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 Bold Privateering of Adam Hyler by Michael Adelberg In whaleboats that could be rowed or sailed, Adam Hyler, New Jersey’s greatest privateer, led small parties in more than a dozen actions against enemy ships in Raritan Bay and near Sandy Hook. - April 1781 - Adam Hyler was born in Germany. A newspaper account claims he served on a British or Loyalist vessel early in the Revolutionary War. Besides this, there is little reliable biographical information about him. He likely participated in the privateer activities of William Marriner, who was captured by the British in August 1780; Hyler would soon fill the void left by Marriner’s capture. In Hyler’s first action, he was mistaken for Marriner. On April 4, 1781, the New York Gazette reported: "Last Sunday evening a sloop from New York to Lloyd's Neck was captured on Coney Island by two rebel whaleboats." Marriner was credited with the attack, but Marriner wrote that it was "Hyler & Dickey" who led the action; Marriner, still imprisoned at the time, disavowed any role in the action. April 1781: Hyler Leads Raids on New York Hyler’s exploits would soon overshadow Marriner ’s or any other New Jersey privateer. He raided Brooklyn four times and Staten Island once over five months (see table 14 ). Captures two Loyalists, two slaves, and family goods Hyler’s “ manstealing” raids " against Brooklyn mirrored the raids launched against the New Jersey shore by Loyalist irregulars . His actions worried Colonel John Taylor of Middlesex County who wrote Governor William Livingston that "the whaleboat men from this place are daily robbing the inhabitants of Long Island and Staten Island, and in their last cruise they have murdered an old man because he defended his property in his own house." Taylor worried that Hyler’s actions would draw Loyalist retaliation . Fall 1781: Hyler Targets Sandy Hook Perhaps for this reason, Hyler pivoted away from attacking New York and started targeting Sandy Hook. While others had successfully raided Sandy Hook before Hyler, Hyler’s activity level greatly surpassed any other individual . On October 7, the New Jersey Gazette reported on Hyler’s first action there: Captain Hyler of this place with one gunboat and two whale ditto, within a quarter mile of the guard ship at Sandy Hook, attacked five vessels; and after a smart conflict of fifteen minutes carried them. Two of them were armed, one of them mounting four six pounders, and the other had six swivels and one three pounder. The hands escaped in a longboat and took refuge in a small fort, in which twelve swivel guns were mounted, and from whence they kept a constant firing, notwithstanding which he boarded them all without the loss of a single man. Hyler’s haul included 350 bushels of wheat, cheese, and a cask of gunpowder. Due to “contrary wind & tide,” he was unable to bring the boats up the Raritan River, so he "stripped the vessels of the sails and rigging” and “burnt them all except one, on board of which was a woman & four small children." Hyler’s next action was on October 13. The New Jersey Gazette reported that, "with one gun-boat and two whale boats,” Hyler and his men: Boarded one sloop and two schooners, which all the hands except two had previously left, and which lay under cover the Light House fort at Sandy Hook, and brought them off; but the sloop being such a dull sailor, and being much annoyed from a galley lying near Sandy Hook, was set on fire about three miles from the fort. One of the schooners, running aground by accident, was stripped and left; the other, a remarkably fine and fast sailing Virginia-built pilot boat mounted with one four pounder, was brought in with four prisoners. Hyler raided Sandy Hook again on October 24, this time landing at Refugeetown , the Loyalist settlement. The New Jersey Gazette reported: Capt. Hyler went down with one gun-boat to surprise Refugeetown near Sandy Hook where the horse thieves resort. He landed within three quarters of a mile of the light-house, but found they were out in the county of Monmouth stealing horses. The Captain however fell in with six other noted villains, whom he brought off. Hyler’s next action was the capture of a vessel that was part of a convoy heading for Sandy Hook from New York. The Pennsylvania Evening Post reported that Hyler "and a small party of men went into the Narrows, where he captured a ship with 14 or 15 hands.” Hyler chased another vessel, the sloop Father’s Desire , across Raritan Bay until it grounded near Keyport. Colonel Samuel Forman wrote: "Capt. Hyler captured a brig that belonged to the outward bound fleet last Saturday night - was pursued & was obliged to burn her after getting 25 h.h. [hogshead] of rum out of her & some other things." On December 15, Hyler took two more London Trading sloops. The New Jersey Gazette reported: Capt. Hyler of Brunswick (who now commands seven or eight stout whaleboats manned with near 100 men) fell in at the Narrows with two refugee sloops trading to Shrewsbury; one of them was commanded by the noted villain Shore Stevens [Stevenson], and had on board £600 in specie, besides a considerable quantity of dry goods; the other also had a parcel of similar articles, sugar & rum & c., they were both conducted to Brunswick. Hyler’s successes gave him access to several whale and gunboats, as well as a small sloop, Revenge . Maritime historian Donald Shomette wrote that Hyler’s preferred vessel was a "lightly armed sloop-rigged whaleboat." Hyler’s crew of strong rowers could sprint into and out of creeks. Whaleboats sat high in the water and passed over sand bars that scuttled sailing vessels. Whaleboats were also quiet, allowing Hyler’s parties to surprise larger vessels at night. Samuel Forman, Jr., brother of one of Hyler’s men, recalled: “These gunboats were all propelled by muffled oars that dipped in and out of the water so as to make no noise; nor did any of them speak above their breath.” 1782 started ominously for Hyler. An attack on Sandy Hook on January 4 was unsuccessful. Hyler was driven off by fire from the shore battery. Then the British launched a punitive raid against New Brunswick on January 9, in which 200 British soldiers in six boats landed and burned every boat they found in the Raritan River. The Loyalist New York Gazette took note of him on January 12: "this Hyler is a deserter from the Royal service, and ever since his defection has proved too successful an enterpriser in his various descents upon our vicinities." 1782: Hyler Raids Again Hyler apparently took the winter off. Sea traffic slowed—rivers and shallow bays froze. An antiquarian source reports his next action occurred on March 25. He apparently landed on Sandy Hook with a 25-man party and dispersed a Loyalist party camped there. Details on this action are unknown. Hyler’s next action was April 20, documented by Loyalist publisher Hugh Gaine: The cutter Alert (at Sandy Hook) of 16 nine pounders, Captain White, lay under the Highlands about 2 o'clock was boarded by three boats under command of Hyler, at the same time [that] 12 sail of man of war were not a mile off [the Hook], and taken, but the rebels finding it impracticable, got her away, took out the crew and blew her up. John Bray of New Brunswick wrote Governor Livingston on the same incident. Bray noted that Hyler attacked with a gunboat and 35 men. He first “boarded a trading sloop commanded by Capt. James Corlies, but finding nothing of consequence on board, thought it was most advisable to suffer her to be ransomed” (for $400). Hyler then spotted the sloop-of-war, Alert : Capt. Hyler and his brave crew, with the greatest spirit, boarded her, and after a few minutes of conflict, in which Capt. White was sounded, she struck [surrendered]. The Alert had 46 men on board, which so far exceeded Hyler in number that he was under the necessity of tying them to himself. This being done, he made sail, but after running about two miles, the wind being not favorable... He ran her aground. This being done, he took out a quantity of, and together with the prisoners, he blew her up. Hyler took out the “arms, powder, and chest of medicine” and fired the vessel. The prisoners were sent to Middletown Point and the white sailor prisoners were then sent to Elizabethtown. The black sailors (many of whom were likely runaway slaves ) were kept. Bray noted that “the eleven Negroes [are] detained for trial.” They were presumably treated as prizes of war and sold with the ship’s cargo. The capture of the Alert apparently was not reported locally, but was reported in the Maryland Gazette : The celebrated Captain Hyler of New Brunswick… in an open boat, boarded and took a large cutter lying near Sandy Hook almost at sea in sight of the Lion man of war and her 64 guns. The vessel mounted twelve 18 pounders and was commanded by one White... She [Alert] was designed to cruize in Delaware Bay. Captain Hyler, in coming off with his prize, was pursued by several armed vessels, and finding it impracticable to save her, blew her up, but brought off said White and about forty prisoners. The humiliation of losing a well-armed ship exasperated leading Loyalists. This prompted the Board of Directors of the Associated Loyalists , on April 23, to consult with Monmouth County Loyalists and propose a joint expedition with the New Jersey Volunteers to catch Hyler and burn his gunboat: The Board, having consulted some intelligent refugees from Monmouth County on the practicability of destroying the boat of one Hyler, a rebel partisan, which infest the bay of New York -- they proposed in a letter that day to the Adjutant General the Lt Colonel Buskirk and Taylor of the New Jersey Volunteers, should be authorized to take about one hundred men of that corps and when joined by the Refugees and some boatmen, endeavor to accomplish this desirable purpose. This raid never occurred. The next day, General Henry Clinton drydocked the Associated Loyalists amidst the building furor over Richard Lippincott’s brazen hanging of Monmouth County’s Joshua Huddy. Hyler was at sea again in early May. A Loyalist newspaper reported on May 7 that "Hyler's playing devil at Rockaway"; the results of that trip are unknown. On this or another excursion, Hyler took the schooner, Speedwell . Interestingly, Speedwell was not brought to New Brunswick or Middletown Point, but was taken down the Atlantic shore to Toms River (one of Hyler’s men recalled going as far as Cape May on a different trip). The New Jersey government passed a law on June 20 to permit issuing official privateer commissions to “boats” (versus ships). It is probable that Hyler made this necessary. Hyler’s next descent on Sandy Hook was reported in the New York Gazette on May 29: Mr. Hyler paid a visit to our fishing boats last Saturday and took three boats and a prize, inward bound, without [the Hook]; he was pursued by an armed vessel dispatched from one of his Majesty's ships, which obliged him to run the prizes ashore. This action climaxed with Hyler capturing a party of British regulars sent from Sandy Hook (the subject of another article ). The New Jersey Gazette on May 25: Capt. Hyler with his armed boat, being in the Shrewsbury River, a party of twenty-five men, a party of British troops, under Capt. Schanck, was detached to intercept them. Hyler discovered them and landed thirteen men with orders to charge; when four of the enemy were killed and wounded, and the Capt. and eight men taken prisoners. A month later, Hyler preyed on the fishing boats off Sandy Hook again. The New York Gazette reported on June 19: "A number of fishing boats were just on the eve of being captured on the bank's by Hyler's boats; but luckily the Lark , privateer, inward bound, saved them from being convoyed to Middletown." Perhaps frustrated by not taking the boats, Hyler attempted what might have been his boldest action. An anonymous letter details his attempt to kidnap Loyalist partisan Richard Lippincott from Manhattan: Capt. Hyler was determined to take Lippincott, on inquiry he found that the man resided in a well known house on Broad Street, New York. Dressed and equipped like a press gang of a man of war, he left the kills with one boat, landing after dusk... He then passed the residence of Lippincott where he inquired for him and found that he was absent, gone to the cock-pit. Thus failing in his object, he returned to his boat... but finding a boat from the West Indies laden with rum, he took her, cut her from her cable and sailed to Elizabethtown Point; and before daylight had landed from her 40 hogshead of rum. He then burned the sloop to prevent her recapture. Hyler was, by now, a hero. The Freeman's Journal (of Philadelphia) exulted “the celebrated paritizan” who captures ships “by surprise or strategem." The report called Hyler “a considerable annoyance to the wood shallops, trading vessels and plundering parties of the enemy about Sandy Hook” and asked “the whaleboat men in Delaware Bay… to copy his conduct." And the report called Hyler's crew “particularly expert at the oars” and they “row with such silence and dexterity as to not be heard at the smallest distance, even though they go three or four boats together and go at a rate of twelve miles an hour." The Freeman's Journal also reported that British vessels were now in the Raritan Bay to check Hyler: The enemy have a stout galley stationed near the mouth of the Raritan, and gun boat or two cruizing about the bay, who appear to do little more else then firing now and then upon such rebel oystermen and fishermen as venture too near them... It is further said that it is expected in New York that Brunswick will be shortly burnt on account of the whaleboat depredations. The report was defiant: “If the town is destroyed, every whaleboat, like the Hydra's head, will speedily multiply into ten and make the masters of Sandy Hook bay more uneasy.” On July 2, Hyler returned to Sandy Hook. The New Jersey Gazette reported that Hyler and John Storer, (another whaleboat privateer): "boarded and took the schooner Skipjack , carrying six guns and swivels, and burned her at noon, in sight of the guard ship.” Hyler also “took the Captain and nine or ten men prisoners. About the same time, he also took three or four trading vessels loaded with calves, sheep, etc." A July 10 admiralty court announcement noted that Skipjack was sold with two slaves as part of the cargo. Other prizes taken were an unnamed sloop with two cannon and a sloop, Providence . On or about July 10, according to the New Jersey Gazette , "Mr. Hyler took two fishing boats near the Narrows and ransomed them for $100 each. One of them has been twice before captured." Hyler’s last documented action occurred a few days later, on July 15. The New Jersey Gazette reported that “a little before sunset, Mr. Hyler, with three large oar boats, made an attack on a galley stationed at Prince's Bay, south side of Staten Island." While attacking the galley, a second British vessel under Captain Cashman fired and landed an 18 lb. ball on one of Hyler's boats. The heavy ball crippled Hyler’s boat and forced it to land on Staten Island. The other two boats landed and picked up their stranded comrades while taking fire. Hyler’s party narrowly escaped, but Hyler was fatally wounded in the action. One of his men, Job Compton, recalled that Hyler “was wounded, of which wound he died.” On September 6, the New Jersey Gazette reported that Adam Hyler died "after a long and tedious illness." A few days later, the Loyalist New York Gazette reported “that the famous partisan, Hyler, lately died in New Jersey of a wound in the knee, accidentally given himself some time ago." Antiquarian sources note that Hyler’s boats became the property of colleagues who continued attacking British interests—but without Hyler’s boldness or track record. Historian Robert Schiena wrote about these men: Alexander Dickey, John Bordwine, John Storer and retired Continental Navy officer Luke Matthewson. Appendix 1 excerpts newspaper reports of the actions of Hyler’s successors. The danger of whaleboat privateering was best summed up by John Riddle, who served under Hyler: On two occasions, we narrowly escaped being taken prisoners by two different frigates; once in coming up from Sandy Hook to Amboy, with two gun boats and a whale boat, Capt. Hyler commanding, being in chase of a British gunboat, we run in between an enemy's brig and a galley, that carried an eighteen pounder in the bow. The gun boat had struck [her colors (surrendered)]; but before we were able to board her, an eighteen pound ball passed through one of our gun boats, which obliged us to make the best of our way to the Jersey Shore; and getting everything out of the boat, under a continual fire of cannon and small arms. While Hyler’s bravery and success as a privateer is abundantly documented, it cannot be forgotten that he also engaged in kidnapping and selling captured black sailors as part of a prize ship’s cargo. A militia colonel from Hyler’s home county suggested that he was involved in a murder. Hyler was not from Monmouth County. But he very much belongs in this compendium because most of his actions occurred on the shores of Monmouth County. He often used Middletown Point as his point of departure and point of return. Most importantly, a large portion of Hyler’s men were Monmouth Countians. Of the nine men who wrote narratives about serving under Hyler, four (Job Compton, Lewis Compton, Denice Forman, Benjamin Wilson) were from Monmouth County. So, Hyler’s remarkable exploits were, in large part, enabled by the strong backs of Monmouth Countians. Excerpts of these nine accounts are in Appendix 2 of this article. Related Historic Site : American War of Independence Privateer Museum Appendix 1: Newspaper Accounts of Raritan Bay Privateers after Adam Hyler’s Death New York Royal Gazette, September 11, 1782: "The privateer Jack , Capt. Marsh, took and sent a New Jersey whale boat commanded by Peter Nephew [Neafie]; the whale boat had first taken two fishing boats and had one killed and one wounded." New York Gazette, October 9, 1782: Loyalist Capt. Peter Laurens arrives in New York, "He was taken at the Hook some days ago by John Bordwine, who commands the whaleboats lately commanded by Capt. Hyler….after his capture, he was not only stripped of his clothes and money, but also beat and abused in such an unmerciful manner that he has for the present lost use of his right arm, and is most shockingly bruised; he hopes to soon return to them, quid pro quo." New Jersey Gazette , November 13, 1782: "We hear that the brave Capt. Storer, commissioned as a private boat of war under this State, and who promises to be the fair successor of the late Capt. Hyler, has given a recent instance of his velour in capturing one of the Enemy's vessels… He embarked with two boats under his command at Point Comfort" and went to the Narrows, "after a fruitless search for detached vessels, he bore away for Middletown"...on the Staten Island side of the bay "discovered a vessel lying under the flag staff fort, within a half pistol shot of a fourteen gun battery. This vessel he immediately boarded, and carried away without any alarm." Prize is a sloop under the command of the British Army's Engineer Dept. "He had the good fortune to get her safe into port in spite of the Enemy's armed vessels lying in Prince's Bay." New York Gazette, December 1782: "On Wednesday last, as Morford Taylor, William Salter, Robert Patterson and James Lippincott were passing Sandy Hook shore in a skiff, a party under Capt. Storey rose behind a hill and fired on the boat without first hailing them. Mr. Taylor was shot through the head and died instantly; the other three were made prisoners and stripped of their apparel. Mr. Salter was taken on shore, Messrs. Patterson and Lippincott, with a sentry to over them, were ordered to row the skiff to the cove where Storey had his boats concealed; but Patterson and Lippincott seized a favorable moment to throw the sentry overboard and made their escape. The sentry swam to shore and Mr. Salter was immediately compelled to exchange his dry clothes for those of the wet, half-drowned sentry. He has since ransomed himself for $200 and is now in town." Appendix 2: Post-War Accounts of Service under Adam Hyler Job Compton of Middletown veteran's pension application excerpted: As a privateer, "he was in several affairs with Captain Hyler... in the year 1782, [when] he entered under Captain Hyler on board a gun bote [sic]. He remained with him until he [Hyler] was wounded, of which wound he died... The Captain has a commission and what they took, the prize money was divided amongst them." Lewis Compton of Middletown veteran’s pension application excerpted: "at Brown's Point on the Bay Shore under Capt. Walton, in which engagement he was partially blinded by a swivel ball striking immediately before him; in the same skirmish, Capt. Hyler was also present, about which time Capt. Hyler landed and took a British man-o-war lying in the bay near the Sandy Hook Light House." Samuel Forman of Freehold Township , a boy during the Revolution, recalls his brother, Denice Forman serving under Privateer Captain Adam Hyler: "Denice Forman engaged in a boat under Captain Hyler, who had charge of a few gunboats that coasted along the Jersey shore to annoy and oppose the enemy. When the British fleet lay at anchor at Sandy Hook, Captain Hyler went in the night and surprised a large sloop at anchor, and got her out from the fleet, and took her up Middletown Creek, all without any fighting." More on Hyler: "These gunboats were all propelled by muffled oars, that dipped in and out of the water so as to make no noise; nor did any of them speak above their breath. On the gunwale of the boat a strip of heavy canvas was nailed, the inner having been left unfastened, under which were concealed their swords, guns and other implements for use in combat, and so placed so that any could, at a moment's notice, lay his hand upon his weapon." Richard Nixon of Morris County veteran's pension application: "in the summer or Fall of 1782 [7/82] Deponent again entered on board of Captain Hyler’s Gunboat in which Deponent served six weeks, during the cruise off Sandy Hook we Captured in the night by Boarding the British Cutter Alert Carrying eighteen 9 & 12 pounders, Commanded by Captain White, Deponent received an additional share of Prize money for having been the first on board in boarding." Marsh Noe of Middlesex County veteran’s pension application: recalls serving 2 years "on the water" under Captains Adam Hyler and John Storer "both of which commanded gunboats." From bases at Amboy and New Brunswick, "cruised into the bay of New York, the Narrows and Sandy Hook; owing to the superiority of the enemy, we had to go mostly at night." Recalls three missions with Hyler - 1. "boarded & took a British cutter in the night-time near Sandy Hook" with 18 carriage guns, Hyler has 32 men and the cutter 50, then they "ran the cutter aground near Sandy Hook and blew her up", 2. took an "armed schooner, Jack , mounting 6 carriage guns with a crew of about 40, taken near Sandy Hook, was run ashore near the Highlands, stores and ammunition taken out & the vessel burnt up - a seventy four gun ship firing on them most of the time", 3. "landed with 14 or 15 men on Sandy Hook... engaged a party of British (about 30 men) commanded by a Captain & after a smart action, took them prisoners & sent them to Headquarters." John Riddle ’s autobiography of his service under Adam Hyler: Recalls that they coasted from Brooklyn to Sandy Hook, and sometimes down the Jersey Shore as far as Cape