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 Continental Navy on the Monmouth Shore by Michael Adelberg The Continental Navy’s Wasp sailed the Monmouth shore in late 1776 in an attempt to protect American shipping and attack British shipping. It took at least two prizes while there. - November 1776 - In the fall of 1776, as the British Army defeated the Continental Army on land and the British Navy extended a blockade across the Atlantic Seaboard, trade with Europe and the Caribbean became increasingly dangerous. But that trade was essential to a fledgling United States dependent on foreign markets for key provisions including guns, gunpowder, textiles, salt, and sugar. The fledgling Continental Navy was unable to protect the New Jersey shore. Though it scored a few victories around Cape May in the first months of the war it could not check British patrols north of Egg Harbor. As discussed in a prior article, in the summer of 1776, the New York State Navy assigned two vessels to defend American ships along the Jersey shore. But the New York ships were an ineffective check against larger British vessels. That fall, at the prompting of New Jersey and New York delegates, the Continental Congress’s Marine Committee turned its attention to better protecting the Jersey shore. Continental Navy Sails the Monmouth Shore in 1776 On November 1, the Marine Committee ordered the captains of the Continental Navy sloops Fly and Wasp to cruise the Jersey shore. The captains were ordered to hire local pilots and stay close to shore in order to avoid a fight with British frigates. They were told that the could rely on shore residents for support: You must be careful not to let any British frigate get in between you and the land, and then there is no danger, for they cannot pursue in shore and they have no boats and tenders that can take you; besides, the country people will assist you in driving them from the shore, if they [British] should attempt to follow you in. But the Continental captains were also encouraged to be bold in determining when to attack British ships, "We should deem it more praiseworthy in an officer to lose a vessel in a bold enterprise than to lose a good prize by too timid a conduct." Ten days later, the Marine Committee wrote to Lt John Baldwin of the Continental Navy's Wasp about an agent it had placed at Shrewsbury. "We expect this letter will be sent to you by Mr. James Serle who is at Shrewsbury.” Baldwin was also reminded to "run into some inlets on the Jersey shore" in preference to facing larger British ships. Serle, the Continental Navy’s Agent, sent his first letter from the Monmouth shore from Long Branch on November 13: I have dispatched Lt [John] Cook of the militia quartered here with two letters enclosed from Toms River; the commanding officer here, immediately upon your application, gave orders to Mr. Cook to proceed down with the letters. Mr. Cook is a very careful young man & has a brother at Toms River [Major Thomas Cook] (hearty in the cause of American freedom) who will give any assistance that may be necessary. Serle also noted the movement of the British fleet at Sandy Hook but "unfortunately as I have no spy glass, I cannot as yet distinguish their motions." The next day, Serle noted receiving intelligence on the movements of the British fleet from Pennsylvania Flying Camp in the area—evidence that Pennsylvanians continued to defend the Raritan Bayshore even as the Continental Army was getting pushed out of New York and into New Jersey. The presence of Pennsylvanians and New Jersey militia impacted British attempts to take beached vessels. On November 12, Captain George Elphinstone of the HMS Perseus , recorded an attempt to take a beached vessel three miles west of the Sandy Hook on the Raritan Bayshore. “Sent our boats arm'd and manned to retake the prize, but finding them too strongly possessed, and great numbers of people on shore, made the signal with several guns for the boats to return." Unable to carry off the vessel, Elphinstone destroyed it instead: Fired many shots at the rebels; sent all our boats manned and armed to destroy the prize. At 6, our boats boarded her and set her on fire, at the same time some guns and several volleys of small arms were fired from the same shore. The British returned to Sandy Hook without any casualties. Historian Donald Shomette wrote of another British cruise down the Jersey Shore on December 7. Captain Andrew Snape Hammond ordered HMS Camilla, Pearl, Perseus , and Falcon "to proceed along the coast southward… Looking into Egg Harbor on your way." The activity of this flotilla is mostly unknown. However, on December 18, it came on Wasp bringing a prize to Egg Harbor and chased it. Wasp had to cut loose its prize in order to escape. The Fly and the Wasp continued to operate along the Jersey shore. On December 23, Robert Morris wrote John Hancock [both delegates to the Continental Congress] about two vessels taken by the Wasp and the resulting difficulties: The schooner Wasp commanded by Lt. Baldwin has brought into Egg Harbor a schooner loaded with Indian corn and oats… As there is no judge of the Admiralty in the Jersies & Judge Ross is at Lancaster, I think it advisable to send wagons to Egg Harbor for the corn & oats to feed the Continental horses of this city. Morris also wrote of the loss of a second capture: Baldwin has retaken a French schooner, he was bringing her into Egg Harbor when a fleet of 15 sail hove into sight, two of which were two deckers, one or two frigates, and an armed brig pursued him so close he was obliged to abandon his prize & get into the inlet as fast as he could. On January 1, the Marine Committee of the Continental Congress recorded that Lt. Baldwin had brought another prize into Egg Harbor. The Committee dispatched a second agent to Little Egg Harbor to support the Continental vessels: "Mr. Patterson is now going down to Egg Harbor to take care & management of your prizes in that place." Historian Shomette records that on March 21, 1777, the tender of the HMS Phoenix carried into New York the sloop Wanton , originally commanded by Loyalist, John Mount, until it was captured at Cranberry Inlet. That a small British tender was allowed to take and tow this prize halfway up the Jersey shore without opposition suggests that the Fly and Wasp were no longer operating on the Jersey shore by March. Indeed, that same month, a German officer in New York observed, "The English ships have been so active that this harbor is full of prizes. The Delaware is almost entirely blocked. Every ship that the fleet can dispense has been made ready to cruise." There