave, so the men gathered her a basket of provisions and then "all the rest was destroyed.” Paul personally “cut down a large apple orchard and assisted to destroy fields of corn, beans and Indian towns.” The men also rescued a hostage: “We also took a white woman and kept her until we returned to Wyoming, where she had been taken." None of the journals lists a specific date that the Continentals ended the offensive and turned around, but the campaign was over by early October. Lt. Barton and his company returned on September 30. He wrote his father: I am very well & arrived the 30th of Sept. at this place with very little loss on our side, but total destruction of the Indian Country, which we have penetrated about three hundred miles, burning everything before us & supposed by some to have destroy’d one hundred thousand bushels of corn, but others think a much larger quantity… Mr. Rhea [David Rhea], who will be the bearer, is in great hurry. Tomorrow morning, the Army marches for Wyoming; when we arrive there, I shall apply for leave to come home. Captain Burrowes also returned and was safe enough on October 9 to spend the day hunting with Captain Jonathan Forman. The New Jersey troops were all back in Wyoming by October 12. After the Campaign It is impossible to know exactly how many Monmouth Countians participated in the Iroquois campaign, but one hundred is a reasonable estimate. There two company commanders—Burrowes and Jonanthan Forman—from Monmouth County and recruits were typically raised from the captain’s locality. Burrowes had 35 men in 1779 and Forman likely had a similar number. By mid-1779, the New Jersey Line companies had been jumbled by drafts and consolidations making it likely that Monmouth Countians were serving beyond these three companies and vice versa. The viciousness of the Iroquois campaign went beyond anything seen in Monmouth County to that point. The brutality of the local war in Monmouth County surged in 1780 as both sides formed active vigilante groups—the Association for Retaliation and the Associated Loyalists —that sought to punish the enemy beyond military objectives. It is probable that the brutality of the Iroquois Campaign influenced this lurch toward greater brutality. Veterans leaving the Army after three years of army service likely brought these tactics into Monmouth County’s local war. Related Historic Site : The Iroquois Museum Sources : Thomas Roberts, Letter, Journals of the Military Expedition of Maj John Sullivan Against the Six Nations of Indians, 1779 (NY: Knapp, Peck, & Thomson, 1887), p245-6; John Sullivan to David Brearley, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I41, Memorials to Congress, v1, p475; Thomas Roberts Journal, Journals of the Military Expedition of Maj John Sullivan Against the Six Nations of Indians, 1779 (NY: Knapp, Peck, & Thomson, 1887), p240-5; Library of Congress, Michael Errickson, Diary; William Stryker, The New Jersey Continental Line in the Indian Campaign of 1779, (1885) pp. 8, 13, 62-3; John Burrowes, Journals of the Military Expeditions of General John Sullivan Against the Six Nations of Indians (Auburn, NY: Frederick Cook, 1887) p 42-50; John Burrowes is quoted in John Rees, Supply Shortages, Suffering Soldiers and a Secret Mission During the Hard Winter of 1780, Military Collector & Historian, v52, n3, Fall 2000, p100-7; John Burrowes Journal, Frederick Cook, Journals of the Military Expedition of Major General John Sullivan against the Six Nations (Auburn, N. Y.: Knapp, Peck and Thomson, 1887), pp. 8, 42-51, and 244; Johon Burrowes Journal, Frederick Cook, Journals of the Military Expedition of Major General John Sullivan against the Six Nations (Auburn, N. Y.: Knapp, Peck and Thomson, 1887), pp. 42-51; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Benjamin Paul; Sproule, Moses. "The Western Campaign of 1779: The Diary of Quartermaster Sergeant Mosts Sproule of the Third New Jersey Regiment in the Sullivan Expedition of the Revolutionary War, May 17-October 17, 1779" Edited by R. W G. Vail, pp. 11-34; Letters of Lt. William Barton, son of Gilbert Barton, 1777-1779, American Revolution Institute, Society of the Cincinnati, 13 A.LL.S., Washington, DC; Henry Johnson’s letters in Monmouth County Historical Association, Collections Alphabetical, Letters 1770-1779. Previous Next