May - usually two boats, a gunboat and whaleboat, 30 men: * "The first vessel we captured was a sloop of war carrying two guns; having boarded her in the night and ransomed her for $400. Same night boarded and took a 16 gun cutter, mounting 18 pounders and six 6 pounders, having captured her in the midst of the British fleet, then lying at Sandy Hook; after running the prize past the guard ship up the bay towards Amboy, we run aground on a sandbar in the night. the next morning, took out of her fifty prisoners, and everything else we could, then set fire to her with provisions, ammunitions & c." * "On another night, the Captain and fourteen of us (who had volunteered our services) sailed up the narrows in York bay, in a whale boat, and on our return boarded a schooner, (which we ransomed for $400) returned to our gunboats in the Sosbury [Shrewsbury] River, without injury or the loss of a single life. " * "On another occasion, Capt. Story, from Woodbridge, with a gun and whale boat, fell in with us in Sosbury river - Captains Hyler and story ascending the heights [Middletown Highlands], observed four vessels at a distance, moored close to the Highlands, termed London traders. One of them, However, being an armed schooner, carrying eight guns, used as a guard ship to protect the other three; there being a calm tide against them, we run out on them, within a short distance of the British fleet, a severe cannonading commenced on both sides; at last, the schooner having struck [her colors, surrendered], we captured the other two without much difficulty. The guard ship by this time coming up, poured her shot on us like hail, one shot cutting off the mast of our whale boat just above our heads; but at last we succeeded in running the [prize] schooner on a sand bar, where we burnt her in view of the fleet; the others were bilged and driven on the beach." * “On hard combat and narrow escapes, "In fact, every day while off Sandy Hook afforded a skirmish of some kind or another, either with small arms or cannon. At Toms River inlet we were twice nearly cast away; once [more] at Hogg island inlet, on two occasions we narrowly escaped being taken prisoners by two different frigates, one the fair American; once in coming up from Sandy Hook to Amboy, with two gun boats and a whale boat, Capt. Hyler commanding, being in chase of a British gunboat, we run in between an enemy's brig and a galley, that carried an eighteen pounder in the bow. the gun boat had struck; but before we were able to board her, an eighteen pound ball passed through one of our gun boats, which obliged us to make the best of our way to the Jersey Shore: and getting every thing out of the boat, under a continual fire of cannon and small arms (which lasted until 9 O’clock at night), we left her to the British, our ammunition being all spent." * Final term under Hyler and his successor: "About the first of April 1782, the applicant volunteered on board a gunboat at New Brunswick, under the command of Captain Adam Hyler, for the term of eight months as a privateersman, and served out said term... the said Captain Hyler commanded forty-five men, who occupied said gunboat and a whaleboat... after said eight months had ended, and the Spring of 1783 (Captain Hyler having died), the applicant again volunteered as a privateersman at New Brunswick under the command of Capt. John Bordwine, for a term of two weeks, and served out said term coasting from Sandy Hook around to the New Jersey shore and performed nothing of note, except the taking of a British barge and crew." John Sutphin of South Amboy veteran's pension application: "He shipped himself aboard a Gun Boat called the White Bottom Nancy as a Privateer under the command of Edmund Hiler in this Boat. He sailed from New Brunswick on a cruize round Sandy Hook in company with three other boats for the purpose of surprising and taking a British gunboat then lying in Princes Bay near Staten Island. In this attempt we were unsuccessful in consequence of the Nancy’s being wholly disabled in a combat with a British Row Galley then lying in the same bay... The ensuing season during his service as a Privateersman under Capt. Hiler he assisted in taking from the British two sloops & three schooners then lying in a place called the Horse Shoe [Bay]. After this he assisted in cutting out from the British at the Narrows a three decked British vessel called Father’s Desire which we ran aground & burnt at Sandy Hook. He was in an engagement with a British Cutter. This Cutter was boarded by the crew of our boat and after an action of 15 or 20 minutes in which we killed and threw overboard 8 or 10 of the crew of the Cutter we succeeded in Capturing her with near 300 prisoners, nearly all Blacks. We burnt the cutter took the negroes which were called Dunmore’s Army, into the country and sold them. After this, we took an English vessel in Prince’s Bay loaded with arms and ammunition took out what we could and being closely pursued by the enemy we blew up the vessel and made good on our retreat and returned to New Brunswick." Abraham Van Tine's of Middlesex County veteran's pension application. On his time as whaleboat privateer: "He afterwards continued in the same service under Captain Peter Begins who had the command of a whale boat called the General Green & served under him for the period of five months, when they were taken prisoners by a privateer in the British service called The Jack o Lantern commanded by Captain Thomas Marsh a Tory and were sent to New York & confined as prisoners in what was then called the Provost prisoner where he lay for seven months and was discharged precisely at the expiration of 7 months imprisonment and when peace was proclaimed – During his service under Captains Adam Hyler and Nevins they took several vessels engaged in the enemy’s service. They went out to take the schooners or privateers commanded by Marsh & made an attack upon her in the night but were overpowered by numbers & taken prisoners themselves... That the engagement in which he was taken prisoner took place between Sandy Hook and the Great Kilns – That his whole Term of service during the war together with the term of his imprisonment as aforesaid amounted to at least two years." Benjamin Wilson of Middletown veteran's pension application excerpted: 1782, serves on a whaleboat privateer, in an action "was engaged under Capt. Hyler at Point Comfort, Captain Hyler was cruising off the shore & was chased by the British boats & was obliged to land: the British also landed, a sharp engagement ensued in which the applicant was engaged"; also in 1782, he was in "a skirmish under Capt. Neafie, who was chased ashore by a British gunboat." Sources : Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gaze reel 2906; John J. Clute, Annals of Staten Island: From Its Discovery to the Present Time (New York: Press of Charles Vogt, 1877), pp. 111-3; J.A. McManemin, Captains of Privateers. (Spring Lake, N.J. : Ho-Ho-Kus Pub. Co., 1994), pp. 467-77; New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 14, April 17, 1781; Alfred Heston, South Jersey: A History 1664-1923 (Lewis Historical Publishing, 1923) p 228; Contained in: National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Darby Oram of RI, www.fold3.com/image/# 25326993; John Taylor to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 223-4; Certificate, Rutgers University Special Collections, AC 2889; Stephen Conway, The War of American Independence 1775–1783 (London: Edward Arnold, 1995), pp. 392-3; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post; New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930, October 10, 1781; New Jersey Gazette report contained in Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 124; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; National Archives, revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey – Lewis Compton; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 124-5; Erna Risch, Supplying Washington's Army (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1981), p 113; Samuel Forman to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 16, November 13, 1781; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 125; Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 34-6; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Robert L. Scheina, "A Matter of Definition: A New Jersey Navy, 1777-1783," American Neptune, vol. 39 (1979), p 216; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Benjamin Wilson; J.A. McManemin, Captains of Privateers. (Spring Lake, N.J. : Ho-Ho-Kus Pub. Co., 1994), pp. 467-77; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015); Narrative of Lieut. Luke Matthewman, Magazine of American History, vol 2, 1878, p184; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Joseph Van Note of Ohio, S.1133; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of Marsh Noe of NJ, National Archives, p4-5; Royal Gazette excerpted in Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 127; Hyler’s attack at 25-man party in Howard Peckham, The Toll of Independence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) p 95; John Bray to William Livingston in J.A. McManemin, Captains of Privateers. (Spring Lake, N.J. : Ho-Ho-Kus Pub. Co., 1994), pp. 467-77; Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Journals of Hugh Gaine, Volume I (New York: Dodd, Mead 81 Company, 1902), vol. 2, pp. 147-9, 153; Princeton University Library, Microfilms Collection, #1081.133, Board of Associated Loyalists, April 23, 1782; Maryland Gazette, May 2, 1782; John Bray to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 173, 182-4; Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 37; Edwin Salter and George C. Beekman, Old Times in Old Monmouth: Historical Reminiscences of Old Monmouth County, New Jersey (Freehold, N.J.: Moreau Brothers, 1887) p 125; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Freeman's Journal, June 26, 1782; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Anonymous letter printed in John Barber, Historical Collections of the State of New Jersey (New Haven, Conn., J. W. Barber, 1868) pp 316-7; Freeman's Journal, June 26, 1782; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 20-21, 1782, p 39-45; Prisoner receipt, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #3853; National Archives, Richard Nixon, W.5423, State of New York, City and County of New York; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; New Jersey Gazette report in Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 125-6; Howard H. Peckham, ed, The Toll of Independence: Engagements and Battle Casualties of the American Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) p 96; John J. Clute, Annals of Staten Island: From Its Discovery to the Present Time (New York: Press of Charles Vogt, 1877), pp. 111-3; Royal Gazette report printed in John Neafie, "Captain Peter Neafie and His Whaleboat Crew in the American Revolution," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 13, 1928, pp 422-3; Riddle, John, The Memoir of Colonel John Riddle, pp. 1-4. Personal photocopy. Correspondence from Jack Fulmer; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post and New Jersey Gazette, November 13, 1782; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Applications, John Riddle of New Jersey; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Job Clayton; Forman, Samuel S. Narrative of a Journey down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1789-90 (Cincinnati, R. Clarke and Co., 1888) p 7-8; National Archives, John Sutphin, S.29489, State of New York, Wayne County. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Confusing Case of Captain Benjamin Weatherby by Michael Adelberg General John Sullivan consulted David Forman and then cleared the name of Captain Benjamin Weatherby after he was wrongly accused of recruiting Loyalist soldiers in Shrewsbury in 1776. - June 1777 - In order to understand the Revolutionary War and government during this period, it is necessary to remember that norms were lacking and communications were terrible. Lacking the ability to quickly corroborate information, leaders frequently acted based on a single piece of evidence—and the evidence that drove actions was often wrong. Leaders did the best they could under trying circumstances, and, in so doing, often contradicted each other. On June 18, 1777, Governor William Livingston informed George Washington that one of his captains, Benjamin Weatherby, was in detention. Pending further investigation, Livingston had determined Weatherby was a Loyalist, or at least a former Loyalist: I take the Liberty to enclose you a discharge from Capt. Wetherby to one Sharp, a soldier in the service of the United States; and Sharp’s affidavit of his having paid the Capt. 100 Dollars to obtain it. I cannot learn with any certainty to whose battalion Wetherby belongs, but am told that he belongs to Collo. [David] Forman’s. If he was an officer in one of the regiments raised by this State, I should be agreeable to a resolution of Congress of the 14 of April last, have spared your Excellency the trouble of ordering an inquiry in the matter. Livingston leveled the allegation based on a May 23 affidavit from Henry Sharp, sworn before Justice John Sparks of Gloucester County. Sharp swore that Weatherby had enlisted him into the Continental Army and, after Sharp thought better of it, insisted on a bribe to let him out of the enlistment. In Sharp’s own words: “He was inlisted [sic] by Capn Benjamin Watherby [sic] and that he give to said captain [Weatherby] for his discharge the sume [sic] of one hundered [sic] Dowllers [sic].” Livingston had also remembered that in October 1776, Weatherby had participated in raising a company of men from the Monmouth shore for the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers. Were it not for a party of Virginia Continentals (under General Adam Stephen) intercepting Weatherby’s boat on its way to Staten Island, Weatherby would have returned with a British transport and carried the men away. Based on this, Livingston informed Washington that he was detaining Weatherby under guard. Washington promptly forwarded the note to General John Sullivan, Forman’s superior officer in the Continental chain of command. By a lucky coincidence, Forman had just arrived at Sullivan’s camp when Washington’s note arrived. Forman had mustered the Monmouth County militia as part of a 2,000-man detachment that Sullivan would use to harass the British Army as it quit New Jersey. Sullivan discussed Weatherby with Forman and was likely surprised by what Forman told him. The next day, Sullivan politely informed Washington: I have enquired of General Forman. He knows of no Captain Weatherby. There is a person of that name [Henry Weatherby] at Shrewsbury who had orders to enlist the King's troops for the British service -- he enlisted some & was detected & was put in irons by General Stephen last summer, where he remained until about six weeks hence, when the General Assembly of this State released him -- Perhaps, he may since have taken the business your Excellency mentions? Washington did not debunk Livingston’s allegation about Weatherby right away. Although there is no documentation to prove it, it is likely Washington asked a staff officer to make further inquiries about Weatherby. Two things are clear from surviving documents—Captain Benjamin Weatherby’s name does not appear in the muster rolls or other documents of Forman’s Additional Regiment . And his name does appear in the rolls of Oliver Spencer’s regiment—another recently-commissioned New Jersey Continental Army regiment that competed for recruits with Forman. On July 12, Washington informed Livingston: I duly received your favor of the 18th Ult. respecting a Mr. Weatherby, and upon enquiry find, that he has been this long time dismissed from our Service for bad behavior. Colo Forman says he is of opinion that any Men he may have enlisted since, were for the Enemy, as he has been in Irons on that Account. But Washington was only partially correct. While he let the Governor know that Benjamin Weatherby was not a captain under Forman, he did not find out about Weatherby’s service and good standing under Spencer. According to the Society of the Cincinnati, Benjamin Weatherby of Billingsport, New Jersey served under Spencer from February 1777 through January 1781. No bad conduct by Weatherby is noted in his service record. It is unknown how long Benjamin Weatherby was detained, but his good name was eventually restored. His imprisonment seems to be a simple case of mistaken identity. In another remarkable coincidence, Captain Weatherby served under Sullivan and Spencer in a campaign against the Iroquois in summer-fall 1779. In so doing, he likely commanded the remnants of Forman’s Additional Regiment, which had been transferred under Spencer in 1778. As for Sharp and his curious allegation, his motivations are unclear. Perhaps Sharp was settling a score; perhaps he (and Livingston) honestly confused Benjamin Weatherby with Henry Weatherby—the Loyalist recruiter from the Monmouth shore. Either way, an innocent man actively serving his country was detained for weeks because of a single allegation that could have been quickly debunked. Related Historic Site : Morristown National Historical Park Sources : William Livingston to George Washington, in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 357; John Sullivan to George Washington, Sullivan, John, Letters and Papers of Major John Sullivan, Otis G. Hammond, ed. , 2 vols. (Concord, NH: 1930-31) vol. 2, p 394; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw080334)) ; George Washington to William Livingston, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 10, 11 June 1777 – 18 August 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000, pp. 66–67; Various genealogical resources on Captain Benjamin Weatherby of Billingsport, New Jersey. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Rise of Little Egg Harbor and the British Response by Michael Adelberg This map shows the winding Mullica River that connected the village of Chestnut Neck to Little Egg Harbor. It would become New Jersey’s most important Revolutionary War port. - July 1776 - By spring 1776, there had already been a handful of incidents involving British ships on the Jersey shore, including the capture of a British storeship in January intended for their army. An enormous fleet departed England, bound for America with 25,000 soldiers. It would be the largest European Army to ever land in the Americas. As New York City became rebellious, the squadron of British ships at New York sailed for Sandy Hook and seized it as a naval base—it would be held by the British navy longer than any piece of the Atlantic Seaboard. More British navy vessels arrived in American waters—and the British blockaded the major American ports in April. Philadelphia ships were blocked from entering the Delaware Bay. They diverted to Little Egg Harbor to avoid capture. The Rise of Little Egg Harbor Located immediately south of Monmouth County, Little Egg Harbor, and the inland village of Chestnut Neck, a few miles up the winding Mullica River, had long been part of Philadelphia’s economy. The Delaware River froze for parts of each winter and ships went to Little Egg Harbor (called “Egg Harbour” at the time) to reprovision and deposit cargo for overland transport. When the British blockaded Delaware Bay in April 1776, it was only natural that Philadelphia ship captains detoured to Little Egg Harbor. The Continental Congress, based in Philadelphia, embraced the New Jersey port. Its journals record more than a dozen references to activity there between April 1 and July 31. The Congress sent agents to Egg Harbor, received prisoners there, transported war materials, fitted out vessels, and sent wagon-trains back and forth from Philadelphia. In June, Congress considered the need to defend the port. It resolved: "The Marine Committee be empowered and instructed to build, man and equip two large row gallies for the defense of Little Egg Harbour." But there is no evidence that these gallies ever put to sea. Newspapers describe at least seven vessels coming into Egg Harbor in seven weeks. They are summarized in the table below: Date / Vessel / American Captain / Other Information April 22 British “tender” Capt. John Barry Takes six-gun schooner, tender to the HMS Phoenix May 5 Sloop Capt. Youngs Brings in cargo of “13 tons of powder, 24 tons of salt petre, and 60 arms” May 18 Schooner Fidelity Capt. Broadhurst New Jersey vessel chased by British vessel, crosses into Egg Harbor to escape June 5 Three prizes: Lady Juliana, Juno , and Reynolds Capts. George McEvoy and John Adams Two American privateers, Congress and Chance , bring in three prizes with “cargo of 187 lbs. of plate, 1000 hogshead of sugar, 246 bags of pimento, 396 bags of ginger, 25 tons of cocoa, 1 cask to turtle shells.” June 6 “small privateer” Unknown Cargo of “1100 hhds Sugar, 140 Puncheons Rum, 70 Pipes Madeira, 24000 Mexico Dollars” It can be safely assumed that additional ships entered and left the port during this period. British Warships Patrol the Jersey Shore The increased traffic at Little Egg Harbor and necessity of maintaining a presence at Sandy Hook and the Delaware Bay led to British warships traversing the Jersey Shore. In April, an anonymous New Yorker wrote about the effectiveness of the increasing Royal Navy activity: They are driving back all the boats from the Jersies and cutting off all our supplies and provisions… [but] it is impossible that the Men-of-War can watch all our vessels, though they lie at the Hook on that purpose; we have so many creeks and harbors that they know nothing of, that they cannot ruin us. The first prize taken by a British vessel on the Jersey shore might have been on April 1 when a British tender to a frigate “took a small sloop, then lying in the road, belonging to Egg-Harbor." Large British warships were frequently “tended” by sloops that ferried men and provisions in and out of shallow ports that the larger ships could not enter. The shallow, unmarked ports of the Jersey shore were dangerous to British frigates, so tenders were especially valuable for shore activity. Two weeks later, another tender took on a local pilot at Barnegat. The Pennsylvania Journal reported: “One Arthur Green of Barnegat was taken by the Phoenix 's tender and has given Capt. Parker an account of all the inlets about there.” The report noted that Green was now on a Loyalist sloop “which they have fitted out as an armed vessel, which, make no doubt, he will be cruizing in all the inlets." This appears to be the first reference to Loyalist privateering on the Jersey Shore. In May, the New York Provincial Congress noted that "Captain Jonathan Clarke, late from the French West-Indies… had the misfortune to have his vessel and cargo seized and taken by an armed tender near Black-Point, below Sandy-Hook.” The legislature advanced $25 to assist Clarke and his crew for their hardship. A few days later, Commodore Esek Hopkinson of the Continental Navy wrote of the sloop L'Amiable Marie being taken off the Shrewsbury shore by HMS Phoenix. He noted that sailors on board the sloop were pressed into the British Navy. The British Navy chased another vessel south of Sandy Hook on June 12. The Pennsylvania Ledger reported: A sloop belonging to New Brunswick from Curacao was drove ashore by one of the ministerial pirates a little southward of Shrewsbury. The crew got on shore and by assistance of the country people [and] drove the pirates