are just a few documents afterward that show Continental vessels active on the Jersey shore afterward. Four examples are provided below. The Continental Navy on the Monmouth Shore in 1777 and Beyond In August 1777, the Providence , operating in concert with American privateers, participated in a six-hour battle with a large Loyalist vessel off Sandy Hook. No prize was taken. The British vessel, Hume , was captured by an unnamed Continental vessel in March 1780 "just southward of Sandy Hook." In November 1780, John Nagle, aboard the 24-gun Continental sloop Saratoga , recorded a battle off Jersey shore: We fell in with one of Gutterige's [Loyalist privateer William Goodrich] privateers. We being painted all black and our [gun] ports down, we appeared like a dull sailing merchantman... The privateer would sail all around us, thinking herself secure. [Then] we cut away our grating and the buoy [tied to the ship to slow it down and make it appear 'dull'] and was alongside of her before she could have time to make sail. We took her and brought her in. She was a beautiful brig of 16 guns. Finally, in May 1782, the Continental Navy’s frigate, Enterprise , chased three smaller vessels (probably London traders ) as they neared Sandy Hook. The small vessels beached near shore. The water was too shallow for the larger Continental ship to pursue them. The infrequent appearance of Continental Navy vessels did not mean the British were unchallenged masters of the Jersey shore. With the entry of France into the war in 1778, British warships were needed elsewhere and the blockade weakened. This corresponded with a rise of American privateers, including New England privateers who took dozens of prizes near Sandy Hook and bold Pennsylvania privateer captains such as Yelverton Taylor and Stephen Decatur. New Jerseyans William Marriner and Adam Hyler menaced British/Loyalist shipping in Raritan Bay and several Monmouth County militia officers were also opportunistic privateers. Related Historic Site : United States Navy Museum Sources : Gardner W. Allen, A Naval History of the American Revolution (1912, 1940, reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), pp. 128-9; National Archives, Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, Marine Committee, p56; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 7, p 120; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 7, p 128; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 38, November 13, 1776; Colonial and State Records of North Carolina, v10 0437http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0437 American Memory Project, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collection/continental ; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 8, p 380; Charles Paulin, Out-Letters of the Marine Committee and Board of Admiralty (New York: Navy History Society, 1914) vol. 1, p 59. Paul Smith, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1976) vol. 6, p 11; William Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1970), vol. 9, pp. 765, 853-4; John Brown to John Bradford, National Archives, Collection 332, reel 6, #247; Jacob Nagle, The Nagle Journal: A Diary of the Life of Jacob Nagle, Sailor, from the Year, 1775 to 1841, ed. John C. Dann (New York, 1988), p 26; Howard Peckham, The Toll of Independence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) p 127. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > New York Tories Find Refuge in Shrewsbury by Michael Adelberg Isaac Lowe served in the 1st Continental Congress and led protests against British policies, but he did not support independence. Fearing for his safety, he left New York for Shrewsbury. - July 1776 - The arrival of the British fleet on June 29 set the Loyalists of New York and New Jersey in motion. In Monmouth County, some Loyalists assembled and joined the British Army on Sandy Hook. However, many other Loyalists, due to age or preference, had no interest in serving in the British Army. They sought a place of safety as they came under increasing scrutiny from the Revolutionary governments of New York and New Jersey. Shrewsbury, where resistance to the Continental cause was well known, was such a place. New Yorkers Hide in Shrewsbury Township The first evidence of New York Loyalists seeking refuge in Shrewsbury is a July 26 letter from Governor William Livingston to Samuel Tucker, President of the New Jersey Convention: I have authentic information that some of the most malignant New York Tories have seated themselves in Shrewsbury; a very improper place on account of the facility it affords for keeping up a communication with the Enemy. Isaac Lowe and one Roome [John Roome] are particularly mentioned. That same day, Nathaniel Woodhull of New York Convention informed George Washington and the New Jersey Convention that New York Loyalists were seeking refuge in Shrewsbury. Woodhull had deposed Balthazar DeHart, a lawyer who practiced in the Monmouth County courts. He reported: When he [DeHart] left Shrewsbury, far the greater part of that place was inhabited, or rather, infested, with Tories... he has understood that their disaffection has been greatly increased by a number of persons who have gone from New York, and secretly labored to deceive the lower set of people, the higher being almost all disaffected. Woodhull named some of the Loyalists: Isaac Low, William Walton, Anthony Van Damm, John Roome, William Kipping, and [?] Hullet "a dance master." Woodhull also reported on the activities of Shrewsbury Loyalists: Joseph Wardell, John Corlies, and George Allen, went the week before last, or last week, to General Howe's camp, on Staten-Island, after, as they pretended, two negroes, who had run away from William Kipping and the said John Corlies; that they stayed some time there. The “negroes were delivered to them by Howe's order” which Woodhull took as proof that the Shrewsbury residents had pledged themselves Loyal to the British King (a prior British order said that slaves of rebels who agreed to serve the British cause would be freed, but slaves of Loyalists would not be freed. This might have increased unrest in Shrewsbury’s Black community). Dealing with New Yorkers in Shrewsbury Township On August 5, the New York Government sought to stop the further migration of Loyalists to New Jersey. It issued a public notice banning unauthorized travel: "No person whatsoever, either male or female, above the age of 14 will be permitted to pass to the State of New Jersey without a proper pass." The notice was not only printed in New York newspapers, it was also printed in Philadelphia papers. In 