off. Her cargo consists of dry goods and about 300 bushels of salt, which is safely landed. The British naval presence at Sandy Hook continued to grow, from three warships in April to seven in May, to twelve in early June. Patrols of the Jersey shore continued. On June 23, the New York Journal reported, "the enemy's ships were all on a cruise along the [Jersey] coast” and they apparently destroyed an American vessel, “the schooner that was burnt belonged to Egg Harbor." The British armada arrived at Sandy Hook on June 29. The British cruised the Monmouth shore without significant opposition. The Continental Navy had vessels around Cape May and scored a few victories against the British Navy. But Continental Navy vessels did not come north to the Monmouth shore until the end of 1776. In the meantime, the New York State Navy assigned two small vessels to patrol the shore north of Little Egg Harbor, but it appears that these vessels spent more time avoiding larger British warships than protecting American ships. Joseph Galloway, a leading Loyalist, wrote about the vulnerable New Jersey shore. New Jersey’s ports were "for the most part, naked, without fortifications and cannon." Little Egg Harbor was “altogether defenceless" and its vessels “stay in harbor" when British ships are nearby. He wrote to Admiral Richard Howe, commanding the British Navy in America, that "no privateer could pass out of any port… without your consent." Yet the British were not interested in moving against the small villages and shallow ports on the Jersey shore in 1776. Two years later, the British would regret their failure to move against Little Egg Harbor early on. It would blossom into a center of American privateering . The port of Toms River , 30 miles north in Monmouth County, would emerge as New Jersey’s second most important privateer port. Related Historic Site : Tuckerton Historical Society Sources : Margaret Willard, Letters on the American Revolution 1774-1776 (Associated Faculty Press, 1968) p 308; Joseph Galloway, Letter to the Right and Honourable Viscount Howe on His Naval Conduct in the American War, (London: J. Wilkie, 1779) pp. 15-19, 21-22, 24, 35-7; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 5, p 713. Robert Scheina, "A Matter of Definition: The New Jersey Navy, 1777-1783," American Neptune, 1979, vol 39, n 3, p 211; Journals of the Continental Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/05000059/ v4, p293; 328, 351 and 379; v5 p445, 476, 722, 729; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015) pp 51-60; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015) pp 59-60; Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v5: p 745 and v6:1323; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 6, p 650 and vol. 5, p 698; Alverda S. Beck, ed., The Correspondence of Esek Hopkins (Providence, 1933), p 77; Christopher Marshall, The Diary of Christopher Marshall (Amazon Digital Services, 2014) p 69; Bruce Bliven, Under the Guns, New York 1775-1776 (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) p 279; Pennsylvania Journal, April 10, 1777; Maryland Journal, May 1, 1776; Library of Congress, NY Gaz & Weekly Mercury, reel 2904; New York Gazette & Weekly Mercury, May 27, 1776; Pennsylvania Journal, April 17, 1776; Virginia Gazette [Dixon and Hunter; Williamsburg], 22 June 1776; Pennsylvania Ledger, vol. 1, Jan. 1775-Nov. 1776; Pennsylvania Evening Post, June 13, 1776; Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 4 May 16, 1776 - August 15, 1776; http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:3:./temp/~ammem_s9BZ :: Paul Burgess, A Colonial Scrapbook; the Southern New Jersey Coast, 1675-1783 (New York, Carlton Press, 1971) pp 107-8; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 1, pp. 110, 117. 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 > Provisioning the French Fleet Via Rumson by Michael Adelberg Needing provisions, the French Admiral D’Estaing came ashore. He set up a camp at Rumson to receive provisions. D’Estaing was unable to get the provisions his fleet needed and left for Rhode Island. - July 1778 - On July 11, 1778, a large French fleet anchored off Shrewsbury, an opening the connected the Shrewsbury River to the ocean four miles south of Sandy Hook. They came to annihilate the smaller British fleet that had withdrawn inside the Hook. The fleet had a 14-9 advantage in large warships, and their largest ships carried more cannon than any of the British ships. However, the French had two problems: First, they did not know if their large ships could successfully navigate the narrow channel that served as the shipping lane into lower New York Harbor; second, the French fleet was out of fresh water and provisions for their 11,000 men after three months at sea. The need for water was dire. Admiral Charles Henri D’Estaing, leading the fleet, wrote, “the leakage, waste and pilferage of the food, and excessive consumption, as well as several irregularities in the plan for water, left us little.” He was disappointed that local boats did not greet the fleet: "We received hardly any advice or signal, no ship from Long Island or the Jersies was zealous enough to come." So, D’Estaing decided to personally lead a landing party on July 12. The apparent destination was the freshwater spring immediately south of Sandy Hook on the Navesink Highlands, often identified as “the watering place” on maps. The French Come Ashore in Monmouth County To get there, the French likely sought to send the landing party through “the Gut ”—a channel of water that, due to violent storms the prior winter, now separated Sandy Hook from the mainland. D’Estaing was advised that the watering place was within reach: “A pilot gave to us by the Americans assured us we could cross the bar at Sandy Hook and get water there." The Gut, however, likely had a strong flow that created novel currents and sand bars on the ocean side. These new hazards were probably unknown to the pilot. The attempt to traverse the Gut was a fiasco—boats overturned and men drowned in the fast water. Samuel Cooper wrote: “he [D’Estaing] threw himself into a small Boat… the Navigation of which was so extremely difficult, as to cost him an Officer, many Sailors, and a Number of Boats." The expedition was made worse by the appearance of British troops who blocked the French from escaping the fast water by coming onto Sandy Hook. D’Estaing wrote: “The cavalry and infantry of the English appeared on the coast with the bar, preventing us from landing.” On the far side of the Gut, British ships were close enough for D’Estaing to see their flags. The French had to retreat. The second landing was at Black Point (present-day Rumson). The French entered the Shrewsbury River. Lieutenant Jean-Julien Chevalier LeMauff, with the Admiral, described the journey: The Admiral himself went down in the morning into this river with two boats fit out to reconnoiter the country, which appeared to us well peopled, as we lacked fresh victuals of every kind, and even water, having passed three months at sea. Across the river at Black Point (Rumson), D’Estaing first met the locals. The Admiral recalled: I was received by a few foot soldiers; after a short time, which seemed very long to me, I was received by a Quaker , 'A friend of Everybody in the World', but more a friend of the English than Americans, proved to me by his remarks and by the tea he gave me, which I did not find very good. I was able by this undertaking to make contact with several of the best Patriots, and the acquaintance of the dirty river Shrewsbury, as well as getting some fresh water from the wells. D’Estaing’s host was probably John Hartshorne, a prominent Quaker who lived near the probable French landing point. Hartshorne’s granddaughter, Lulu, recalled what she was told about John Hartshorne meeting D’Estaing. Hartshorne “brought him [D’Estaing] and some officers home to breakfast, one [French officer] was quartered at the house a considerable time, a very Gentlemanly intelligent man -- spoke English very well." D’Estaing needed to establish an outpost in order to “find water and to establish correspondence with General Washington.” LeMauff described that outpost. The next morning the General sent me with a detachment to employ the means of watering there by wells; to accomplish this daily we had a detachment of 250 men, 4 cannons, and some swivel guns mounted on carriages. The inhabitants being American but, in number, several to be found who are Royalists, we feared that some English detachments might come to attack us. One of the locals of ambiguous loyalty was Benjamin White. He wrote of the French: A French fleet came to anchor off Jumping Point and sent their boats ashore for water. They were cut off by the British fleet from obtaining the watering places [closer to Sandy Hook]. I assisted them in carting their empty casks, filling them and returning through the surf. A Loyalist newspaper, the New York Gazette , reported on another meeting. A Scot naval officer serving in the French fleet "went ashore at Shrewsbury; the inhabitants finding he spoke good English crowded to converse with him." The officer was reportedly condescending toward them. Further, "he looked upon their independence as only a dream, for France or Britain must have this Country." From Philadelphia, Cooper wrote of D’Estaing’s cool reception from disaffected locals: Not a person had come to him from the Shore: That part of the Jerseys had not then the Reputation of the greatest Zeal for the common Cause: Nothing presented itself to the Squadron of our Allies, unacquainted with our Coasts, but an inaccessible Shore. Continental Government Sends Supplies to French As the French procured a trickle of provisions from people living along the Shrewsbury River, the Continental Congress sought to provide more. On July 12, Richard Henry Lee of Congress wrote D’Estaing: A commissary has orders quickly to collect 50 bullocks and 700 sheep with a quantity of vegetables and a number of poultry, and he will wait on your Excellency to know your pleasure... I am to inform you that in Little Egg Harbor or Toms River, neither of them far from the Hook, fresh water may be conveniently obtained. George Washington also sought to get supplies to the French, writing a commissary on July 15: I desire you immediately to select Fifty of your best Bullocks, and give orders to have two hundred Sheep, if to be procured and a quantity of poultry purchased in the most convenient part of the Country. They are intended as a present to the Count D'Estaing Admiral of the French Fleet now laying off Sandy Hook. You are to send them to the Coast as expeditiously as possible. The French diplomat at Philadelphia, Conrad Alexandre Gerard, also sought to get supplies to the fleet after receiving a list of needs from D’Estaing: "I have curtailed the salted beef because it is not in abundance this season” but he advised the Admiral of local supplies “of fresh meat for your crews at a better price than that of salted meat. We expect to be able to furnish almost all the articles; however, it will take several days.” Curiously, Gerard asked D’Estaing to buy him a slave: “Sir, if there are some negroes for sale in this country… have the goodness to send [one to] me.” Lee again wrote D'Estaing on July 16 that Congress was sending "a supply of water and fresh provisions… with all possible expedition.” A French frigate in the Delaware Bay, Chimera , with local vessels, “will be dispatched immediately with as much water as we can find Casks for.” Beyond that, Lee noted: The same vessels will bring your Excellency some hundred barrels of bread and flour, with a small supply of fresh provisions. A Commissary has orders quickly to collect near Shrewsbury and the Hook 50 Bullocks, 700 Sheep, with a quantity of vegetables and a number of poultry. Lee reminded D’Estaing that “fresh water can be conveniently obtained" at Toms River and Egg Harbor. On the same day, one of Monmouth County’s leading patriots, David Forman, arrived at the French outpost. Capt. Choin of the French Army introduced him to D’Estaing: "We are sending you a Colonel from the militia who knows the [Shrewsbury] river, but he arrives by only one horse and carriage” to avoid attracting attention of the British. John Laurens reached Shrewsbury the next day. Colonel John Laurens, the son of the President of the Congress, had “taken quarters at Shrewsbury" to help the French. He went aboard the French fleet accompanied by Forman. In a July 17 letter, Laurens noted that Forman had already been out to see the French. He said of Forman: “A Gentleman for whom I have the highest esteem on account of his indefatigability and great sacrifices... He is a man of enlightened understanding." Laurens also wrote of the difficulties in finding provisions for the French: I found the fleet under the greatest difficulty in procuring water; its distance from the shore was too great to role [sic] the casks down to the place of embarkation; the disaffected citizens either refused their wagons or granted them only at an exorbitant price. In addition, the French suffered some losses while rowing heavily-laden boats through the surf to their ships. On July 15, "4 seamen of the Aimable were drowned in passing the bar.” The next day, “Our large dinghy stove [overturned] on the bar, two men drowned and several sheep." The promised livestock had not reached the French on July 18. That day, Reverend James Caldwell, a New Jersey delegate to the Continental Congress, was at Freehold: “I have just received General Washington's order from Congress to send the Admiral 50 best bullocks, 200 sheep, poultry & I am preparing to transmit this well-timed present in the best manner I can.” The traffic of small vessels from Shrewsbury Inlet to the fleet was watched by the British. Rear Admiral James Gambier, wrote about it on July 19: “The [French] fleet have been ever since watering at the mouth of Shrewsbury River near the Navesink, where they appear to do it with great convenience and dispatch.” The British were also debriefed by a Loyalist fisherman, Samuel DeHart, who “was taken Prisoner… fishing of[f] the Sea Bass bank.” DeHart said that “Washington made the Fleet a present of 500 fat oxen—the French have landed a great many Troops in the Jerseys." DeHart was partially correct. On July 21, Reverend Caldwell wrote that he finally gathered and drove the requested livestock to the French fleet. "Yesterday got them [cattle] on board, the sheep and poultry not gathered on time." He also wrote that the French had “a very plentiful supply of hard money, and easily tempted the Monmouth people to prepare to this market." In a second letter, Caldwell noted that the French did not want the sheep he brought them, "told me he had a supply of sheep waiting in another way.” The provisions made it on board the French fleet just in time for it to leave for Rhode Island. Caldwell was angry. The French “stripped, then sunk or burnt" the captured fishing boats and kept the local fishermen they had taken "except young Samuel DeHart whom I happened to see while I was on board." Caldwell likely did not know that DeHart was a British informer. Caldwell wrote that Captain Patrick Dennis was told that captured fishermen would be “sent ashore for trial by their Country & it was consented.” Perhaps the French better knew the danger of placing men like DeHart on parole until a trial could be arranged. The Jersey Shore Responds to the French Fleet The arrival of the French fleet was big news up and down the Jersey Shore. Whig villages like Chestnut Neck (upriver from Little Egg Harbor ) and Toms River sent pilots and ships to the French. But the villages were tiny in comparison to the needs of the French fleet. For example, Captain Samuel Brown of Forked River sailed out of Toms River, “his boat was intended for the fleet to ferry her their [American] signals.” The arrival of the French fleet chased the British off the Jersey shore and that unleashed several small privateers and militia boats previously blockaded in New Jersey’s small ports. This is well-documented by maritime historian Donald Shomette, who wrote: "The French alliance ingited a dramatic escalation in the number of active privateers and a stunning increase in British losses." Prizes taken by American privateers jumped from 128 in 1778 to 298 in 1780. The unleashing of local privateers in summer 1778 is evident in New Jersey Admiralty Court advertisements and the letters of John Van Emburgh, a privateer owner at Toms River. He wrote of privateers entering and leaving port in July 1778. The departure of the British was the reason: “The enemy vessels has now left the bar [off Toms River] … the privateers are again out.” The French Quit Sandy Hook The French decision to quit Sandy Hook for Rhode Island was forced by the realization that their large ships were ill-suited for entering the channel north of Sandy Hook, but inadequate provisions likely hastened this decision. D’Estaing wrote Washington about this on August 3: “The extreme difficulty of procuring water at Shrewsbury, and the tardiness with which it is collected from different places, have long since obliged me to retrench our allowance.” The British understood this also. On July 23, the day after the French left for Rhode Island, three British ships went to the abandoned French outpost. Captain James Parker wrote: Three of our ships ly [sic] where the French lay yesterday. A Fisherman came up, says he was taken by the French & has been a week with them. Says they landed their sick at Shrewsberry, about 4 or 500, that they wanted water & could only get trifling supply from thence. While New Jersey and Continental leaders did their best to supply the French, the Shrewsbury Inlet anchorage was too far from commissaries to promptly bring them the needed provisions. The disaffection of the Shrewsbury shore compounded the problem. The inability to trust the residents of Shrewsbury would soon push Washington to station a company of Continentals there. Related Historic Site: Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : 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; Samuel Cooper to Ben Franklin, Ben Franklin Papers online: http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=37&page=240a002 ; Journal of LIeutenant Jean-Julien Chevalier LeMauf, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 359-360; Henri Doniol, ed., Histoire de la Participation de la France à l'Établissement des États Unis d'Amérique: Correspondance Diplomatique et Documents, 5 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1876–99), vol. 3, p. 447-9; Lulu Hartshorne’s account is in Monmouth County Historical Association, Collection #86, box 1, folder 21; Henri D’Estaing to George Washington, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 369-370; Jedidiah Huntington, Huntington Papers, Connecticut History Society Collections, vol. 20 (1923), p 411; George Washington to Jeremiah Wadsworth, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw120217)) ; Alexandre Gerard in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 397; Richard Henry Lee to Henri D’Estaing in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 359-360; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Charles Paulin, Out-Letters of the Marine Committee and Board of Admiralty (New York: Navy History Society, 1914) vol. 1, p 267; James Caldwell to Elias Boudinot, Library of Congress, Elias Boudinot Coll. Letters; Capt. Choin to Henri D’Estaing in Henri Doniol, ed., Histoire de la Participation de la France à l'Établissement des États Unis d'Amérique: Correspondance Diplomatique et Documents, 5 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1876–99), vol. 3, p. 327-32; John Laurens, The Army Correspondence of Colonel John Laurens in the years 1777-8 (New York: New York Times, 1969) pp. 206-7; The loss of French boats is documented in the Logbook of the Languedoc, printed in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 233; James Gambier to Earl of Sandwich in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 465; Interrogation of Samuel DeHart, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 527; United State Naval Academy, Rosenbach Coll., James Caldwell; James Caldwell to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, July 23, 1778; Capt James Parker, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 480; Henri D’Estaing to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw120322)) . 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 Court Martial of Richard Lippincott by Michael Adelberg William Franklin, head of the Associated Loyalists, verbally ordered Richard Lippincott to hang a captured rebel officer, Joshua Huddy. Lippincott went to trial for murder while Franklin sailed for England. - April 1782 - The hanging of Joshua Huddy on April 12 set off a chain of events. Enraged Monmouth Countians lobbied George Washington to retaliate. Washington moved quickly —ordering that a British officer be selected for retaliation and demanding Huddy’s murderer [Richard Lippincott] from the British Commander in Chief, Henry Clinton. Clinton would not hand over Lippincott, but he also acted quickly. Henry Clinton Responds to the Hanging of Joshua Huddy The same day that Clinton heard from Washington (April 21), he wrote William Franklin, New Jersey’s last Royal Governor. Embittered by the flow of the war, Franklin became Chairman of the Associated Loyalists (the paramilitary to which Lippincott belonged). Clinton wrote of Washington's inquiry about Huddy’s hanging: "Brig. General David Forman… has gone to General Washington to complain of the outrage." Huddy was a prisoner in the care of the Associated Loyalists. Clinton demanded a report on Huddy’s death from Franklin; Lippincott was arrested. The Board of the Associated Loyalists replied to Clinton on April 24. “Captain Lippincott, having been taken up and committed to the Provost [jail] before he completed his report" made it impossible to report on Huddy’s hanging. The Board also learned that Lippincott would be court-martialed by the British Army. The Board acknowledged a request to provide “the names of the men who were of the party with Captain Lippincott." (It appears that this list was never provided.) Clinton, unhappy with the Board’s response, replied immediately. He made three queries: 1.) “Whether the three prisoners of war delivered by order of the Board to Captain Lippincott were exchanged according to the intentions of the Board, and for whom”? 2.) “What report (either verbal or written) Captain Lippincott had made to the Board on return from Sandy Hook?” 3.) And “also every circumstance the Board knows respecting the death of Captain Huddy." Clinton ended the Board's power to exchange prisoners: "[You] shall not in the future remove or exchange any prisoners of war." A list of prisoners in the British Provost jail under the authority of the Associated Loyalists was supplied on April 27. This list named to eighteen American prisoners—thirteen of whom were likely Monmouth Countians - John Staatesor, William Everingham, Thomas Wainwright, John Lane, George Parker, David London, William Case, Joseph Hendrickson, James Edsall, John Mitchell, Robert North, George Taylor, Solomon Bartlett. Most of these men were taken with Huddy at Toms River on March 24. Clinton then replied to Washington April 25. He scolded Washington for his "improper language." But he admitted, "I am very concerned" by Huddy’s hanging. "Acts of cruelty… are notoriously contrary to my own conduct." He informed Washington of Lippincott’s court martial: "I instantly ordered a strict inquiry...and shall bring the perpetrator to an immediate trial." Clinton’s counterpart, Governor-General James Robertson, heading the civil government of British-held New York, wrote Washington on May 1. He assured Washington of his intentions “to carry on the war agreeable to the rules which humanity formed and the example of the politest nations.” He called on Washington to curb rebel abuses in Monmouth County as he would do in New York. He forwarded Washington the report of fifteen Loyalist murders in Monmouth County that the Associated Loyalists had compiled a few days earlier (see Appendix 1). Robertson then wrote: “Let us agree to prevent or punish every breach of the rules of war within the spheres of our Commands.” Robertson also warned Washington of a cycle of retaliation: “Nothing but the utmost necessity can justify retaliation, and if this cruel, dangerous measure was to be trusted in the hands of incensed men—universal horror and Barbarity would ensue.” He asked Washington to wait for the results of the court martial before further acting and to return two British officers taken at Elizabethtown. Washington kept the heat on the British, informing Clinton on April 25, "orders are to be given to designate a British officer in retaliation [for hanging Huddy]... I still hope the result of your Court Martial will prevent this dreadful alternative." Washington’s letter revealed that murder conviction and punishment from the British court would be an acceptable substitute to turning over Lippincott. The Start of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott The Court Martial of Richard Lippincott began on April 25. The Court included two of the highest ranking Loyalists in the British Army, Generals Cortland Skinner and Oliver DeLancey. The first action of the Court was to hear a plea from the Associated Loyalists to have the case dismissed because the alleged crime was "outside of military jurisdiction." The Associated Loyalists also appealed to Henry Clinton, "we are at loss to know from whence authority is derived by which Capt. Lippincott can be tried for murder by General Court Martial" since Lippincott is not a military officer. Clinton did not respond. Loyalists watched Lippincott’s court martial with concern. Attorney William Smith was sympathetic toward Lippincott. As the court martial began, he wrote: "He [Lippincott] seemed fearless, and avowed that what he did was by authority... I then suspected the Board of Refugees meant to disavow Lippincott and make him their scapegoat." Antiquarian sources describe unrest because of the court martial including the public jeering of Henry Clinton and a brawl between Loyalist protesters and British soldiers on May 3 outside of New York’s City Hall (the site of the court martial). The Huddy hanging unleashed British resentments toward the Associated Loyalists. General James Graham complained of the “predatory kind of warfare… carried out by the loyal refugees.” He continued: “Sir Henry Clinton, highly resenting this disgraceful outrage on humanity and insult on himself as commander.” As for Lippincott “he pleaded that he was not subject to martial law” and “could not be tried in New York for an offense committed in another state, New Jersey." Also on April 25, the Board of Associated Loyalists, submitted a report entitled, "State of Facts, Presenting the Murders Committed on Loyalists in Monmouth County." The short report listed fifteen Loyalists murdered in Monmouth County: Stephen Edwards, Stephen West, Stephen Emmons, Ezekiel Williams, James Pew, John Wood, Thomas Emmons, Jacob Fagan, Jonathan Burdge, John Farnham, Joseph Wood, Joseph Mulliner, Richard Bell, Thomas Johnson, and Philip White. (See appendix 1.) The Board of Associated Loyalists followed up again on April 27. They claimed that Lippincott had landed in Monmouth County to attempt a prisoner exchange but it was refused. Then he attempted to “carry off” Captain Clayton Tilton, jailed in Freehold, “by force.” They feared that Tilton would suffer the same fate as Philip White, the Loyalist killed on March 31 . They wrote of “the many daring acts of the same nature which have been perpetrated with impunity by a set of vindictive rebels well known by the name the Monmouth Retaliators ” and called out David Forman’s as the group’s leader. The Associated Loyalists then admitted to retaliating on Huddy, without admitting to the hanging: We thought it high time to convince the rebels we would no longer tamely submit to acts of barbarity, and though we lament the necessity to which we have been driven, to begin a retaliation for intolerable cruelties, yet we are convinced that we could not have saved the life of Capt Tilton by any other means. We therefore pitched upon Joshua Huddy for a proper subject of retaliation. The Associated Loyalists went on to describe Huddy “being instrumental in the hanging of Stephen Edwards, a worthy Loyalist” in 1777. Huddy “was the man who tied the rope and put it around the neck of that inoffensive sufferer. This fact will appear by two affidavits, which we have the honor to enclose." Lieutenant Josiah Parker, formerly of Shrewsbury, stated that Huddy "had been concerned in the hanging of Stephen Edwards, and in particular that the said Huddy had fixed the rope 'round Edwards' neck." John Tilton spoke with Huddy before his execution. Huddy told him that "he did not hang Edwards, but tied the rope & put it around his neck, and greased the rope, that it might slip easy." The Associated Loyalists continued to argue that Lippincott’s trial was illegal, writing Clinton on May 2: "attempting to punish Captain Lippincott by a court martial for the execution of Joshua Huddy was… neither warranted by the Mutiny Act or the Articles of War, but altogether illegal, unjustifiable and impolitic." On May 4, the Board sent another letter "stating the reasons which induce the Board to think Captain Lippincott not amenable to a Court Martial." Clinton apparently did not respond. Monmouth Countians Testify at the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott Lippincott’s court martial went through May and into June. Roughly twenty witnesses testified, of which eleven were from Monmouth County. Their testimony is summarized below: The first Monmouth Countian to testify was Lippincott himself, on May 3. He stressed the cruel treatment of Loyalists: I have long been attainted by the rebels of New Jersey; my estate has been made subject to their illegal confiscations, and I have all along, without pay or rank, opposed myself to his Majesty's enemies on equal conditions... My Loyalty has not been of the passive kind, for I have often hazarded my life. Loyalty has been bleeding at every vein, & is now bleeding in New Jersey… Those who early staked their all on the final success of the Royal cause, and chose a kind of exile from their estates, families and connections, in preference to the guilt of rebellion… Several of my friends and neighbors have fallen sacrifice to rebel barbarity. Lippincott defended acts of retaliation, "a milder conduct towards the Loyalists has been the result of such Retaliation." He also claimed that he was verbally ordered by the Board of the Associated Loyalist to perform the execution. He acted "according to the meaning of my Order as explained by several of the Members of the Board." If hanging Huddy was illegal, a middling officer like him "cannot be supposed to know their jurisdiction perfectly" as British military law "is by no means generally known.” Lippincott refused to enter a guilty or not guilty plea, but "informed the Court that not being prepared to plead" he requested and was granted a delay to May 6. Then Lippincott again refused to enter a plea, now claiming that the British Army court martial lacked jurisdiction over an Associated Loyalist: “He is legally held to answer for the said supposed offence before a Court of common Law cognizance, and not elsewhere." Another delay in the proceedings resulted. When the court martial resumed, William Corlies, who lived near Lippincott in Shrewsbury before the war, testified. He detailed several past abuses and murder in Monmouth County and called David Forman “Black David… on account of barbarous treatment of Loyalists in New Jersey." (See Appendix 2.) Thomas Crowell testified William Franklin ordered him to execute Captain Barnes Smock, in 1781, supporting Lippincott's defense that he was ordered to execute Joshua Huddy. "He [Crowell] obtained from the Commandant, thro' Governor Franklin, orders” to take three Monmouth County prisoners and ”to have one executed , one of them by retaliation." But the plan fell apart when no one would sign the order authorizing Crowell to carry out the execution. Crowell would not do the deed without a written order. Crowell’s testimony was corroborated by Moffat Taylor, another Monmouth Countian, who also testified about the near-hanging of Barnes Smock a year earlier. Samuel Taylor, formerly of Shrewsbury, testified that he informed Franklin of the murder of Philip White. He and Franklin had discussed executing Joshua Huddy in retaliation. Taylor proposed: The delivery of Captain Huddy and one [Daniel] Randolph (who is looked upon as a man of some consequence in that County) in order to exchange the latter for [Clayton] Tilton and then execute the former [Huddy] in retaliation for Philip White. Franklin agreed and boasted, "they [Associated Loyalists] should continue retaliating by hanging man for man" against the rebels. Taylor claimed that Lippincott received verbal orders from Franklin to execute Huddy, and that Lippincott "should have looked upon them as lawful Orders.” Franklin said to him, "Will you execute him [Huddy] when you take him out?' he [Lippincott] replied he would… Governor Franklin added 'then you shall have him'." John Tilton agreed, stating that Franklin agreed that Huddy "must be executed, or they (meaning the Loyalists) would all be hanged." Another Monmouth Loyalist, Moffat Taylor, testified Franklin wanted a prisoner exchange of Randolph and Jacob Fleming for Clayton Tilton and Aaron White (Philip White’s brother). They were both jailed in Freehold—though Aaron White would escape. In addition, “Joshua Huddy was to be executed for Philip White, who had been murdered." Taylor supported Thomas Crowell’s testimony about the near-hanging of Barnes Smock: “One by the name of Smock was taken out to be executed but was not.” Then Moffat Taylor explained that the order to hang Huddy was conveyed through him to Lippincott: He [Franklin] told him (the Deponent) to go to him [Lippincott] and he dared Say he (Captain Lippincott) would be fond of going [to New Jersey to hang Huddy]; He (the Deponent) went to Captain Lippincott, told him Governor Franklin had appointed him to go and asked him if he was willing to go; he (Capt. Lippincott) replied he had nothing to say against it, he was willing to go. Aaron White testified on the murder of his brother, Philip White, by three guards. He testified that he was separated from his brother and heard talk of them killing Philip. The guards “harassed and abused” Philip until he attempted an escape. Philip was then hunted down, wounded several times, and killed. Four prominent Shrewsbury Loyalists served as character witnesses for Lippincott. 1.) Lt. Colonel John Morris stated that he had known Lippincott for many years, and praised Lippincott’s "uniform good character." 2.) Reverend Samuel Cooke was a neighbor of Lippincott's before the war and "had every reason to think his character stood as fair as that of any refugee." 3.) John Wardell, Esq., stated he had known Lippincott over ten years and "always looked upon him as an honest, inoffensive and peaceable man." 4.) Attorney William Taylor, gave a statement in support of Lippincott and, with Robert Alexander, compiled a list of Loyalists unjustly killed in Monmouth County. (See Appendix 1.) Other Key Testimony at Richard Lippincott’s Court Martial Timothy Brooks, a Pennsylvania Loyalist in Lippincott’s hanging party, testified that Lippincott showed humanity toward Huddy—permitting Huddy to compose his will. Lippincott also spoke privately and shook hands with Huddy immediately before the hanging. Brooks also testified that Samuel Taylor, also with the hanging party, told him that Governor Franklin had ordered the hanging. William Cunningham, Provost of Prisoners, testified that Lippincott wanted to kill Huddy, but only if he was authorized: He had often heard Capt. Lippincott say that Gov. Franklin often said there was no way of preventing the rebels from massacring the Refugees, but by Retaliation. Captain Lippincott answered that he would be the man who would cause it to be done if he, the Governor, would give him a written order, so that he might stand fair in the eyes of his Excellency, the Commander in Chief; Gov. Franklin replied that he could give no written order, but would answer to the consequences to the Commander in Chief -- as it was the only way of putting a stop to the rebels hanging and murdering the Loyal Refugees. Cunningham also noted that Franklin had sent Lippincott a confession to sign while Lippincott was in jail; Cunningham counseled Lippincott not to sign it "as the contents of which were to acquit the Board of having anything of Huddy's death and that he, Lippincott, should take it entirely upon himself." Finally, Cunningham claimed, like others, that Huddy boasted of his role in hanging Stephen Edwards: “Huddy avowed it by saying ‘By God he did,’ and that he (meaning himself) slushed (meaning greased) the Rope, and that a Colonel Forman assisted in pulling the Rope hand over hand.” Walter Chaloner, the Associated Loyalist’s Commissary of Prisoners admitted that he knew Huddy was going to be hanged when released into Lippincott's custody. He claimed that Huddy went "joyfully" expecting an exchange. Captain Richard Morris of the Britannia, the guard ship at Sandy Hook, knew of the plan to hang Huddy, and saw the note that would be pinned to Huddy’s corpse, proclaiming the execution an act of retaliation . He gave Lippincott the rope for the hanging. British military attorney, Stephen Payne Adye, author of The Treatise on Courts-Martial, , was brought in toward the end of trial to provide a legal framing of the facts that had emerged. He noted that killing an "alien enemy" was not murder if it was for a proper military purpose and carried out under military authority. The key question was therefore whether Lippincott believed killing Huddy had a “military purpose” and that he was acting under the authority of a superior. Adye believed that Lippincott heard Franklin say “there was no way of stopping the Rebels from massacring the Refugees but by Retaliation.” This gave Lippincott reason to believe the execution had a military purpose. Lippincott also recognized the need to conduct the execution under proper authority: “Captain Lippincott answered he would be the Man who would cause it to be done, if he (the Governor) would give him an Order in Writing, so that he might stand fair in the Eyes of His Excellency the Commander in Chief.” Lippincott told Adye that: “Governor Franklin replied that he could give no written Order, but would answer the consequences to the Commander in Chief.” Adye also submitted the confession that Lippincott was asked to sign, “the contents of which were to acquit the Board of knowing anything of Huddy's death.” It put Huddy’s execution in the context: A Set of Vindictive Rebels well known by the Designation of Monmouth Retaliators fired our party with an indignation only to be felt by men who for a series of years have beheld many of their friends and neighbors butchered in cold blood under the usurped form of Law. Due to these abuses, Lippincott was therefore (according to the statement) entitled to retaliate: We lament the necessity to which we have been driven to begin a retaliation of intolerable(sic) cruelties long continued and often repeated, yet we are convinced, that we could not have saved the life of Capt. Tilton by any other means; We therefore pitched upon Joshua Huddy as a proper Subject for retaliation... They [Whigs] shall feel by a severe retaliation, in every instance the just Vengeance due to such enormities. Blood shall flow for Blood. Adye complained that he was not able to interview most of the men in Lippincott’s party (the list of whom was never turned in). Adye noted that Lippincott's "implied obedience" to verbal orders resulted in his "coolly and deliberately” killing a man “upon the bare Word of a third [person, Moffat Taylor]." He suggested that Lippincott should have questioned the scenario, particularly because the execution came through a third party. Adye also challenged the supposition that retaliation curbed abuses by the Rebels; Washington’s threatened retaliation against the British officer, proved that retaliation only encouraged additional retaliation . The Verdict In his closing statement, Lippincott reminded the court that he was a "Loyal Refugee" and that "flagrant Acts of inhuman Barbarity so often and so repeatedly perpetrated" against Monmouth Loyalists stirred him. He noted that the Associated Loyalists were founded on a "solemn Declaration that they would take just Vengeance.” Then, Lippincott claimed that he had executed Huddy under orders: The Governor [Franklin] judging it proper that a retaliation should take place... gave me his Orders for the Execution of Huddy. That in Consequence of such Orders I received Huddy into my possession & commanded the party which disposed of him according to what we thought that the will of our superiors. On June 22, nearly two months after the court martial started, the verdict was read: What the prisoner [Lippincott] did in the matter was not the effect of malice or Ill-will, but proceeded from a conviction that it was his duty to obey the orders of the Board of Directors of Associated Loyalists, and his not doubting their having a full Authority to give such orders, the Court is of Opinion that he, the Prisoner, Captain Richard Lippincott, is Not Guilty of the Murder laid to his Charge, and doth therefore Acquit him. Attorney observers accepted the verdict. Loyalist William Smith, who followed the trial closely, wrote on June 22 that Lippincott's and other testimony has "showed clearly that he had executed Huddy by order of Governor Franklin." Thomas Jones, a British attorney in New York not affiliated with the trial: One of the objects of the organization [Associated Loyalists] was that the Associators could retaliate upon the Americans for outrages and murders committed upon the Loyalists. This, it was, that led to the execution of Joshua Huddy by verbal order of William Franklin. Perspective Huddy’s blood is on Lippincott’s hands. Lippincott killed Huddy based on years of compounded frustration, backstopped by an unethical verbal order conveyed through a third party. Lippincott likely wanted to kill Huddy; but he knew he needed permission to do so. The leader who encouraged the killing and gave the order, William Franklin, was guilty of the deed, but that does not absolve Lippincott. For a year, Franklin communicated that he wanted to kill a rebel officer based on the faulty logic that an execution might convince the enemy to be kinder to Loyalists. Franklin knew that it was risky to kill a man extra-legally—and the British refused to condone eye-for-an-eye retaliation. So, Franklin avoided putting his murderous order in writing and promised to take the heat after the execution. When Clinton arrested Lippincott, Franklin sought to pin the deflect the blame, going so far as drafting a self-incriminating confession for Lippincott to sign. More damning, Franklin quietly sailed for England to avoid Lippincott’s court martial. He escaped accountability for the execution he engineered. But the furor over Huddy and Lippincott would reverberate to the highest levels of the American, British and French governments. Related Historic Site : New York Historical Society Appendix 1: Extracts from Information Laid Before his Excellency, Sir Henry Clinton, of Several Acts of Cruelty & Barbarity received upon Persons Therein Excerpted: 1. Stephen Edwards, "of family and property was taken out of his bed in 1777 by Joshua Huddy, who acknowledged himself to have been active and assisting in hanging said Edwards." 2. James Pew, Middletown, "of respectable family and good character, was taken prisoner in 1778. confined for a considerable amount of time in Freehold goal, and shot to death by the sentry." 3. Stephen West, Stephen Emmons, & [?] Williams: "loyalists from Monmouth were most inhumanly murdered in 1778." 4. John Wood and Thomas Emmons: "loyalists, were taken in Monmouth in 1778, and executed." 5. Jacob Fagan, "from Monmouth was wounded in 1778, of said wound he died, and was privately buried by some of his friends.- the inhabitants got information of this, dug him up, carried his corpse to Freehold, and hung it on the gibbets." 6. John Farnham and John Burdge, "loyalists from Monmouth were taken in 1781 and executed at Freehold, notwithstanding that a colonel of the militia and member of New Jersey assembly (taken by Farnham and Burdge) were offered in exchange for them." 7. Joseph Wood, "was taken at Long Branch, near Shrewsbury, in 1781, carried to Colt's Neck, where he was a prisoner for several days, that in conveying him to Freehold, he was shot to death by the guard, within half a mile of the prison." 8. Joseph Mulliner, "loyalist and Captain of a whale boat was taken in 1781, carried to Freehold, removed to Burlington, tried and executed, notwithstanding [that] he produced his commission as Captain of a privateer at his tryal." 9. Richard Bell and John Thomson, "loyalists from Monmouth was taken November last from off Sandy Hook, carried to Freehold and hanged." 