1776, New Jersey had no newspaper. Calls were made to the New Jersey government to take action against the New York Loyalists in Shrewsbury and the disaffected providing refuge to those Loyalists. On August 7, an anonymous New Yorker wrote Governor Livingston: I have received repeated information that a number of persons known to be inimical to the cause of the United States, or of suspicious character, have lately removed from this place [New York] into the County of Monmouth in New Jersey, with intent, no doubt, of communicating with and aiding our enemies. That same day, George Washington wrote the New Jersey Legislature a very similar letter (suggesting collaboration between the New Yorker and Washington’s aide-de-camp): I have received repeated information that a number of persons known to be inimical to the cause of the American States or of suspicious character have lately removed from this and other places to the County of Monmouth with the intent, no doubt... of communicating with and aiding the enemy. I must urge the necessity of your Congress of adopting the same measure [for arresting Loyalists] in all those parts of the Province that are contiguous to the enemy. Nine days later, George Washington wrote to the Councils of Safety of New York and New Jersey: I am informed, that in Consequence of my Letter acquainting you that a number of Persons deemed unfriendly to the Interests of America, were suspected of holding a Correspondence with the Enemy from Shrewsbury and its Neighborhood; Mr. Isaac Low late of this City has been apprehended, and is now detained under some kind of Confinement. Isaac Lowe was arrested, but released three days later. Without a sheriff [sheriff Elisha Lawrence was with the British] or functioning courts, it fell to the Monmouth County Committee to take action against the New York Loyalists in Shrewsbury and their local collaborators. On August 24, John Holmes of the Shrewsbury Township Committee sent a lengthy letter to Woodhull summarizing the Committee’s actions. Holmes broadly agreed with Woodhull’s characterization of disaffection in Shrewsbury: “Many parts of the County are exceedingly infested with Tories of the most inveterate disposition, owing in great measure to the malign influence of our late Attorney General.” This was reference to Courtland Skinner, the Attorney General under the Royal government, who was courting Loyalists to join the New Jersey Volunteers , of which he was named its Brigadier General. Holmes further suggested that the Shrewsbury township committee was, itself, disaffected and not to be trusted. As a result, the County Committee “constituted a sub-committee from our body, who are authorized to cite every inhabitant of New York within the Township of Shrewsbury to appear before them, and show cause why they not be immediately removed." John Holmes also discussed the three disaffected Shrewsbury residents who had visited the British Army on Staten Island to retrieve the runaway slaves: “They went under Col. [George] Taylor's permission, who granted them a flag [permission]; they had not been qualified. We have put them under oath, and have not been able to make any very important discoveries." Holmes discussed attempts to curb illegal trade with the British: A number of armed vessels have frequently been at anchor and hovering near the coast, and we have no doubt have had frequent intercourse with and supplies from the disaffected from this County... Our guards are now on the spot, and we have given orders that all stock be immediately driven from all beaches, we flatter ourselves that the enemy will be disappointed in any future attempt to procure provisions. Holmes claimed that "Gen. [Hugh] Mercer has arrived with a Continental guard at Shrewsbury, who have orders to seize and detain all craft belonging to said shores, and to apprehend such suspicious persons ...several arrests have been made." Continental Army records mention Continental guards in Shrewsbury but do not document General Mercer being at Shrewsbury.) However, Holmes’s account of driving livestock from the shore is corroborated by the records of the New Jersey Convention which, on July 23, recorded: Unanimously resolved and directed that the County Committee of Monmouth proceed, without delay, to remove all stock on their coast which may be in danger of falling into the hands of the enemy, back into the country. Holmes concluded that the events in Shrewsbury were exhausting the County Committee: "We have spent more time and undergone more vexation and fatigue than any other Committee of this State." The Monmouth County Committee likely uncovered some of the New Yorkers, but did not root out all of them. On December 3, 1776, Robert Bowne of Queens, New York, sent a letter from Shrewsbury to his brother in New York. Bowne summarized his status “in this time of great calamity,” he wrote: I have endeavored to avoid giving offence to any, have associated with very few, which I have found to be much the safest as there are many warm persons near us that are scratching at everything they can take the least advantage of to distress those who do not approve of their violent and unjust proceedings. He also discussed other New Yorkers still hiding in Shrewsbury. “The New Yorkers have all been threatened that they should be drove away from this quarter, tho' they [Whigs] have never put it in execution; many that was here have returned to New York.” The disaffection in Shrewsbury revealed in the letters of Woodhull and Holmes would soon be corroborated by the actions of a large association of Loyalists at Long Branch. Historic Site : Christ Church Sources : Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 107; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 602-3; The Library Company, Pennslyvania Ledger, vol. 1, Jan. 1775-Nov. 1776; Paul Burgess, A Colonial Scrapbook; the Southern New Jersey Coast, 1675-1783 (New York, Carlton Press, 1971) pp 109; John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 5, p 388; Selections from the Correspondence of the Executive of New Jersey, From 1776 to 1786 (Newark, NJ: Newark Daily Advertiser, 1848) p 7; New Jersey Convention resolve, Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 6, p 1651; Library of Congress, George Wahsington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw050383)) ; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 1534-5; Rutgers University Special Collections, Robert Bowne, AC 1246. 