10. Philip White, "loyalist taken lately at Shrewsbury in an action, was marched under guard near 16 miles, and at a fork of the road about 3 miles from Freehold goal, as is asserted by creditable persons, he was by three persons left back, while Capt. [Clayton] Tilton and the other prisoners were sent forward, and after being stripped of his britches, buckles and other articles, the dragoons said they could give him a chance for his life and ordered him to run, which he attempted, but had not gone thirty yards from them when they shot him.” Appendix 2: Testimony of William Corlies at Richard Lippincott’s Court Martial William Corlies, Husbandman from the province of New Jersey, and now one of the Associated Loyalists under the Board of Directors being duly sworn was examined. Q What does he (the Deponent) know respecting the death of one Edwards, the Character of that Gentleman, and what was his real offence, together with all the circumstances of that transaction as far as he was able to collect them? A He (the Deponent), at the time of Mr. Edwards death, resided at Shrewsbury in the County of Monmouth; that he (Edwards) was taken out of bed at his own house; that he was carried to a place called Freehold, to the best of his (the Deponent's) remembrance about three years since; the following day he was brought to some kind of trial, and the day following was executed; the Offence alledged against him was said to be his having some Papers found in his Pockets; from every thing he (the Deponent) heard respecting Mr. Edwards he bore an exceeding good Character. Q by the Court — Was any complaint made to General Washington on the death of Edwards, and what was the Consequence? A He heard there was a complaint made to Genl. Washington or the Governor, but to the best of his remembrance he thinks to General Washington, but he cannot say what was the consequence of that Complaint, or what the Complaint was. Q Was he present at, or does he know the names of the Judges or any of the Members that sat on the Tryal of Mr. Edwards as he has already related? A He was not present; General Forman was one; Joshua Huddy was also one; he had that information from Joshua Huddy's own Mouth; he does not recollect who the rest were. Q Was he present at the Execution of Edwards? A He was not, but was at his Burial. Q from the Prisoner — Was Edwards tried for Treason against the Rebel State of New Jersey, or for any and what other Crime? A He understood he was tried for Treason in consequence of those papers already mentioned. Q What does he know respecting the Trials of John Wood and Thomas Emans, Loyalists in Monmouth County, the Crimes of which they were Accused, and the circumstances of that Transaction? A He knows nothing of the Circumstances respecting Wood and Emans but by hearsay. Q What does he (the Deponent) know respecting the Trial and Execution of Farnhan, Burge and Paterson, the Crimes of which they were Accused and the circumstances of that whole Affair. A He furnished a Man with a Horse to prevent the Execution of those persons, but knows nothing of particulars only by Report. Q What was the report of the County respecting these Matters? A The general report was that those persons were carried to Monmouth and executed for being Loyalists and guilty of Treason against the State. Q What has been the usual mode of proceeding against the Loyalists in that part of the Country, and what pretences do they generally make use of for their Cruelties against them? A The general mode of proceeding has been that when any of the Persons alluded to were taken prisoners, they were considered as State prisoners, not prisoners of War, and were tried and executed by order of sometimes Civil Courts, sometimes Courts Martial, and sometimes without any Trial. Q Did not the Rebel General Forman generally pass by the name of Black David , on account of his barbarous treatment of Loyalists in New Jersey? A Yes; and for that reason, Vizt., Barbaritie, acquired that appellation. Q What does he know respecting the deaths of Stephen West, Stephen Emans and Ezekiel Williams; the information he received respecting them and from whom and in the Manner in which their dead bodies were exposed and treated? A He (the Deponent) was carried Prisoner to Monmouth in January 1779, on the night of the 24th of that Month; he saw a Captain Dennis3 of the Rebel Service bring to Freehold Court House three dead bodies; that Captain Dennis being a Neighbour of his (the Deponents) he asked where those Men were killed; he replyed they were killed on the Shore, where they were coming to join their Regiments; two of them, he said, belonged to Colonel Morris's Corps of General Skinner's Brigade; the other had been enlisted in their Service by those two belonging to Colonel Morris's Corps; he said also he (Capt. Dennis) had employed a Man to assist them in making their escape, at a place where he (Dennis) was to meet with them on the Shore, at which place he did meet them; that on coming to the Spot he (Dennis) surrounded them with his party; that the Men attempted to Fire, and not being able to discharge their pieces begged for quarter, and claimed the benefit of being prisoners of War; he ordered them to be fired on, and one of them by the Name of Williams fell; that they were all Bayonetted by the Party and brought to Monmouth, and that he (Dennis) received a sum of Money for that Action, either from the Governor or General Washington, which of the two he does not recollect. Q from the Court. Does he (the Deponent) know, or has he heard of any person or persons under the denomination of Loyalists, put to death without trial after being taken Prisoner and Confined? A Yes; one person by the Name of [James] Pew. Sources : James J. Graham, The Memoir of General Graham, (Edinburgh: R.R. Clark, 1862) pp.24, 83-4; Henry Clinton to William Franklin, Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #158-65; Prisoner List, Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #187: Henry Clinton to William Franklin, Princeton University Library, Microfilms Collection, #1081.133, Board of Associated Loyalists, April 22-May 4, 1782: Board of Associated Loyalists to Henry Clinton, Princeton University Library, Microfilms Collection, #1081.133, Board of Associated Loyalists, April 22-May 4, 1782: Henry Clinton to Board of Associated Loyalists, Princeton University Library, Microfilms Collection, #1081.133, Board of Associated Loyalists, April 22-May 4, 1782: To George Washington from James Robertson, 1 May 1782,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-08307, ver. 2013-09-28); Princeton University Library, Microfilms Collection, #1081.133, Board of Associated Loyalists, April 22-May 4, 1782; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; George Washington to Henry Clinton, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v105, reel 8, #722, 775-6; Elizabeth Miller, The American Revolution: As Described by British Writers and The Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser (London: Heritage Books, 2008) pp. 95-7; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) pp. 500-1; Board of Associated Loyalists, Report, Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #158-65; Board of Associated Loyalists statement in BF Stevens, Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain (London: Mackie & Co, 1906) v2, p467; Board of Associated Loyalists Statement in Elizabeth Miller, The American Revolution: As Described by British Writers and The Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser (London: Heritage Books, 2008) pp. 97-8; Board of Associated Loyalists Statement in Elizabeth Miller, The American Revolution: As Described by British Writers and The Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser (London: Heritage Books, 2008) pp. 97-8; Richard Lippincott’s statement is in Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) pp. 558-9, 582-8; William Corlies’ statement is in Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) pp. 566-8; Robert Alexander and Anthony Stewart’s statements, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v107, #240-2, 261, 268; Thomas Crowell’s testimony in Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) pp. 570, 579-80; Testimony of Samuel Taylor in Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) p 571; Testimony of John Morris, Samuel Cooke and John Wardell in Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) pp. 580-1; Richard Lippincott’s plea, Transcript of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/halew/Lippincott.html ; List of Cruelties and Barbarities, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 171, item 152, vol. 10, #543-6. Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #158-65; Board of Associated Loyalists to Henry Clinton, Princeton University Library, Microfilms Collection, #1081.133, Board of Associated Loyalists, April 22-May 4, 1782; William Cunningham’s testimony at the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v105, reel 8, #783-5; The verdict in the court martial is printed in William Gordon, The History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of Amerca, (New York, 1788) p284-9; Transcript of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/halew/Lippincott.html Testimony of Stephen Ayde Adye, Transcript of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/halew/Lippincott.html ; David Library of the American Revolution, Great Britain Public Records Office, British Headquarters Papers, #4760; Trial Verdict, Transcript of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/halew/Lippincott.html; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) pp. 507, 511, 529; Thomas Jones, History of New York During the Revolutionary War: And of the Leading Events in the Other Colonies at That Period (Ulan: 2012) pp. 481-3. 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 Move to End Slaveholding by Michael Adelberg In 1776, Shrewsbury’s Quaker meeting pressured its members to free their slaves. The Meeting House, rebuilt in 1816, was likely where the Friends provided education to the recently freed slaves. - August 1776 - As noted in prior articles, slaveholding in Monmouth County was destabilized during the ramp up to the American Revolution. There was increased agitation from African Americans, a number of whom escaped behind British lines. Relatedly, the Quakers of Monmouth County, following the lead of Philadelphia’s Quaker meeting, sought to end slaveholding in the summer of 1776. On August 19, the combined Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meeting issued a new code of conduct for its members as the war commenced. While much of the code was focused on maintaining neutrality and not giving offense to others, the code also included a provision banning “any further buying or selling of slaves.” Item #7 of the code pertained to “manumitting slaves, educating children of slaves.” That same day the Shrewsbury Friends meeting discussed efforts to have its members free their slaves: Those [Quakers] who hold negroes in bondage have been labored with, in order to prevail on them to do justice... some of which have manumitted, some of them as are arrived to the age of 18 & 21 years, one has manumitted several young negroes who are to be freed at that age, some others say that those that are young shall be free when of age, but have not yet manumitted them & divers [sic] others cannot be prevailed with to set them at liberty. Shrewsbury Friends Move to End Slaveholding in Their Meeting Three months later, the meeting appointed Joseph Wardell, Joseph Jackson, and Edmund Williams from Shrewsbury and three more Friends from Rahway as a committee to counsel slaveholders and report on the results. The committee filed its report on August 18, 1777, the anniversary of the first direction to manumit slaves. It wrote: "a number of them [slaveholders] have been prevailed upon to execute proper manumissions... others seem senseless with respect to their duty." The committee determined to further counsel the holdouts. Regardless of good intentions, resetting relationships with former slaves caused tensions. On May 5, 1777, the Friends recorded that James Williams and John Williams beat the freed slave, Caesar Moore. The Friends appointed a committee to investigate. On July 7, the committee reported that James and John Williams had submitted a letter of apology but the committee rejected the letter because they deemed the apology insufficient. In August, John Williams apologized again: “I have deviated so far from our principles as to strike a black man through a passion, for which I am sorry," but James Williams "showed a condescending disposition toward reconciliation." His apologies were not accepted until October. In April 1778, the Shrewsbury meeting reported on continued slaveholding among Friends. It was noted that: Amos White of Rumson and Jonah Parker have freed their slaves; Essek Hartshorne agreed to free his adult slaves on bond and pledge to release child slaves when they reach the age majority; John Stevenson "has left his Negroes in such a situation that they cannot legally be freed as yet"; Jonathan Wright had made "several manumissions." The one strident hold-out was John Corlies who "continues to decline to comply with the annual meeting's advice on that head, therefore John Hartshorne is appointed to inform him that unless he complies with the said advice, this meeting will be under the necessity to disown him." After another counsel, Corlies was disowned on December 7. In 1779, the Friends turned their attention to the few members who still owned slaves. Essek Hartshorne, it was reported, "showed a willingness to comply with the advice of the yearly meeting, he is desired to produce proof of his manumissions for his negroes.” Proof of the manumissions was provided later in the year. The report also noted that William Corlies freed the slave, Jack, and William Parker freed the slave, Neamus Parker. However, Parker continued to keep another slave named Robin (though Parker committed to freeing Robin in April 1780). The report concluded: "We are nearly clear of them (slaves)." In November 1779, two problems remained: William Parker had manumitted Robin, but in a manner judged "not satisfactory." Full manumission was completed in October 1780. Benjamin Corlies sold his last slave, but to Esek Hartshorne. Hartshorne promised manumission, but only after this slave worked off the debt related to his purchase. This slave was freed in July 1780. Support for Freed Slaves In 1780, the Shrewsbury Friends shifted their focus from freeing slaves to supporting freed slaves. In January, they noted that "it don't appear that the committee appointed to have care & oversight of the freed Negroes have made any report… some of them have been entirely unthoughtful of their charge." In August, the committee appointed for supporting freedmen met with several freed slaves. It reported giving “such counsel as we are capable of... said advice seemed acceptable to most of them, and Friends that have them under care seem disposed to do justice to them.” By January 1782, that same committee optimistically reported, "not any negro has been offered to that meeting as suffering & that care is extended toward the free negroes there." An August report also offered an upbeat assessment: "Those negroes who have been manumitted have a comfortable subsistence & justice, in a good degree, administered to them by some.” An August 1783 report concluded: It appears that those negroes who have been manumitted are generally well provided for as to the necessities of life, & some care taken for their school learning, except for the cases of some, who are placed with those not in society with us [non-Quakers]. However, a second report noted that while most of the freed slaves were being assisted, several were not. The report expressed concern about “those freed by Josiah Parker, a part of those freed by Elihu Williams & two of those freed by Essek Hartshorne, which are under care of those not in society with us." The report also discussed the freed child slave of Samuel Allison: “there is cause to fear are [is] sold back into slavery." As the war drew to a close, there were still three slaveholders among the Shrewsbury Quakers. Curiously, the names of two of the hold-out Quakers are not offered in the minutes in the Shrewsbury meeting: “None [are] held in bondage except one friend who purchased & manumitted, but with a promise from the slave of having the purchase money restored;” “One other difficult case of which care has been taken but that nothing can be done at present." The third member of the meeting was “Widow Stevenson.” It was reported that she maintained "6 [slaves] in the estate of John Stevenson.” The report suggested there is no executor to the estate and the family was in debt. Attempts to counsel widow Stevenson were unsuccessful: “The widow cannot be reasoned with." The Shrewsbury Quakers were part of a larger New Jersey community that frequently discussed the future of slavery. The state’s primary newspaper, the New Jersey Gazette , printed a number of essays on the topic—both in favor of and opposed to slave manumission. New Jersey’s Governor, William Livingston, was a known opponent of slavery. In 1778, he called it "utterly inconsistent with the principles of Christianity and humanity: and in Americans who have idealized liberty, particularly odious and disgraceful." Neighboring Pennsylvania—the state with the largest Quaker population—abolished slavery in 1780. While ending slaveholding was clearly important to Shrewsbury’s Quakers, an argument could be made that it was not among their top concerns. Between 1775 and 1783, the Shrewsbury Friends meeting censured or disowned two members for refusing to free their slaves. The infomation below lists other misconducts that resulted in more than two censures or expulsions. Marrying Outside the Faith - 19 censures or expulsions Fornication - 16 censures or expulsions Quarreling/Fighting - 7 censures or expulsions Marrying without Approval - 7 censures or expulsions Drinking Alcohol - 6 censures or expulsions Profane Language - 4 censures or expulsions Meeting Non-Attendance - 4 censures or expulsions Horse Racing/Fox Hunting - 3 censures or expulsions The gravest threat to the Friends, however, was the war itself. Strict Quakers vainly struggled to keep other members from militia service or otherwise align with the Continental or British armies; that was the Shrewsbury Meeting’s continuous worry. Some Shrewsbury Quakers faithfully served in the local militia; others took up arms for the British, including those who joined an ill-fated Loyalist association in the neighborhoods of Deal and Shark River. Related Historic Sites : Shrewsbury Friends Meeting House Sources : Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, Reel MR-PH, 51; J. T. Main, The Sovereign States, 1775-1783 (New York: New Viewpoints, 1973), pp. 290-1; William Livingston, quoted in Benjamin Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), p 49; John Corlies expulsion discussed in, Graham Hodges, African Americans in Monmouth County during the American Revolution (Lincroft, NJ: Monmouth County Park System, 1990) p 15; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 90 note 70; The abolition of slaveholding in Pennsylvania is discussed in Gary B. Nash, Race and Revolution (Madison: Madison House, 1990) p 19. 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 Rise of John Bacon's Pine Robber Gang by Michael Adelberg In late 1781, the Pine Robber gang of John Bacon attacked and defeated the Stafford Twp. militia at Manahawkin. One of the killed militiamen, Silas Crane, is buried at Baptist Meeting House. - December 1781 - As noted in prior articles, Dover and Stafford townships in southern Monmouth County (and bordering Little Egg Harbor Township in Burlington County) was New Jersey’s most disaffected region during the second half of the Revolutionary War. The region was not well-suited for farming (the main path to acquiring wealth in 1700s America), so shore residents lived modestly by grazing small herds and practicing maritime trades. Shore residents were two days removed on horseback from their county seats in Freehold and Burlington. The culture of the region was rough: a Quaker elder complained that shore residents were “loose, libertine people;” they referred to “places of deviation ” along the shore. The Revolutionary War brought unprecedented capital and opportunity to acquire wealth to shore residents. Salt works sprung up and they were in constant need of laborers , but salt work owners constantly complained of laborers stealing their materials and then disappearing. Privateers from New England and Philadelphia employed some shore residents, and purchased supplies from others—but the opportunities created by privateers were transient. Though they brought money to a poor region, resentments toward these outsiders, no doubt, ran high. For shore residents, the most lucrative opportunity created by the Revolutionary War was the so-called London Trade. London Traders funneled the foodstuffs and lumber from disaffected New Jersey farmers to British buyers at Sandy Hook and New York. The wealth generated by this trade, coupled with long-simmering resentments from the shore region, bred gangs of Pine Robbers . By 1781, the Pine Robbers gangs of the lower shore numbered as many as 80 men, supported by armed London Trading vessels and disaffected locals who provided cover and supplies. Local militias lacked the power to depose these gangs, and George Washington, chastened by the poor record of Continentals previously stationed along the shore, refused to send troops . The Rise of John Bacon From this setting emerged John Bacon, the most prolific of the Pine Robber leaders. According to an antiquarian account, Bacon hailed from Arneytown, a center for disaffection in Upper Freehold Township . (Since Bacon is buried in Arneytown, there’s reason to think he had family there.) An antiquarian source claims that Bacon was an agricultural laborer to the Crane family of Stafford Township before the war. The Cranes supported the Revolution and would clash with Bacon’s gang later in the war. Further evidence that Bacon lived in Stafford Township is provided in court testimony from Luke Sooey, who stated that: “He knew Bacon before he went to the enemy - his family resides at Barnegat - thinks Bacon has been with the enemy between two & three years." David Fowler, who comprehensively studied the Pine Robbers, located Bacon in court documents early in the war. He was listed as a “shingle-maker” in a Monmouth County court document, meaning he was employed in repetitive and hard manual labor. Bacon also apparently ignored more than one court summons regarding a dispute with the Soper family, and was a claimant in a 1779 privateer case involving the capture of the vessel, Success . Fowler notes an antiquarian source which claims that Bacon was married and his wife, Hannah Bacon, lived apart from her husband in Burlington County. Bacon did not start the war as a violent outlaw. An antiquarian source describes an early incident in which Bacon refrained from violence. James Wells (who lived near Waretown) was a Quaker. He left his house in the uniform coat of a Continental soldier which had been left at his house (probably by one of Kasimir Pulaski’s troops). Pulaski’s Legion marched through Stafford Township in October 1778 during which time disaffected locals took sniper shots at them. Bacon saw a man in a Continental coat and closed in to shoot him until he recognized Wells. Bacon warned Wells not to wear the coat again. Fowler also notes that Bacon was indicted in the Monmouth County Courts in July 1780 for going to New York without a passport—by this time, Bacon had likely given up manual labor for a more lucrative living as a London Trader. The first violent event attributed to Bacon was the killing of Lieutenant Joshua Studson in December 1780. Studson was patrolling the bay waters near Toms River in a militia boat when he spotted a London Trading vessel. He hailed the vessel and came close. As the militia closed in, Bacon, who was reportedly concealed with the cargo, rose and fired on Studson, who was killed nearly instantly. Bacon leapt into the shallow water and waded to shore. The panicked militia did not pursue him. In May 1781, Bacon was in a gang that plundered the home of Captain Samuel Bigelow of Dover Township. Elenoar Bigelow later testified that the gang knocked down her door, rifled through the family goods, and carried off valuables. She did not know most of the men in the party but recognized Bacon, “a noted person of the Refugees at Egg Harbour.” Bacon was also named in the robbery of five horses from John Middleton, Jr., as the horses were being driven by a man named John Morris (not the Loyalist officer of the same name). Morris testified that the horses were taken by the “noted Refugee” John Bacon and presumably taken to New York. Bacon and his gang participated in several additional robberies against the homes of Whigs (supporters of the Revolution). A Stafford Township militiaman, Seth Crane, was wounded while attempting to defend his home. Other robbery victims from Dover and Stafford townships include: Silas Crane of Stafford Twp.: Shot in leg while escaping Bacon’s gang as it approached his home (another source