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 > Provisions Taken from Shore Residents for the Continental Army by Michael Adelberg The need to get provisions for his army and keep provisions from the British Army led George Washington to order troops to impound livestock from people living on the Monmouth shore. - December 1779 - With more than 10,000 British troops, thousands of sailors, and thousands more Loyalist refugees , the teeming population of Revolutionary War-New York City was in constant need of food. Monmouth County’s long shoreline—20 miles on the Raritan Bayshore and 50 miles of Atlantic shoreline - was also teeming with so-called “London Traders ” (Loyalist middlemen who sold goods from New Jersey to the British). Further, the livestock of Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) living near the shore was also vulnerable to capture, as when Loyalist raiders attacked Tinton Falls and took dozens of livestock in June 1779. Keeping provisions secure and away from the shore was, therefore, a continuous interest of New Jersey and Continental leaders. First Impressments The first time the New Jersey government took an interest in Monmouth County’s vulnerable livestock was July 23, 1776. Daniel Hendrickson, the Colonel of the Shrewsbury militia, came before the New Legislature to warn that "all stock on the sea coast… be in danger of falling into enemy hands." The Legislature directed Monmouth County’s Revolutionary leaders to “without delay, remove all stock on their coast which may be in danger of falling into the hands of the enemy, back into the country." William Applegate of Freehold, recalled participating in the campaign to take livestock at this time. He wrote: "Marched from Freehold to Middletown to bring off & secure the cattle & c., the British having at that time arrived in the Narrows." Farmers were given vouchers for the impounded livestock. But the vouchers were to be paid in low value New Jersey or Continental currencies. Clayton Tilton was a shore resident who had cattle taken in 1776. After this and other harassments, he turned Loyalist. Later in the war, he became a captain in the vigilante Associated Loyalists and was indicted for murder in the Monmouth County courts. In early 1777, Loyalist raiding parties from Sandy Hook began coming into Monmouth County via the Raritan Bayshore. This came to the attention of George Washington, who wrote Governor William Livingston on April 4, 1777: “I think the removal of the provisions in the County of Monmouth within reach of the Enemy (if they make descents) of so much Consequence, that I shall direct Colonel Forman [David Forman] to set about that work as soon as he collects a sufficient force to do it effectually." Forman dispatched Captain John Schenck to seize the goods of Shrewsbury Township residents. On April 15, Schenck recorded taking a variety of provisions, including guns and wagons: Deborah Wardell ("wife of Joseph Wardell absconded”) - 2 horses, wagon, 6 bushels of potato; Zilpha Corlies - 2 horses, wagon, gun; William Corlies - 2 horses, wagon, gun; Jacob Hance - horse; Benjamin Corlies - 30 bushels of corn. One of Schenck’s men, Job Throckmorton, later wrote that in May 1777 he went from "Freehold to Middletown to bring off & secure the cattle, horses & sheep to Freehold, to prevent their capture." It is probable that other impressments occurred at this time, but documentation is lacking. Washington and Livingston again considered impounding provisions along the Monmouth shore in early 1778. On January 12, Livingston wrote Washington about “great quantities of grain in the county of Monmouth in places much exposed to the Enemy.” He further wrote: The purchasing of this would be doubly advantageous, by supplying ourselves, and keeping it from the Enemy. From Shrewsbury Middletown Point & Amboy, I believe, New York receives considerable Supplies; and it is not in our power to secure by our Militia, those places from that infamous traffic. A few weeks later, Washington, from Valley Forge, wrote about the need to destroy supplies on the Jersey shore, because they were accessible to the British and not the Continental Army: "As it is impossible to secure the hay on the Jersey shore for our own use, it is certainly advisable to destroy it, that the enemy shall derive no benefit from it." It is unclear if Washington’s uncharacteristically harsh order was put into effect. In December 1778, Washington again worried that livestock on the Monmouth shore would fall into British hands. He wrote Livingston on December 7, 1778 “that the enemy shortly intend to make a forage upon the Monmouth coast.” He further wrote that this: Obliges me to desire your Excellency to give orders to the militia in that County to remove the stock near the coast, and to have particular regard for the houses of the disaffected, who always have previous notice to the designs of the enemy and lay up stores of provisions that may be at hand when they [the British] make their descent. By doing this, they screen themselves from the charge of having voluntarily contributed. Five days later, Livingston directed Colonel Asher Holmes, commanding the Middletown militia: I do hereby direct you, upon intelligence received of the enemy's approach or invasion of Monmouth, to remove to a place of safety, by such a number of militia as you may find necessary for the purpose, livestock, provisions and carriages as may be in danger of falling into the enemy's hands, on notice first given to owners & their neglecting or refusing to do the same. Unlike earlier impressments in which farmers along the shore were compensated for their losses, this time, the farmers had to pay the militia for safekeeping their livestock inland. Holmes would have his expenses paid "by the owner or owners of such livestock, provisions & carriages removed.” Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee and Later Impressments A year later, Major Henry Lee was stationed at Freehold with his cavalry regiment. In December, Lee proposed seizing the goods of disaffected living along shore. Washington was cool to the idea. He cautioned Lee that any actions must “not be incompatible with the laws of the State" and asked Lee to familiarize himself with New Jersey law. Lee was feuding with Quartermaster agent , David Rhea, and admiralty court judge, John Imlay. Imlay asked Livingston to complain about Lee to Washington. While Washington had previously supported what Lee was proposing, he pulled Lee out of Monmouth County on January 7, 1780. Only three weeks later, Colonel Caleb North was sent into Monmouth County for the second time, with his Pennsylvania regiment , to curb the illegal trade to and from the Monmouth shore. He arrived with a letter from Washington instructing township magistrates "to furnish the quantity of provision required, provided I would assist them with a guard, where necessary.” The result was that North and the magistrates of Middletown and Shrewsbury townships: Impressed the following quantity of provision: forty seven barrels of beef and pork, fifty barrels of Tory bread which was taken aboard a brig near Middletown, the full quantity of grains, which is sent to the neighboring militia, with orders to be prepared for immediate use, and one hundred six head of good cattle (chiefly from the townships of Middletown and Shrewsbury) as being most in the power of the enemy. North further noted that the Commissary Agent for Monmouth County, John Lloyd, “being well acquainted with the stock and disposition of the people and this place” concurrently impressed provisions from shore residents and “came on to camp with the cattle, beef, pork & biscuit.” Loyalist raids in spring 1780 led to new efforts to impound provisions. On June 18, Commissary Officer Azariah Dunham wrote Washington about “several thousand bushels of Indian meal in the County of Monmouth belonging to the public in the greatest danger of spoiling.” Dunham would send David Forman to collect the provisions. Meanwhile, David Rhea employed Captain Joshua Huddy to round up provisions in Shrewsbury Township: Rhea wrote of Huddy, "he has drawn five teams from the remote parts of Shrewsbury, I expect more from that quarter tomorrow." Later that month, Livingston wrote the Continental Congress. He acknowledged a request from Congress to raise horse teams in anticipation of driving provisions to the French fleet on its arrival on the Jersey shore. Livingston noted "a resolution of both houses directs Magistrates to impress all the teams they possibly can in the counties of Hunterdon, Burlington, Monmouth, Middlesex, Somerset and Sussex." David Forman set about the difficult task of raising provisions for the fleet. He wrote on July 12: "It would give me great pleasure to give our allies assistance - [but] in the present situation of officers in the county I fear little will be in my power.” This is a reference to the many Whig leaders captured by Loyalist raiders in 1780. Forman also recalled the difficulties raising provisions for the French fleet when it anchored at Shrewsbury Inlet in July 1778 due to the disaffection of shore residents: When Count D'Estaing lay off Shrewsbury, he was exceedingly imposed on in point of price & could draw but little supply - the disaffection in Shrewsbury is since that time greatly increased... yet I am convinced that several hundred sheep and some cattle might be taken from some people who at several times withheld supplies from the American army & are strongly suspected of sending supplies to the enemy. Information like this from Forman pushed Washington to return Major Lee to Monmouth County to impound livestock. On July 24, Washington wrote Lee: “I am informed by General Forman that there is a great number of horses in Monmouth County [are] within the enemy's power, belonging to disaffected persons." He ordered Lee: To prevent the enemy from having benefit of these, you will immediately set about driving off from that part of the country, all horses fit for riding or wagon service, and deliver them to the Quartermaster General, giving certificates to the persons from whom they are taken. You will do the same with respect to cattle. Washington then wrote Forman about Lee’s orders. He asked Forman to confidentially cooperate with Lee: “He will apply to you for advice, which you can give him privately, as I imagine it will not be prudent for you to appear in this matter." The next day, July 25, Lee was at Shrewsbury. He acknowledged Washington’s order but also referred to an urgent need to go to Easton, Pennsylvania. He wrote Washington: "I shall arrange matters here & commit the execution of them to Capt. Rudolph." Forman went to Shrewsbury to assist Lee’s men. He wrote from Shrewsbury on July 27 that he was with Captain Rudolph “respecting the horned cattle and horses from the parts of Shrewsbury and Middletown.” But Forman was disappointed: Major Lee has marched all his horse previous to my getting this letter to East Town [Easton] except Capt. Rudolph's troops, about 24 in number. From a conviction that so few was entirely unequal to the task, I procured press warrants to the amount of about thirty for the militia to operate with him, and yesterday morning Capt. Rudolph, I expect, began to collect from the seaboard side of Shrewsbury. Forman noted that his goal was to impound 1,000 livestock, but he and Rudolph had taken only 160. He blamed the shortfall on Lee, who was in Easton by July 30. Lee wrote from Easton that his officers were “discontented” by the “evident neglect” of commissaries while he was in Monmouth County. He mentioned his recent service at Shrewsbury “for the purpose of impressing teams" without noting his decision to prematurely quit that mission. Forman further complained that Lee had allowed shore residents to voluntarily drive their livestock inland, rather than have it impounded: Success would not be considerable as I expected, occasioned by an order from Major Lee which has given the inhabitants the week before to drive up all their live cattle. That order will induce, I apprehend, the people to secret part of them. While the 160 head of livestock was far less than projected, it was still a large quantity. And, the French fleet never returned to Shrewsbury. The livestock were, instead, penned inland for several months and then finally marched to the Continental Army in January 1781. Two Monmouth County militiamen recalled driving the livestock all the way to Tappan, New York. Samuel Holmes wrote: He marched as far as Tappan [New York] under the command of Lieutenant Isaac Imlay of Upper Freehold, where they drove about 250 horses and cattle from Shrewsbury, John Lloyd, Esq., of Upper Freehold was their commissary on that occasion, after delivering the cattle, he served out the month at Morristown. John Clark also recalled marching all the way to Tappan, New York: "I was employed by the commissary to drive wagons, haul forage & provisions to Trenton [Tappan] from Monmouth Court House and was engaged in this service until April." Livestock impressments continued to occur at the direction of David Forman. As head of the extra-legal Retaliators , Forman impounded goods from several disaffected citizens. Then, in June 1782, Forman used his power as judge of court of common pleas to issue warrants for impounding livestock from four disaffected citizens. However, these were local events that were