claims Crane was shot through a window while in his home); Crane was wounded again in a skirmish with Bacon’s gang described below. John Holmes of Forked River: home plundered of "a large amount of money, a silver watch, gold ring, silver buckles, pistols, clothing, etc.", some valuables buried in the yard were not taken. Lieutenant Jacob Lane of Dover Twp.: Robbed, described by Lane below: His house was once attacked by one Captain John Bacon, a refugee, and his house was plundered and he was taken prisoner and carried over with them - that they oft swore after to let the deponent go, that they first robbed him of his Lieutenant's commission & Bacon sent word to the Governor that he had it. Captain John Price and Wiliam Price of Good Luck: John Price escapes with only his clothes and his commission; gang moves to nearby home of William Price, both homes robbed. Captain Reuben Randolph of Manahawkin: captured, pulled out of his house and tied to a tree in the woods, while a gang is plundering his house, he escapes. Joseph Soper of Stafford Twp.: Robbed of money paid for building a boat; other valuables buried in yard and not taken. Fowler notes that Bacon’s robberies were not random. He targeted Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) and relied on informers, including William Wilson, to know when to strike at the homes of his adversaries. John Bacon as a Notorious Outlaw By the end of 1781, Bacon was leading a Pine Robber gang. He was a frequent target of local militias, but his gangs were large and cunning enough to hold their own against militia parties. John Chamberlain of Dover Township described his many encounters with Bacon’s gang in his postwar veteran’s militia application. He recalled that he went “in pursuit of the Refugees, I recollect helping to destroy a large row boat, building in the pines, by one Bacon, a leading character amongst the Refugees." Chamberlain recalled Bacon’s revenge and the Dover militia’s counter-measure: I recollect having been robbed once, and taken prisoner twice by the above named Bacon, I also recollect having taken a refugee boat whilst under the command of John Stout, at Manasquan Inlet, making prisoner of her crew, consisting of five men and a boy. On December 30, 1781, Stafford Township militia commanded by Reuben Randolph attempted to ambush and capture Bacon near Manahawkin (where Randolph lived). The militia spent the night at Randolph's tavern and it is easy to imagine that the men had too much to drink. At dawn, a militia sentry spotted Bacon’s gang on the road. Bacon’s men fired on a sentry, Linus Pangburn, and killed him. Pangburn's widow would later testify, her husband “was shot dead as he stood on guard by a party of refugees.” Believing Bacon’s party to be thirty to forty men, the smaller militia party (likely 20-25 men) fired on the Pine Robbers and then fled. Bacon’s men fired on them—and killed a man named Soper. Two other militiamen were wounded in the skirmish. Sylvester Tilton was “severely” wounded based on one account. After the war, Tilton would have revenge against a man named Brewer in Bacon’s party. According to Fowler, Tilton inflicted an “unmerciful beating” on Brewer. Silas Crane would write of being wounded in the same skirmish in his postwar veteran’s pension application: “They had an engagement with the British and refugees under Capt. Bacon at Manahawkin… He received a severe wound to the thigh which disabled him for several months and which scar he carries to his grave." Bacon was now a notorious outlaw—perhaps the most notorious man in all of New Jersey. He was indicted for high treason in the Monmouth County Courts. Bacon was apparently captured in February 1782. Monmouth County’s Sheriff, John Burrowes, was ordered to secure him: “You are hereby commanded to receive into your custody the body of John Bacon, safely held, close confined in irons, to answer several charges of high treason, mischief and horse stealing, as stands accused.” When Bacon was transferred, a second order to Burrowes, from Judge David Forman, directed the sheriff to "safely keep him close, confined in irons to answer charges of High Treason, murder and horse stealing." However, Bacon escaped (details unknown) and was leading his gang again by summer. Bacon’s later exploits and most infamous attack are discussed in another article . A Note on John Bacon and William Davenport Another large Pine Robber gang—reportedly 70-80 men—operated in the same region in 1782. It was led by William Davenport and reportedly had a base on Osburn’s Island—a peninsula of land north of the mouth of the Mullica River. Surviving documents do not reveal the relationship between Bacon and Davenport. Perhaps they were rivals operating gangs fully independent of each other; perhaps they were allies collegially pulling from the same pool of men. However, after Davenport was killed by militia at Forked River in June 1782, Bacon was the last Pine Robber commanding a body of men large enough to face down militia parties. Perhaps Bacon was made more desperate by Davenport’s death and the tide of the war. In May 1782, the British blocked the Associated Loyalists from raiding into New Jersey. With this move, it became easier for local militia to devote resources to combatting the Pine Robbers. This may have nudged Bacon, in his galley Hero’s Revenge , toward more ruthless acts. The surprise and slaughter of a militia party on the southern side of Barnegat Inlet in October 1782, the so-called Long Beach Massacre , was the bloodiest action taken by Bacon or any Pine Robber during the war. It is the subject of another article, as is the death of Bacon in 1783. Related Historic Site : Stafford Township Historical Society Sources : David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 240-251; Testimony of Luke Sooey, Library of Congress, Revolutionary War Prize Cases, M162, reel 1, cases 91-2, David Forman v. Nathan Jackson; David Fowler, Price vs. The Sloop Success, Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey, 2005–Jan., vol. 80 n 1, 10–16; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 64, 214-5; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Silas Crane; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 207; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 45; William Fischer, Biographical Cyclopedia of Ocean County (Philadelphia: A.D. Smith, 1899) pp. 60; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 246; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 317; Alfred Heston, South Jersey: A History 1664-1923 (Lewis Historical Publishing, 1923) p 242; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Jacob Lane; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Chamberlain; Mittimus, New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 27, #27; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 252. 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 > George Taylor and Nathaniel Scudder Report the Arrival of the British Army by Michael Adelberg A massive British fleet passed Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Harbor on June 30, 1776. Monmouth County’s George Taylor and Nathaniel reported the event. - June 1776 - At the end of June 1776, a massive British fleet began arriving at Sandy Hook, the peninsula at the entrance of New York that was taken by the British navy two months earlier. This massive British fleet carried 25,000 soldiers—the largest European army ever sent to the Americas. The Monmouth County militia was camped opposite Sandy Hook on the nearby Navesink highlands. Commanded by Colonel George Taylor, they were the first rebelling Americans to see the British fleet, and it was their responsibility to report on the critical event. James Bowne, serving under Taylor, recalled: The company consisted of about sixty privates - besides the officers - they were quartered at a house on the Bay shore near the upper part of the Highlands where they could see from their quarters the enemy shipping and had a fair view of Sandy Hook, where the enemy lay. On June 29, Colonel George Taylor of Middletown reported the first of the British fleet was arriving. The New Jersey Provincial Congress recorded receiving notice from Taylor that "45 sail is now in sight & 19 sail are at the Hook, & a party of men already landed at the Light House & some light horse." At the same time, Taylor assessed his own vulnerable position. He pessimistically predicted: "The party of men and Light Horse [at Sandy Hook], I have no doubt, will pay us a visit as soon as convenient for them. Our guard is very weak , and not sufficient to make any stand." Taylor’s assessment is corroborated by militiaman George Smock, who recalled that the British landing put “strict terror in the hearts of all." John Covenhoven of Freehold, a delegate in the Provincial Congress serving as the body’s Vice President, immediately forwarded Taylor’s report to the Continental Congress. Covenhoven noted steps taken to supply Taylor’s militia and then appealed for help: We have taken steps to move forward a considerable number of arms & ammunition, lead & powder... We rely on your care and protection from every part of the Continent, and doubt not that the most vigorous steps have been taken for our general safety. On July 1, the majority of the British fleet passed Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Harbor. At this critical moment, Nathaniel Scudder, a Committeeman and Lt. Colonel of the Monmouth militia, rode through the night to deliver word to the New Jersey Provincial Congress. During the night he heard booms that he mistook for cannon-fire from the British ships of war (probably thunder). He arrived at the Provincial Congress on July 2 mistakenly believing that the invasion of New York was already underway. Understanding the exceptional vulnerability of Monmouth County, Scudder called for the Monmouth militia to be exempted from duty outside its boundaries. The men should "not be prevailed upon to march to New York and leave their wives and children to fall prey to the enemy, if they should be repulsed at New York, or to be murdered by the Tories in their absence.” John Covenhoven immediately passed Scudder’s report to the Continental Congress along with his own letter: We have this moment undoubted information, by Lieutenant Colonel Scudder, from Monmouth County, that about four o' clock yesterday afternoon, he observed nearly the whole of the enemy' s fleet in motion, and at half past six in the afternoon, saw about one hundred and thirty sail in the channel from the Hook to New York ...that he left Middleton at eleven o' clock last evening; and at about four this morning, being at the high land between Upper and Lower Freehold, heard a very heavy firing of cannon. Covenhoven also reported on events in his home county: We also received, by Colonel Scudder, a letter from Colonel [George] Taylor, of Monmouth, dated yesterday, informing us of that County being so exposed to the enemy without, and the Tories among themselves, that he apprehends the Militia will not be prevailed on to march to New York, and leave their wives and children to fall either a prey to the enemy, if they should be repulsed at New York, or be murdered by the Tories in their absence, who are embodying themselves, and a considerable number already encamped at the Cedar Swamps. Covenhoven concluded by asking the Continental Congress to "send forward all the assistance in your power." However, the greatest threats to the Continental cause in Monmouth County would not come from the British Army, but from Monmouth County’s own Loyalists. Some of these men were already in insurrection against the new government while others were forming into companies that would soon join the British Army at Sandy Hook. Related Historic Sites : Independence Hall (Philadelphia) Sources : Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p137; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - James Bowne; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 6, pp. 1133-4; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 82, item 68, #155, 159; John O'Connor, "Nathaniel Scudder's Midnight Ride," New Jersey Historical Commission Newsletter, vol. 6, n. 3, November 1975, p 2 & 7; Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v1: p 1-2; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - George Smock. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > David Forman and the Continental Army Red Coats by Michael Adelberg Re-enactors in the blue-coated uniforms of the 3rd New Jersey Continental Regiment. David Forman’s Monmouth County regiment, in contrast, wore red coats taken from the British. - April 1777 - The Continental Army was faced with many problems, particularly early in the war. Among them was the inability to provide uniforms to its troops. When David Forman started raising his Additional Regiment of the Continental Army in January 1777, there were no uniforms available. George Washington was aware that Forman’s men needed uniforms. On April 17, he wrote James Mease, the Army’s Clothier General, about “a sufficient quantity [of uniforms] for Colo. Forman's Regiment of which they are in immediate want.” But the uniforms that were available were thick wool and ill-suited for the spring. Washington “directed the Colo. to have the heavy woolen linings taken out of the Coats… as they will be too warm for summer.” What is most interesting about these uniforms is that they were red; they had been taken from the British Army. David Forman’s regiment would be unformed as British soldiers. This concerned George Washington, who instructed his aide, George Johnston, to write Forman on May 9: "His Excellency conceives of the disadvantages and dangers that must attend our troops being clothed in scarlet; desires that you would have those drawn dyed some other color." Forman’s men spent the summer of 1777 in a salt marsh near on the shore building a salt works co-owned by their Colonel. The men grew sick and lacked provisions. Desertions resulted. In July and August 1777, two Pennsylvania newspapers advertised desertions from David Forman's Additional Regiment. One noted the deserter was in a uniform described as "scarlet and buff with pewter buttons." The second newspaper account described the deserter's uniform as "red coat with buff-colored facings, with woolen jacket, buff breeches and wool hat cocked up." A shore resident and militiaman, Samuel Lippincott, recalled meeting Captain John Burrowes of Forman’s regiment "who commanded a company which were termed Red Coats from the color of their outer garments." Forman’s red-coated Continentals participated in the Battle of Germantown , where Colonel Asher Holmes, leading the Monmouth militia, referred to them as “the Red Coats under Gen. Forman.” General Alexander MacDougall of the Continental Army also described that “Forman's Red Coats stood firm and advanced upon the British Red Coats." It is known that the Battle of Germantown was fought in poor visibility (due to fog and smoke from gunpowder filling the air). The Continental Army held firm at first, but broke lines amidst confusion about British positions. There was friendly fire between Continental units. Koert Schenck of Monmouth County recalled that Forman’s men “who all wore red coats and were fired at by some of our troops by mistake.” The origin of these uniforms is briefly discussed by Rachel Henderson, wife of Dr. Thomas Henderson, a friend of Forman’s. In a statement provided in Daniel Applegate’s postwar veteran’s pension, she wrote of Forman’s regiment “in regular uniform red coats, the said red coats having been taken by the Militia of Monmouth County from a British vessel captured in Raritan Bay.” Henderson’s account is corroborated by Abraham Melat’s testimony in his postwar veteran’s pension application: He was with a number of others, marched to Freehold and then put under the command of Col David Forman & company, consisting of about 30 under the command of Capt. John Burrowes, marched to the Monmouth shore to protect it, while there, a British vessel was wrecked, from which he took a large quantity of clothing and all the company, when he returned to headquarters were dressed in clothes we took from the British ship. Finally, Daniel Hygate’s testimony in Thomas Henderson’s pension application further corroborates that Forman’s regiment wore uniforms taken from the British: "said men raised & under drill & in regular uniforms, in red coats, the said red coats having been taken by the militia of Monmouth County from a British vessel captured in Raritan Bay." It is also known that David Forman used his own money to clothe his men. On March 1, 1778, as Forman was losing command of his regiment as a result of a dispute with the New Jersey Legislature , he submitted a £467 bill for clothing them over the course of "18 days of purchasing." The Continental Army’s account books also list $10,000 owed Forman in December 1778 for expenses incurred for equipping and clothing his men. As late as 1781, the New Jersey State Treasurer was carrying a line item for £961 in bounties and clothing expenses owed to Forman for his Additional Regiment. It is unknown whether Forman had to purchase the captured British uniforms for his men or if the uniforms were condemned to him as a prize of war with the captured vessel. Either way, Forman faced additional expenses in clothing his men beyond their uniforms. For example, shoes were an expensive necessity also in short supply. It is a fascinating irony that the regiment of Continentals raised to defend Monmouth County from British attacks wore British uniforms. This serves as a good reminder that the early Continental Army was truly a threadbare operation. Related Historic Site : Cliveden (The Chew House) Sources : Geore Washington to James Mease, John Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington, US Govt Printing Office, Washington DC, 1932, vol 7, 420-2; George Johnson to David Forman, Neilson Family Papers, box 1, folder: Rutgersania, Rutgers University Special Collections Charles Lefferts, Uniforms of American, British, French & German Armies in the Revolution (New York: 1926) p 78; Asher Holmes, Letter Concerning the Battle at Germantown, 1777, Proceedings of the NJHS, vol 7, 1922, p34-5; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Treasury, Auditor's Acct. Books, Book B, Ledger A, reel 181, #35-6; Account List, Clothier General, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I59, Miscellaneous Papers, v 2, p 143; Thomas Henderson (W426), Forman’s Regiment and Monmouth County militia, Supplementary deposition of Daniel Applegate, 21 April 1837, transcribed by John U. Rees; Forman, Samuel S. Narrative of a Journey down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1789-90 (Cincinnati, R. Clarke and Co., 1888) p 9-10. Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p 735; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Samuel Lippincott; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Abraham Melat of Mercer Co, www.fold3.com/image/#23397176 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of New Jersey, www.fold3.com/image/#23877525 The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 1781, p 71-72. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Mordecai Gist's Continentals in Middletown by Michael Adelberg Colonel Mordecai Gist led a piecemeal detachment into Monmouth County in March 1779. His month in the county was marred by soldier misconduct and officers neglecting their duty. - March 1779 - When Colonel Caleb North’s regiment of Pennsylvania Continentals left Monmouth County in March 1779, they were replaced by companies of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware Continentals under the command of Colonel Mordecai Gist. Starting on March 10, fifteen of Gist’s men were sent “on command” to Middletown; the rest presumably arrived with their colonel a week later. In addition to the Marylanders, a company of Pennsylvania Continentals under Captain Walter Finney as well as several Delaware Continentals—the first of whom arrived “near Sandy Hook” on March 6—entered Monmouth County with Gist. The entire piecemeal detachment consisted of roughly 250 men. Their mission was to interrupt the illegal trade between the county’s disaffected farmers and the British at Sandy Hook, and to enhance the overall security of the region. There is little evidence that they were effective in either pursuit. Continental Troops Camp in Shrewsbury Township Captain Finney wrote of his march to Monmouth County on March 15: Ordered to Monmouth, marched the detachment from Pennsylvania Line to the Grand Parade, where the party assembled consisting of 250 rank and file, Captains….and myself, Col. Guest [Gist]; at 12 o'clock marched, proceeded to Brunswick, cantoned our men for this night and spent the evening very agreeable. They arrived in Monmouth County on the next day, "fell in by sun-rise and proceeded to Mt. Pleasant, cantoned our men, lodged at Mrs. Finoes [Freneau ]." On March 17, Finney’s part of the detachment reached Tinton Falls, where he would set up camp. Arrived at Tinton Falls by 12, disposed of the troops in the following manner, vizt. One company at Red Bank, one at Shrewsbury, two at Eatontown, one at the Falls; the latter being stationed, took lodging at John Little, Esq., where we were treated with politeness and respect. With Little (a county election judge), Finney "took a tour at Eatontown, and in the evening visited the guards” on March 19. The next night he "dined with Col. Breese [Samuel Breese]," the first Shrewsbury militia colonel who resigned in 1776 due to disaffection in his ranks. Breese now lived as a neutral. Over the next week, Finney patrolled the shore from Middletown to Long Branch with a party of 30 men. He broke off a smaller guard to observe British motions at Sandy Hook form the Navesink Highlands: I concealed my party till dark, then detached twelve men, and the guide, along the shore to Middletown Point, ordering them to keep concealed as much as possible, and return to me at 3 in the morning; after posting sentinels along the shore to observe, as well the motion of the enemy, whose guard ship lay within hailing. He made an effort to interrupt “the contraband trade carried on by the disaffected inhabitants” and Sandy Hook: I concealed my party till dark, then detached twelve men, and the guide, along the shore to Middletown Point, ordering them to keep concealed as much as possible, and return to me at 3 in the morning; after posting sentinels along the shore to observe, as well the motion of the enemy, whose guard ship lay within hailing, as to detect the contraband trade carried on by the disaffected inhabitants. Finney did not report intercepting any illegal trade. His men spent a few days at the house of Esek Hartshorne on the Navesink Highlands. Hartshorne, a wealthy Quaker, may have hosted the Monmouth militia two years earlier when it was surprised and routed by British regulars at the Battle of Navesink . While with Hartshorne, Finney’s men misbehaved. On March 28, Finney recorded: Being informed by Mr. Hartshorne that his cellar was broke into by the soldiery, ordered a search and inquiry, but not being able to prove any individuals guilty, paid the damage and returned to my station at the Falls, having made no further discovery, [other] than six of the enemy's armed vessels convoying 23 transports to New York. Back in Tinton Falls, Finney settled down and enjoyed himself. On March 29, he wrote: "spent the evening at Mr. West's in company of two very agreeable ladies, and Col. North, at a