not endorsed by state or Continental leaders. The right of the government to impound provisions was unclear. At times, Washington and Livingston restrained officers from impressing provisions; at other times, they championed it. In either case, the confiscation of valuable property from citizens without due process was a troubling practice. The confiscation of goods from two Middletown farmers without a full jury trial led to Holmes v Walton , in which the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down a law that enabled goods to be seized without a full trial. After this decision—issued in the fall of 1780—the New Jersey and Continental governments never again attempted to impound provisions from Monmouth County’s citizens. Related Historic Site: Valley Forge National Historic Park Sources : Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 6, p 1651; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, William Applegate of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#11273804 ; Peter W. Coldham, comp., American Loyalist Claims (Washington, D.C.: National Genealogical Society, 1980), pp. 490-1. Jones, E. Alfred. The Loyalists of New Jersey, (Newark, N. J. Historical Society, 1927) p 166; George Washington to Gov. William Livingston, Library of Congress, George Wahsington, Papters, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw070361)) ; Receipts of Captain John Schenck, Beekman Papers, Rutgers University Special Collections, box 2, folder: Monmouth County Misc., 1727-1799; George Washington, Official Letters to the Honorable Congress (London: Caddel, Junior & Davies, 1795) vol 2, p61; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Job Throckmorton; William Livingston to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 13, 26 December 1777 – 28 February 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2003, pp. 208–209; George Washington to Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 2, pp. 288, 292 note; George Washington to William Livingston, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 13, pp. 379-80. Leonard Lundin, Cockpit of the Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) p 408; William Livingston to George Washington, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, p 505; William Livingston to Asher Holmes, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 8, December 12, 1778; George Washington to Henry Lee, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence; Caleb North to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 63, January 27, 1780; George Washington to Azariah Dunham, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, pp. 24-5; David Rhea to Moore Furman, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5594; William Livingston to Congress, Library of Congress, Peter Force Collection, Series 7C, box 31, folder 2, 68:305; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 68, July 12, 1780; Henry Lee to Governor Reed, Literary and Historical Manuscripts--Bound Oversize, Record ID:122286, Morgan Library; Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 6, p 218 note; 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 248. Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 68, July 24, 1780; George Washington to Henry Forman, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 19, pp. 244-5; Henry Lee to Captain Rudolph, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23260727 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Clark of PA, www.fold3.com/image/#12752854 ; 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 > Loyalist Raiding Party Murders John Russell by Michael Adelberg Long Branch was within easy reach of Loyalist raiders at Sandy Hook. One party, lured by a nearby privateer, landed at the house of John Russell and killed him. The party’s leader was also killed. - March 1780 - Prior articles discussed that Loyalist raids increased in number and ferocity in 1779 and 1780 as irregulars (non-soldiers) started raiding Monmouth County with impunity. These raids were ungoverned by officers and lacked military objective—the common end-result were “man-stealings ” of particular Whigs, often to settle an old score. The raiders were financed by the plunder they carried off, creating a cohort of raiders who were financially dependent on raiding. The Attack on John Russell’s House The first well-documented raid of this type was the March 30, 1780, attack on the house of John Russell, Sr., of Long Branch. The New Jersey Gazette reported that on March 30: A party of Negroes and Refugees from the Hook landed at Shrewsbury in order to plunder. During the excursion, a Mr. Russell, who attempted to make some resistance, was killed and his grandchild has five balls shot through him, but is yet living. Mr. Russell, however, previous to his death, shot one of the ring leaders. Capt. Warner of the privateer brig Elizabeth was made prisoner by these ruffians, but got released by them two half-Joes. This banditti also took off several persons, among whom were Capt. James Green and Ensign John Morris of the militia. John Russell, Jr., later recalled the attack on his family. Parts of his account differ from the newspaper account: His father persuaded him not to fire, but did so when they broke into the house. When they broke into the house, the father fired first, but missed his aim; he was fired upon and then was killed. John Russell then fired upon the man [William Gillian] who shot his father. During the fray, young Russell was shot in the side, after being wounded he fell on the floor and pretended to be dead. The refugees went to plundering the house. The mother and wife of John Russell were lying in the bed with a child; the child was awoke... a refugee pointed his gun and fired. Whether he really intended to wound the child or only frighten is uncertain, but the child as before stated, was badly wounded but recovered. As the refugees were preparing to leave, one of the number [John Farnham] pointed his musket at John Russell as he lay on the floor and was about firing, saying he did not believe he was dead yet, whereupon another [Richard Lippincott] knocked up his musket, saying it was a shame to fire upon a dying man. John Russell ominously noted that he later "aided in visiting merited retribution on the refugees for their doings." This is a reference to Russelll’s participation in the murder of Philip White (who was captured at Long Branch in March 1782). White was a member of the party that killed his father. Antiquarian sources add details to the narrative: a party of seven Loyalists entered the home of John