sociable gaim [sic] of Whist." On March 31, "in the evening, being just set down to a social amusement with two ladies and a gentleman.” That same day, Finney “was startled by drums beating to arms. Immediately repaired to my post... finding there was not grounds for the alarm, retired to my lodging." On April 1, Finney enjoyed "an elegant entertainment and ball at Mr. Lippincott's in Shrewsbury, the whole was conducted with the greatest decorum and good humor." Captain Walter Beatty of Maryland was stationed at Shrewsbury at this time and recalled “spending our spare time with a number of fine ladies in this neighborhood.” The pleasant entertainment at Tinton Falls and Shrewsbury juxtaposes awkwardly with the long patrols the men were supposed to be conducting; it suggests slackness in Finney’s and Beatty’s commands. The Disastrous Middletown Encampment For Gist’s companies at Middletown, the service was dramatically different. According to an antiquarian source, they battled a raiding party and, with the assistance of 60 militia from Woodbridge, they reportedly wounded fifteen of the enemy. They lacked clothing and provisions and found the locals unwilling to sell to them. The Colonel petitioned the Continental Congress complaining of being unable to purchase provisions: We have the mortification to see the troops of every State provided with clothing and other necessities at reasonable and moderate prices, whilst we alone have been obligated to purchase from private stores every necessity at the most exorbitant rates. The one documented attempt to supply Gist’s men turned into a fiasco. David Rhea, the Quartermaster agent for Monmouth County, would write in July that he purchased flour for Colonel Gist’s men at Shrewsbury in April. However, the forage master, Richard McKnight, never delivered it. McKnight was also a militia captain and was out on duty in April, then, in early June, he was captured by Loyalist raiders. The flour sat at Manasquan where Rhea finally ordered that the "damaged flour at Squan be sold." But it turned out that Rhea was misinformed. The flour was "not so bad, but bread might be made of it." The flour never made it to Gist’s men. On April 3, at least one company of Maryland soldiers mutinied at Middletown and Colonel Gist rode to Tinton Falls to seek help. Colonel Daniel Hendrickson, commanding the militia at Tinton Falls, wrote Captain Barnes Smock of Middletown to call out the militia: At Coll. Gess's request, I let you know that Coll. Gess has requested of me to let Coll. Holmes [Asher Holmes] know that he stands in need of assistance of the militia in order to bring his men to order; that one company hath this day mutinied at Middletown and are determined to go off to the enemy if not prevented; and desire Coll. Holmes would assist him with about fifty militia tomorrow morning at Middletown. Should take it as a particular favour if you would carry these lines in secrecy; I direct you to show it to Coll. Holmes so that he may give every assistance possible. I have ordered but a part of my militia here to attend tomorrow morning." Captain Finney, at Tinton Falls, wrote: "Captain Patterson's company mutinied at Middletown, was disarmed, and sent to camp under guard." At least some of the mutineers were arrested and brought before a court martial on April 14. That day, George Washington’s general orders noted “the Tryal of those men belonging to the Maryland Line who mutinied and attempted to desert from the Detachment at Monmouth." Two of Gist’s were men were found guilty: Daniel Buckley a soldier in the 2nd Maryland regiment and Patrick Ivory a soldier in the 1st Maryland regiment were tried, the former for Desertion and the latter for deserting from the Monmouth command—found guilty of breaches of the 1st Article of the 6th Section of the Articles of War respectively and sentenced to receive one hundred lashes each. Two days after the mutiny, Finney’s men responded to reports of a Loyalist raiding party at Shrewsbury: Being informed of some principal Tories being in the neighborhood of Shrewsbury, the whole detachment set out in quest of them, missed the main object, but in our route took two negroes and one deserter and two suspected persons, put the whole, with one other deserter, into one room--the two most noted villains in irons. It is probable that the raiding party was seeking to exploit gaps created by the troop mutiny. After this activity, "nothing material happened" happened according to Finney until April 10. On that day, "Col. Ford and [Benjamin Ford] an equal detachment relieved us." The Departure of Gist’s Regiment Finney’s men left Tinton Falls on April 11: "Proceeded to Mt. Pleasant, cantoned our men, and took a tour of Middletown Point; Dined with Captain Burrowes [John Burrowes], sup'd at Mrs. Finoes [Freneau]; lodged at Mr. Wallace [Wall]." On April 12, they mustered at sunrise, but did not leave the county that day: Being informed of a robbery being committed in the night, ordered a search to be made, found the villains, restored the goods, and punished the delinquents for disobedience of orders; Afterwards, pinioned them and marched them to the Provost, there to wait tryal [sic] for the robbery. Finney’s men left Monmouth County on April 13, camping at Millstone that evening. Washington communicated the withdrawal of Gist’s detachment to Governor William Livingston: I shall be obliged to recall the detachment from Monmouth. I have thought it necessary to give your Excellency this early notice, that you may take such measures in consequence as you shall judge expedient to give security to those parts of the country which these troops are now posted to cover. In a second letter on April 23, Washington admitted that one reason for the withdrawal were Loyalist “emissaries ” who “have been active in corrupting our [Gist’s] men.” In these letters, it is unclear if Washington knew that Benjamin Ford’s regiment had replaced Gist in Monmouth County. One Maryland company, under Captain Beatty, stayed at Shrewsbury, probably to help acquaint Colonel Ford’s men to the area. Beatty wrote of his continued stay: "Here we continued very peaceable, until the 26th of the month.” That day a massive British-Loyalist raiding party , under Captain Patrick Ferguson, landed at Shoal Harbor on the Raritan Bayshore and marched to Tinton Falls. Ford’s men pulled back rather than face the larger party. This raid is the subject of another article. Perspective While Gist’s command engaged in a skirmish and arrested a few men, its overall performance was poor. The local militia that it was supposed to be helping needed to muster and bring order to its mutineers and there is no evidence that Gist’s men curbed illegal trade with the enemy. At least some of Gist’s officers spent more time flirting with women than conducting patrols. After about a month in Monmouth County, they would be replaced by Benjamin Ford’s Marylanders—who would perform no better. Related Historic Site : The Old Mill Sources : Capt. Enoch Anderson, Muster Rolls, Delaware Archives, (Wilmington: Mercantile Press, 1911) vol 1, pp 92, 234-6, 312, 347; Must Rolls, Delaware Archives, (Wilmington: Mercantile Press, 1911) vol 1, pp 104; Muster Rolls, David Library of the American Revolution, Mordecai Gist Papers, reel 1; Memorial, Mordecai Giss, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 49, item 41, vol. 3, #460-3; Chester County Historical Society, Diary of Walter Finney; Daniel Hendrickson to Barnes Smock, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 5, folder 9; George Washington, General Orders, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 20, 8 April–31 May 1779, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2010, pp. 55–57, 478-81; George Washington to William Livingston, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw140422)) ; William Beatty, "Journal of Captain William Beatty of the Maryland Line, 1776-1781", Historical Magazine, 2nd Series, 1867, pp 117; David Rhea to Moore Furman, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5600. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > David Forman Sends Intelligence Reports to George Washington by Michael Adelberg In 1777 and from 1780 into 1782, Monmouth County’s David Forman provided intelligence reports to George Washington about the movement of British ships and troops at Sandy Hook. - June 1780 - From spring 1777 onward, George Washington sought intelligence on the movement of British ships and troops coming in and out New York Harbor via Sandy Hook. Monmouth County, and the Navesink Highlands-area in particular, provided the best views of Sandy Hook. Starting in 1777, Colonel David Forman of Manalapan, leading a locally-raised Continental Army regiment, provided intelligence reports to Washington. But Forman lost his command in early in 1778 and apparently stopped sending reports. After the Battle of Monmouth and the arrival of the French fleet in America, the need for regular intelligence on British movements took on new importance. Starting fall 1778, reports were provided by Continental officers who were temporarily stationed in northeast Monmouth County, starting with Major Richard Howell and Captain John Burrowes in summer 1778. After that, Washington sent regiments of Continentals in Monmouth County and relied on Colonels Caleb North (January-February 1779), Moredcai Gist (March 1779), and Benjamin Ford (April-May 1779) for intelligence reports. When Ford left Monmouth County, it appears that Washington lacked an officer who could be held accountable for regular intelligence reports. In addition to the men mentioned above, on July 27, Washington requested Middlesex County’s Colonel John Taylor (not the Monmouth County Loyalist of the same name ) to provide “immediate notice of any embarkation, the sailing of any troops out of the harbor or of the arrival of any in it, or the departure or arrival of any Vessels, whether they have troops on Board or not.” He noted that “it would be extremely useful to have look outs in Monmouth County and at the town of Amboy to keep an exact account of all Vessels coming in and going out and make daily reports to be transmitted to me.” However, Taylor did not emerge as a regular source of intelligence. In September, two officers in the Monmouth County state troop regiment, reporting to Colonel Asher Holmes, sent intelligence reports on the movements of the British. For example, Major Elisha Walton reported: Yesterday afternoon came a fleet consisting from sea consisting of seven men of war, forty-five square rigged vessels; we are informed by some of the Refugees that made a descent upon our shore that it is the 2nd division of Arbuthnot's fleet with troops from England, but what number we could not learn. We are informed by a deserter that came over yesterday. Lieutenant Jacob Woolcott, “commanding at Shrewsbury,” also sent a brief report on a British fleet leaving Sandy Hook on September 23. A week later, David Forman, for the first time in three years, was observing the British fleet at Sandy Hook from the Navesink Highlands. He noted the diminished size of the British naval squadron and concluded the British "are reduced to a position more to be pitied than feared." He pledged to join the Continental Army on an anticipated Franco-American assault on British positions in New York. David Forman’s Intelligence Reports, 1780 In June 1780, a string of punishing “man-stealing ” raids into Monmouth County and talk of vigilante reprisals re-raised affairs in Monmouth County to the attention of Continental Congress and Army leaders. Washington also learned that the French fleet had left the Caribbean and Sandy Hook was a likely destination. For both reasons, Washington re-established contact with David Forman and charged him with assisting the cavalry officer , Major Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, in linking up with the French. Washington also asked Forman to report on the movement of British ships at Sandy Hook. On June 12, 1780, Forman sent Washington a note that a British flotilla had crossed the channel north of Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Bay. Washington valued this intelligence because he wrote, on June 14, to the “Commanding Officer” of the Monmouth militia about the need to support Forman: As General Forman will probably, in the course of some months to come, have occasion to transmit me intelligence of a very interesting nature from the County of Monmouth, you will be pleased, whenever required by him, to direct one or more Light Horsemen of the County Militia to attend him and bring forward his dispatches to me. By doing this, you will render a very essential service to the public. The unnamed commanding officer was Asher Holmes, the colonel of the largest Monmouth militia regiment and colonel of the regiment of state troops defending Monmouth County. Holmes and Forman had many disagreements . Washington’s camp knew Holmes (who had twice marched militia to support the Army); it likely was a snub to leave Holmes unnamed on the order to support Forman. Forman lived in Manalapan and was deeply involved in founding the Association for Retaliation , a vigilante society soon enmeshed in violence. So, Forman only occasionally went to the Highlands to personally observe the British fleet. He hired Captain Joseph Stillwell of Middletown to perch himself in the Highlands (Garrett’s Hill most of the time) and send near-daily observations. Parts of Stillwell’s diaries have survived. Stillwell’s reports from June 16-20, 1780; July 1-8, 1780; July 16-20, 1780; November 5-11, 1780; December 12-14, 1780 were sent to Washington. There were other reports that have not survived. Most of these reports are short and concern information only on British ship movements; Stillwell often reports no activity or foggy weather preventing his view. Other Topics in Forman’s Reports Forman’s reports to Washington often included information on events in Monmouth County. Forman, an ambitious man who stretched the boundaries of decorum and his own authority, periodically sought Washington’s favor on topics well beyond British movements at Sandy Hook. On June 17, for example, Forman discussed a privateer flying “English colors” that attacked “fifteen of the trading vessels from Shrewsberry to New York” while “they was on a general fish party on the banks of the Shrewsberry.” Forman then informed Washington: My information, and I believe it is good, says that eleven or twelve of them was taken as the privateer immediately stood southward with her prizes. We are not informed who the prisoners are, we expect all are principal traders & plunderers of this Country - immediately on this information, I sent to Egg Harbor where I presume the prisoners are, if possible, to prevent there being paroled or discharged until their characters are fully known. Should they prove the gang we suppose they are, I hope it will be instrumental in restoring peace to this County. Why did Forman tell Washington about captured Loyalists at Little Egg Harbor? Probably because Forman lacked any jurisdiction over these prisoners and his stature with Gloucester County officials was enlarged if he could invoke Washington’s name when making an appeal to detain the prisoners. Unfortunately, we do not have further documentation of Forman’s attempt to detain and interrogate the captured Loyalists. On July 9, Forman lobbied Washington for troops to capture Sandy Hook. He discussed British plans to obstruct the expected French fleet “by interrupting the channel way at the point of the Hook & at the same time taking possession of the Hook with a body of troops and heavy cannon, they would make the passage almost impossible.” Forman predicted that bad weather or obstructions would “oblige the French fleet to put to sea." He then discussed the advantage of occupying Sandy Hook: With possession of the Hook, every difficulty would be removed in a very short time - by landing a few pieces of heavy cannon, the troops could cover the French ships while they drew the sunk vessels out of the channel or until they could wrap their ships through them. Washington did not respond to this proposal. Spotty Intelligence from David Forman’s Informers Forman continued sending intelligence reports in 1780 and intermingled information from these sources with Stillwell’s observations. On June 18, Forman wrote: “Yesterday afternoon, three frigates arrived within Sandy Hook. In the evening, a fourth ship was run in. The Tory report of this day is that Admiral [Marriott] Arbuthnot was on board.” Forman also wrote, incorrectly, that “this afternoon a large French fleet appeared, standing for Sandy Hook." On July 30, Forman sent intelligence after interrogating a deserter from Sandy Hook. He wrote Washington that “I have it from a mate of a vessel in their service, yet I believe an honest man in his information." The deserter described plans to sink ships at Sandy Hook if the French fleet arrived: "They should sink their store vessels in the place they now lay, which will, I apprehend, for a time render the passage of large ships up to the Narrows impracticable." Forman then reported on British ships leaving Sandy Hook, adding that "informers from New York” said the ships were headed for Rhode Island. On September 1, Forman again mixed Stillwell’s observations of British ships with word from informers in New York. Accounts from New York agree that there has been an amazingly severe press there for some time past and still continues - that the people are very generally dissatisfied and dispirited - it was also said Sir Harry [General Henry Clinton] was embarking his troops for Rhode Island. This last detail was false and Forman likely understood the mistake afterward. Two weeks later, Forman again reported based on an informer in New York. He reported that 5,000 troops were boarding transports. This time, Forman qualified his source, "this account my informant says may be relied upon.” And Forman went further: Should I ascertain further information that the intelligence is in any way wrong, I shall correct it by finding an honest man as soon as I shall be better informed. Yet I would observe to your Excellency that I have hardly ever been deceived by accts through this channel. Forman’s informer was spectacularly wrong six months later. In April 1781, Forman ignited a boomlet of excitement among the nation’s leaders by reporting a British invasion of the Delmarva Peninsula at New Castle, Delaware. He wrote on April 2: By account this day rec'd from New York, I am informed that a large embarkation is now in forwardness for Delaware Bay, that Genl. Clinton will take command of it & take a post at New Castle. My informant says confidence may be put in this information -- in justice to his intelligence I have found him hardly to err. Forman sent similar reports to Samual Huntington, President of the Continental Congress, and Governor William Livingston. Livingston forwarded Forman's report to Congress with a smidge of doubt, writing: "I know Genl. Forman's intelligence has been generally found true." Other times, however, Forman’s human intelligence gave him early word—even word about top secret activity. On August 3, Forman interrogated "sixteen artificers of the French Army" and sent Washington word: "These men tell me that the whole of the French Army are on the march to this State.” This was correct, but Forman incorrectly guessed why the French were coming, writing “that New York will soon be invaded." Forman was not supposed to know the French were moving, and did not imagine that the French would link up with Washington and march for Virginia to capture the British Army at Yorktown. Washington’s Reliance on Forman’s Intelligence While Forman’s intelligence, particularly from New York sources, was sometimes inaccurate, there is no doubt that his reports were valued. On June 18, 1780, Washington wrote General Robert Howe that Forman "is entirely to be depended upon" (though this was before Forman conveyed incorrect information from informers). Even when there were gaps in Forman’s reports, such as a gap from August 23-30, Washington was typically polite to Forman: I have not had the pleasure of hearing from you since your first favor of 23rd. inst. and I am informed from N York that a fleet with part of the Army of Lord Cornwallis arrived at that place last Friday. My anxiety will be well and early informed of the enemy's movements by water, induces me to wish to hear from you as often and as speedily as any material circumstance renders it necessary. Washington expanded even Forman’s responsibilities to include commanding the cadre of pilots gathered at Basking Ridge under Captain William Dobbs—men to be mobilized on the arrival of the French fleet. Washington wrote Forman: Immediately upon the appearance of a fleet near Sandy Hook, and you are satisfied it is the one we are expecting, you will please to give order to the pilots to repair down, where they may be at hand to be improved as occasion and circumstances shall require. Even in May 1781, after Forman’s intelligence was proven incorrect a number of times, Washington was grateful to Forman for his services. He wrote: “I am exceedingly obliged by the distinct and full intelligence of the sailing of the British Fleet - I had not before been able to ascertain the matter, and I was very anxious to do it." Forman rehired Joseph Stillwell at Washington’s request. It also appears that Congress valued Forman’s reports. On July 7, 1780, John Brown of the Continental Congress’s Marine Committee wrote directly to Forman to request intelligence reports: We would be much obliged to you if you would employ some suitable person to observe the motions of the enemy ships as they go in to and come out of New York, and transmit the number of guns and the condition, together with their movements. Brown informed Forman that he would be compensated for "any reasonable expense." Congress had even sent Forman a gift to assist him in reporting on British movements: “The Board are informed that an excellent spy glass was sent to your quarters by the Navy Board last year for the purpose of observing the motions of the Enemy from the Highlands." Forman’s reports to Congress have not survived. Perspective Whether Continental or British, Revolutionary War leaders were starved for information about the enemy. Whatever his flaws, Forman was George Washington’s best source of early intelligence on the movement of British men and ships in and out of New York. This made Forman valuable despite the inaccuracies in some of his reports. Savvy individuals like Washington and Livingston may have understood that Forman’s information from Stillwell could be trusted while the information from informers was suspect. Forman was also diligent in reporting his difficulties in gathering intelligence (see Appendix) and these difficulties, coupled with the value of his reports, earned Forman the goodwill of Continental and State leaders. Forman would need this goodwill as he was, simultaneously, leading a vigilante society, the Association for Retaliation, into lawless and violent acts. Related Historic Site : Hartshorne Woods Park Appendix: Difficulties Gathering and Sending Intelligence Reports On June 17, 1780, Forman boasted to Washington about the outposts he established to gather intelligence to Washington. He wrote, "I have established different posts for upwards of fifty miles of seacoast, that I think it will be impossible for any number of ships to be on the coast without my immediately being informed of it.” But his sentries proved unreliable and, at times, bad weather