Russell. John Russell, Sr., shot at them but missed. The party’s leader, William Gillian, retaliated by shooting and killing John Sr. at close range. John Russell, Jr., was also shot and survived by feigning death. John Russell, III, a boy, was shot while in bed. The Loyalist party reportedly included Richard Lippincott (who would become infamous for hanging Captain Joshua Huddy two years later). Lippincott restrained another Loyalist, John Farnham, from murdering John Rusell, Jr. Sources disagree on some details, particularly with respect to when William Gillian, the Loyalist leader, was shot. One source claimed that Gillian, "when about to stab an aged Whig by the name of Russell, into whose house he had broken, he was shot by Russell's son, who lay wounded on the floor." If Russell, Jr. had shot Gillian, then Farnham’s desire to kill Russell, Jr., is explainable. The postwar veteran’s pension application of William Talman corroborates Gillian’s death, but suggests Gillian was killed in a skirmish with Shrewsbury militia after leaving Russell’s house. Talman wrote of skirmishing with the Loyalists after the Russell house attack. They skirmished with "Bill Galleon [William Gillian], a Captain of the Refugees. whom they killed at John Russell's in Shrewsbury near Long Branch." Why was the Russell family targeted? John Russell, Sr., was an ascending member of the Christ Church in Shrewsbury—being first named to the vestry in 1778. That congregation went from Loyalist-led to Whig-led by 1778 and Russell certainly played a role in this transition. John Russell Jr. was also a militiaman in the part of the county where militia service, though officially mandatory, was not enforced. So, the Russells were likely disliked by local Loyalists. Important details on the Russell House raid are only hinted at in the sources above. It appears that the raiders were lured to Long Branch, and the Russell house in particular, by the presence of a privateer and its captain. It also appears that the Loyalist party battled with militia after leaving the Russell House—likely alerted by family members who escaped. The capture of two militia officers—including Captain James Green, the most active of Shrewsbury’s militia captains—was a significant blow to the Shrewsbury militia. It lacked active officers and was already missing several of its senior officers, captured nine months earlier at Tinton Falls . The raiders likely understood that the leaderless militia would be impaired in responding to their attack. John Russell, Jr., After the Attack The killing of his father and wounding of himself and son, made John Russell, Jr., a strident Whig. In August 1780, Russell, Jr., was one of a few men listed as a “collector” of fines against militia delinquents —a dangerous assignment in disaffected Shrewsbury Township, where Whigs known to be carrying cash were vulnerable to attack. Russell, serving under Richard Laird, also seized the goods of suspected London Trader, Samuel Cories, which was challenged before the state’s Supreme Court. Russell testified in May 1781: The plaintiff being on duty near the lines, he seized the wagon & two horses of the defendant with lead boards going into enemy lines and the defendant not giving the plaintiff proper satisfaction what he was going to do with said boards, plaintiff ordered the wagons & drove toward Colts Neck. Like many other Whigs living along the shore, Russell Jr., eventually moved inland for safety. In January 1782, he joined Captain John Walton’s company of State Troops . He is listed as living in Freehold on the enlistment roll. Three months later, he would participate in murdering the captured Loyalist, Philip White, a member of the Loyalist party that killed his father. The raid on the Rusell family merits its own article because it was well enough documented to support an article, not because it was an exceptional event. On April 5, the New Jersey Gazette reported on two other small raids that occurred within days of the Russell House raid: Last week, a party of the enemy landed at Tinton Falls and carried off six or seven of the inhabitants prisoner. Another small party which landed at Middletown carried off a Mr. Bowne, who had but three days before been exchanged and just returned home. Beyond this brief mention in the New Jersey Gazette , these other two raids—both of which were roughly equivalent to the Russell House raid—went undocumented. Thus, it is not possible to write about these other raids. It must be wondered how many similar raids went completely undocumented. Related Historic Site : Long Branch Historic House & Farm Sources : Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of William Talman of NJ, National Archives, p9-11; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; John Russell’s recollection is in Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 65-6; Christ Church Vestry List, Monmouth County Historical Association, Vault, Shelf 4, Christ Church (Shrewsbury) - Vestry Book; List of Warrants, Shrewsbury Militia, Holmes Family Papers, Revolutionary War Series, New Jersey Historical Society; Samuel Corlies vs. Richard Laird, New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #7595; State Troops Muster Rolls, National Archives, Revolutionary War Rolls, Coll. 89, p2, 6, 9, 11. 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 First Battle of Monmouth by Michael Adelberg Under the command of Francis Gurney, Thomas Mifflin led 120 Pennsylvanians in routing 200 Monmouth Loyalist recruits under Elisha Lawrence at Freehold on January 2, 1777. - January 1777 - The Battle of Monmouth, fought on June 28, 1778, is the most famous Revolutionary War event to occur in Monmouth County. Thousands of men from both of the great armies participated. But the principal actors in the battle, whether Continental or British, were not from Monmouth County. A week before the battle they were outside the county; a week after the battle they were outside the county. And the Battle of Monmouth did not greatly change the trajectory of the local war inside the county. In contrast, a much smaller battle occurred in nearly the same place eighteen months earlier on January 2, 1777. Unlike the much larger second Battle of Monmouth, only a few hundred men participated in this first Battle of Monmouth. Unlike the larger second Battle of Monmouth, the majority of fighters in this first Battle of Monmouth were Monmouth Countians. And this first Battle of Monmouth was pivotal in changing the trajectory of Monmouth County’s local war. Loyalists Gather at Freehold to Form New Militia As noted in prior articles about the Loyalist