made observation difficult. Just two days after his boast, a frustrated Forman reported that foggy weather prevented useful reports from his posts. Therefore, he would go to the shore himself. "By daylight,” he wrote, “I will myself be on the Highlands of Middletown." Forman returned to the Highlands on June 29, writing Washington, "I rode down to the Highlands of Middletown - the day was rainy and dull as to prevent any particular observation." He went to the shore again on July 17, "I rode down to Shrewsbury yesterday, but the weather being too foggy to make any critical observation." While at Shrewsbury, Forman met with Major Lee and his cavalry. Forman informed Lee that he had to leave Monmouth County “on business” and needed Lee to provide intelligence reports in his absence. Lee might have disagreed and Forman might have complained to Washington. On July 19, Washington gave Lee a stern order: I depend on you for information of every occurrence, which will save General Forman the trouble of a business which I could only with propriety request the favor of him... For the future, you will make the report every two days, of the appearance at the Hook in which the more detail the better. Forman returned to Monmouth County in time to report again on August 11. He noted the arrival of British ships at Sandy Hook and promised to return to Shrewsbury for more information. He reported again from Shrewsbury on August 13, noting that he was in dangerous country "with only a small guard." Forman also noted that foggy weather hampered his intelligence; he was back in Freehold on August 16 and sent his next report. On May 21, 1781, Forman apologized to Washington for subpar intelligence reports due a family tragedy: "My whole time has been so entirely engaged with the distress of my family, loss of my little son, that I have not been of intelligence so as to form of an opinion on the destination of the fleet." He did, however, note that three deserters claimed a British fleet was heading for the Chesapeake. He also asked Washington about whether or not to rehire Stillwell. Washington promptly replied: I shall very willingly consent to take a man into pay at the rate you mention as the heights of Monmouth are the only ones from whence the movements of the enemy fleet in and out of the Hook can be clearly discovered. Stillwell was re-employed; the May 29 report included observations from Stillwell. Forman also ran into problems getting his reports delivered. An attempt to communicate via warning beacons had failed a year earlier—forcing Forman to rely on express riders. Forman wrote with frustration on July 9, 1780: “There is so few militia horse ordered out and so much use for them that in many instance I cannot be furnished with one in twenty four horses, and never until I send 15 or 20 miles for them." Washington was aware of Forman’s difficulties maintaining express riders. In August, when there was a break in regular reports, he wrote Forman, “I am very fearful that you have met with more trouble in establishing the Chain of Expresses than was expected.” Forman had to finance his horses and riders to carry reports. In 1782, Colonel John Neilson wrote that he and Forman were frustrated by having to make outlays for horses and riders: "If this mode is to be continued, it will be necessary to establish a fund to defray the expenses of that business, for no person can be prevailed upon to do it without being paid their traveling charges." Neilson also expressed frustration with Forman for taking one of his horses, “He has disappointed me, and is possessed of a horse which I am doubtful of his being entitled to." Sources : George Washington to John Taylor, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, July 27, 1779, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw150526)) ; Elisha Walton to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 157, item 147, vol. 2, #496; Jacob Wolcott, letter, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 157, item 147, vol. 2, #489; David Forman to George Washington, Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 4, p 428; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post, July 1780; David Forman to George Washington, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 171, item 152, vol. 8, #603 and vol. 9, #179; George Washington to New Jersey Militia Officer Commanding the Monmouth County, 14 June 1780,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-02093, ver. 2013-09-28; David Forman to George Washington, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, p 29; Forman’s letter noted in Thomas Fleming, The Forgotten Victory: The Battle for New Jersey - 1780 (New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1973) p 223; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 67, June 29, 1780; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 67, June 30, 1780; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 223-4; David Forman George Washington, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 93, item 78, vol. 9, #319; John Brown to David Forman, National Archives, Collection 332, reel 6, #260; David Forman to George Washington, Monmouth County Historical Association, Diaries Collection, box 2, John Stillwell's Diary (photocopy); George Washington to David Forman, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, p 183; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 68, July 17, 1780; George Washington to Henry Lee, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, p 214 note; George Washington to David Forman, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw220484)) ; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 80, August 11, 13, and 16, 1781; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 70, September 1, 1780; David Forman to William Livingston, U. of Michigan, Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, box 151, folder 42; David Forman to Congress, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Gratz Collection ALS; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 78, May 17, 1781; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 78, May 29, 1781; Personal Correspondence: David J. Fowler, Letter: David Forman to ?, August 3, 1781; John Neilson to Timothy Pickering, National Archives, Misc. Numbered Records, 85: 24782. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Salt Work Laborers and Militia Exemptions by Michael Adelberg This sketch of a boiling house presents an idealized picture of the hot and dirty labor at a salt work. Finding reliable laborers was a common problem at the salt works along the Jersey shore. - March 1777 - As noted in prior articles, the shortage of salt in America sparked a new salt-making industry along the Jersey shore at the start of the American Revolution. By 1777, Monmouth County had at least nine salt works. These salt works needed laborers to cut wood, boil salt brine, and transport salt. But most salt works were far from population centers and they generally paid wages in low-value Continental money. Labor Problems at New Jersey’s Salt Works Labor problems were continuous at New Jersey’s salt works. John Van Emburgh of Middlesex County co-owned a salt works near Toms River, and he managed them. A dozen of his letters from the second half of have survived. The letters details that uneven productivity of the salt works, and his complaints about salt work laborers: July 12, 1778 “No salt making on the shore, scarcely since the last alarm… the people who belonged to the Country… will not work & they has been idle for two weeks.” Salt Produced: None Sept. 13, 1778 “The sooner you can forward the wagon & horses, I think the better … we are short of casks provided for salt” Salt Produced: Two wagon loads Nov. 7, 1778 “No salt at the works - sent you a load this morning by Mr Jobs which is all they have made.” Salt Produced: One wagon load Nov. 15, 1778 “I send you 19 bushels of salt from the works which Is all is all they have.” Salt Produced: 19 bushels Nov. 26, 1778 “They go on very slowly.” Salt Produced: 59 bushels Nov. 18, 1778 “Now on his errand to get hands [workers] which, if he fails, then the works will stop. Even could we get hands here, the prices is such that the works will not defray the charges.” Salt Produced: None Dec. 27, 1778 “The late storm has proved fatal to us in a very considerable degree. The people have been obliged to leave the works.” Salt Produced: 9 bushels of salt Dec. 30, 1778 “The men to whom we have rented the salt works have quit them, as nothing can be done along the shore in that way for some time now.” Salt Produced: None In December 1778, Van Emburgh gave up directly managing the salt works and focused on managing ships based at Toms River. He rented them and then re-rented them to a local man, Samuel Bennett, in May 1779. Bennett agreed to run the works and provide one third of the salt to Van Emburgh as rent: I have left the salt works to Sam Bennett who is to have them during his pleasure, find his own wood, & every other necessary. as such materials as possibly belong to the works & delivers us ... 1/3 of the net proceeds & at the expiration of his time in them, the works be returned in as good order as he received them. Van Emburgh purchased fifteen bushels of imported salt at an auction that same month and sought to purchase 150 more—further evidence that the salt works were not consistently productive. Thomas Hopkins, manager of the Friendship Salt Works in Gloucester County also frequently complained that his "wood-cutters refused to cut" and “said they would work no more as the weather was so hot & the mosquitos so thick." Sometimes they took his tools and ran off: "the 3 wood cutters eloped before day & stole an axe and loaf of bread,"; "no wood cutters at work this day. Thomas Savadge, managing the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River, had similar complaints . One salt works laborer, Benjamin White, of Tinton Falls, recalled: “I left [home at Tinton Falls] and came to Shrewsbury, and went to making salt by boiling seawater." But White soon “returned to my native soil… with but little money of value, it being Continental and old Jersey money.” White also complained that as a Quaker (whose religious principles did not permit militia service) and as a salt works laborer, he was "often fined for not doing militia duty.” New Jersey Government Considers Militia Exemptions for Salt Works Wage and working conditions aside, the need for salt work laborers clashed with New Jersey’s militia law which mandated service every second month. The New Jersey Assembly first considered this tension in September 1776 when it read a request from the Pennsylvania Council of Safety to grant militia exemptions to "persons employed in manufacturing, entrenching tools and carrying on salt works." The Pennsylvania government was sponsoring a large salt work at Toms River and was hearing about labor shortages from Thomas Savadge, the manager of the salt work. John Hart, on behalf of the New Jersey Assembly, declined Pennsylvania’s request: The malitia [sic] ordinances of this State have subjected malitia to certain fines for non-attendance, -- The assembly are of the opinion that particular exemptions, at this time, will be injurious to the public and greatly retard the marching out of the malitia. Hart suggested that salt work wages be adjusted to compensate laborers for paying militia fines. Near concurrent requests were made from Pennsylvania leaders and the Continental Congress to exempt salt workers from militia service. Yet, these same bodies requested local militia to “guard the salt works near Toms River.” These conflicting requests may have rankled New Jersey’s leaders. On the one hand, the state of Pennsylvania was requesting militia exemptions; on the other hand, they asked for a high-functioning militia to guard the salt works (at a time when the shore township militias were largely dysfunctional ). The New Jersey Assembly continued to hear requests for militia exemptions. Richard Brown of Stafford Township petitioned the Assembly on February 15, 1777, "praying an exemption for 15 men in the militia to be employed in carrying on the whale fishery in this State.” The Assembly rejected this petition but re-started deliberations about militia exemptions for salt work laborers. On March 14, the Legislative Council heard a bill to grant 10 militia exemptions to laborers at the Union Salt Works at Brielle. The bill passed unanimously on March 17. David Forman, Colonel of a Continental Army regiment and Brigadier General of the New Jersey militia , was the majority owner of this salt work. The preferential treatment of Forman’s Union Salt Works was noticed. Tensions between New Jersey and Pennsylvania over Militia Exemptions Just two weeks after Forman received the militia exemptions, James Mott, a member of the New Jersey Assembly, political rival of Forman, resident of Toms River, and creditor to the Pennsylvania Salt Works, wrote Governor William Livingston: Mr. Thomas Savadge of the Pennsylvania salt works at this place hath not been able to complete the same by reason of his workmen being frequently called out in the militia, he lately made application to Gen. Putnam, who gave a protection to his workmen, who were just got to work when they were called out again… If he cannot keep his workmen, he must be obliged to drop the whole [project], to the great loss of the owners and much damage to the public in general, for if the works were completed, he expects to make at least one hundred bushels of salt a day, and as salt is so much wanted, I make no doubt of your Excellency granting him such power. Mott’s letter suggests that Savadge had received militia exemptions from General Israel Putnam of the Continental Army. However, Putnam, as a Continental Army officer, lacked the authority to direct the affairs of the New Jersey militia. That responsibility belonged to Governor Livingston. The disparate treatment of the salt works was also noticed by Clement Biddle of Pennsylvania’s War Office. Biddle wrote the Continental Congress on April 4: This State has been at very considerable expense in the erecting of a salt works at Toms River in the State of New Jersey, under the management of Thomas Savadge; he informs the Board that they would have begun salt making before this time had the work men not been called out in the service of the militia. As the works are likely to be of great public utility, we think the work men should be exempted from military service. His Excellency, Governor Livingston, refuses to grant any such exemptions unless it be recommended by the Congress. We therefore recommend that you would give a few lines to the Governor to that purpose. On April 8, Congress debated a "motion from Pennsylvania for recommendation to the Governor of New Jersey to excuse [from militia service] 40 persons employed by Pennsylvania at the salt works.” The minutes of Congress noted the outcome of the debate: After much debate the amendment was agreed. -- Resolved that it be recommended to the Governor and Council of the State of New Jersey not to call into the field such part of their militia, not exceeding forty, who are necessarily employed in the salt works, now erecting in their state by the government of Pennsylvania, provided it be not inconsistent with the laws of the state. Congress’s resolution was toothless. The militia exemptions were plainly “inconsistent with the laws of the state.” Members of Congress likely knew this because most states had militia laws that required universal service, similar to New Jersey’s militia law. On April 12, Governor William Livingston's replied: The exemptions above recommended is inconsistent with the militia laws of this State, but if the Government of Pennsylvania will carry on said works with the inhabitants of their own Commonwealth, care shall be taken to have them exempted as above. Thomas Savadge continued to suffer labor shortages and continued to blame militia service for his labor problems. On July 8, he complained about “the tediousness and delay of erecting the works arises from not getting a [militia] exemption of my people for military duty in the militia.” He also noted the burden of recruiting workers: “It takes half of my time riding about the country looking for fresh hands, and when I have had them two weeks, the militia takes them away." By late 1777, a compromise was emerging. In September, Gov. Livingston wrote Thomas Wharton of the Pennsylvania Council of Safety acknowledging that the loss of salt work laborers “is extremely vexatious." He foreshadowed that "our Legislature is about to revise our militia law... doubt not the reasonableness of the exemptions you desire; it will be provided in the new Act." On October 7, the New Jersey Assembly unanimously passed "An Act to Encourage the Making of Salt at the Pennsylvania Salt Works." It allowed that "the manager of the salt works for the time being may cause to be enrolled any number of men that may need to be employed" with militia exemptions as long as the manager notified the militia captains of the men. The salt workers would function as their own militia unit: "the men so enrolled will be disciplined in arms by being regularly mustered and officered.” The Limited Impact of Militia Exemptions The New Jersey law came too late to save the Pennsylvania Salt Works. With the British invading Pennsylvania, the state’s government soured on the grandiose but non-productive project on the Jersey shore. On November 6, Wharton declared them: “long in the hand and altogether fruitless.” The state ceased underwriting them and eventually sold them. The failing Pennsylvania Salt Works did not dampen the interest of New Jersians in salt-making or their desire for militia exemptions. On November 13, Nathaniel Scudder petitioned the New Jersey Assembly on behalf of himself and other salt work investors "soliciting an exemption from militia duty for a number of men said to be carrying on a salt works, erected by them." David Knott petitioned for militia exemptions at his salt works two weeks later. The Assembly initially dismissed these petitions. But then, on December 11, the New Jersey Legislature passed an act granting militia exemptions to the laborers at salt and gunpowder works (exemptions for iron workers were also granted in a separate act). But, for salt-making, the exemptions were explicitly tied to production -- "one man at the salt-works for every 500 gallons the boiling vessels hold." The exemptions did not last. On March 28, 1778, the salt-making exemptions were repealed: "the great number of private [salt] works erecting, as well as already erected, promise an ample supply of salt." The legislature was likely influenced by scandals surrounding both the Union and Pennsylvania Salt Works and by the expected arrival of foreign salt in American ports (enabled by France’s entry into the war). An October 1778 bill to reinstate the exemptions failed by a 9-16 vote in the Assembly. Few surviving documents provide information about the Monmouth Countians laboring at the salt works. The financial papers of the Pennsylvania Salt Works show that the labor force fluctuated significantly but do not list the names of the laborers. An October 1778 militia delinquency fine against Peter Hulsart was “remitted & entirely set aside” at the Court of General Sessions in Freehold because he “labored at a salt works.” It is the only document of its kind that still exists. Two militiamen, in their post-war pension applications, recalled missing service due to laboring at a salt work. John Hulsart recalled being excused from militia service because he labored at the salt work at Mosquito Cove (north of Toms River): "Those who were thus engaged in the boiling of salt, from the great scarceness, were exempt from military duty." David Cooper recalled missing four to six months of militia service because “I was exempted under the laws of New Jersey from militia service” by laboring at a salt work. “It was considered the same as doing militia duty by those who were engaged in it." The British also took an interest in the Monmouth shore’s salt works. In April 1778, they attacked and destroyed several of them. Related Historic Site : National Guard Museum of New Jersey Sources : “Journal of Thomas Hopkins of the Friendship Salt Company, New Jersey, 1780,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 4 (1918), pp. 46-61; Benjamin White’s narrative is in Judith M. Olsen, Lippincott, Five Generations of the Descendants of Richard and Abigail Lippincott (Woodbury, N.J.: Gloucester County Historical Society, 1982) pp. 159-61; Library of Congress, J. Turner Coll., Folder - John Hart, September 2, 1776.; Journals of the Continental Congress, November 5, 1776, p925-6 ( www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html ); The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, February 15, 1777, p 67.; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p69, 73; Library of Congress, J. Turner Collection, folder: John Hart; The Library Company, Acts of the General Assembly of New Jersey, pp. 6-7, 47; James Mott to William Livingston in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 303; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 83, item 69, vol. 1, #355; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23389962 ; Thomas Savadge to Pennsylvania Board of War in Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, pp. 418-9; James Mott to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 1, #55, 58; William Livingston to Thomas Wharton in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, pp. 69-70; William Crispin to PA Council of Safety, William Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1970), v10, p306, 419; Journals of the American Congress, April 8, 1777 (Washington DC, 1823) v3, p83. Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 6, p 554.; Pennsylvania Council of Safety, Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p92, 193-4; Carl E. Prince, ed., The Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick, N.J., 1988), vol. 1, p 303; Thomas Savadge to Pennsylvania Board of War, Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, pp. 418-9; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p117-8; “An Act to Encourage the Making of Salt” discussed in Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Phila: Joseph Severns, 1845) vol 5, p745; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 13, 1777, p 17; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1777) p24; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 28-29, 1777, p 33-34; William Livingston to Assembly in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, p 126; Harry B. Weiss, The Revolutionary Saltworks of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1959) p 39; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, March 27, 1778, p 92; Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 228National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Morris of KY, www.fold3.com/image/#25351861 ; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 8, 1778, p 203-204; Peter Hulsart, Court Paper, Rutgers University Special Collections, Holsart Family Papers, folder: A2; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1778) p10; Mark Lender, “The Enlisted Line: The Continental Soldiers of New Jersey”(Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, 1975) p 48; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, David Cooper of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#12873752. Previous Next