insurrections in Upper Freehold and Freehold-Middletown (less so in the Shrewsbury insurrection), Monmouth County’s embryonic Loyalist regime sought to legitimize its rule by turning out all able-bodied men at Freehold starting on December 28, 1776. The men would take British loyalty oaths and either enlist in the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers or divide up into Loyalist militia companies. The resulting Loyalist militia would become the vehicle for enforcing future Loyalist rule. A week earlier, Lt. Colonel Elisha Lawrence, leading the 1st Battalion of New Jersey Volunteers, had re-entered Monmouth County. He recalled, "In December 1776, he was ordered into Monmouth County with his battalion to collect horses and wagons for use of the Army, he collected many." As the first recruits began dribbling into Freehold in the days before Christmas, Lawrence positioned himself as the commander of this nascent county militia. Establishing a camp capable of provisioning several hundred men was critical to the plan. The first document to discuss this is a December 22, 1776 letter from Colonel Joseph Reed of Pennsylvania to George Washington. Reed forwarded intelligence from an informer who saw sixteen wagons “for the Baggage of about 500 Men who were to quarter about Cranberry—inlisted Tories commanded by one Lawrence [Elisha Lawrence]." The informer was incorrect about the location—the Loyalist camp would be at Freehold. At this time, public notices went up across Monmouth County calling on men between the ages of 16 and 60 to report to Freehold on December 28. The notices were signed by three British-appointed Monmouth County Commissioners—John Lawrence of Upper Freehold, John Taylor of Middletown, and John Wardell of Shrewsbury. Small numbers of men started arriving at Freehold on December 28. Word of Washington’s victory at Trenton and a fresh snowfall likely dampened turnout. On December 31, Col. John Cadwalader commanding a regiment of Continentals close to the British Army in western New Jersey wrote George Washington on the gathering of Loyalists at Freehold: Colonel Elisha Lawrence (late Sheriff of Monmouth) is now collecting men at Monmouth Court House. He has got together about 70 men. He has put twenty men into prison for refusing to bear arms. The person who brings the intelligence flew [from Lawrence]; Major Nichols is desirous of going after Lawrence's party. I think it is not an object at this time, and have refused the application. Gurney’s Pennsylvanians March on Freehold General Israel Putnam also learned of the gathering Loyalists at Freehold as (he commanded Continental forces at Crosswicks and Allentown in the days immediately before the Battle of Princeton on January 3). Putnam detached a regiment of Pennsylvania soldiers under Lt. Colonel Francis Gurney to head to Freehold to engage the gathering Loyalists. One of Gurney’s junior officers, Adam Hubley, described the engagement at Freehold, 1/2/77: We arrived there Thursday evening, we were informed of a party of men consisting of about 200, under the command of Col Morris. We had our party (about 120 in number) formed in proper order and intended to attack them in town, about a half hour before night. Col Morris [a reference to John Morris, but it was Elisha Lawrence] it seems got account of our arrival, had his men drawn and baggage in order to move toward Middletown, a town about 18 miles below the Court House. They pushed off from town and got about a mile and a half, within sight of us. We immediately pushed after them, when they made a halt. We came up, about a quarter of an hour before night, when we engaged them, and they stood us about 8 minutes, a very heavy firing was kept up between us for that time. The enemy at last gave way, and retreated very precipitously, at this time it was quite dark and we could not see what loss the enemy sustained. On our side, we had none killed. We marched from the field to the town and lodged there that night. The next morning we sent out a party to the field we engaged in, they brought four dead bodies, which we buried. We took during the engagement 23 prisoners, which we brought to this place. We also took from the enemy 7 wagon loads of stores and 12 horses. Putnam summarized the battle similarly on January 6, though his numbers differ slightly from Hubley: Major Mifflin [Thomas Mifflin], at the head of 120 men, attacked a body of 250 Tory recruits in Monmouth County a few days ago, killed 4 of them and took 24 prisoners. They were enlisted during the American rebellion. Captain Smith, with about 30 rifle-men has brought 22 prisoners with a wagon containing their baggage. Putnam’s choice of the term “Tory recruits” explains why the smaller body of Pennsylvanians was able to rout the larger body of Monmouth Loyalists. The Pennsylvanians, though poorly armed and trained in comparison to the British Army, were vastly better armed and trained than the Loyalists. It can be safely assumed that the Loyalists lacked the cohesion, discipline, and munitions necessary for battle. When the first few Loyalists turned and ran, it likely induced a general panic in their ranks. If 200+ committed Loyalists were not taken and shipped out of state in December, the outcome might have been different. An additional account of this first Battle of Monmouth is in the pension application of John Hunter of Pennsylvania, who served under Major Thomas Mifflin: They then marched against Col [John] Morris [actually Elisha Lawrence] of Monmouth and drove him and his forces, that they killed some and took others prisoners and that they took plunder from the enemy in that encounter to amount to ten dollars per soldier when sold. Nathaniel Scudder of Freehold also described the battle: Gen'l Putnam detached a party of militia [Flying Camp] under command of Col Francis Gurney of Philadelphia, who marched them into Monmouth, routed the Tories and seized a considerable body of stores in several places. After the battle, Scudder guided Gurney to Middletown and Shrewsbury in a campaign that finished off Monmouth County’s brief Loyalist regime. It is interesting that Hunter chose to note that the Pennsylvanians received a bounty based on the sale of confiscated Loyalist stores. This might explain why the Pennsylvanians were so eager to continue the campaign against Monmouth Loyalists, the subject of the next article . Related Historic Site : Monmouth Battlefield State Park Sources : Michael Adelberg, The Forgotten First Battle of Monmouth, Journal of the American Revolution, March 2013, https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/05/the-forgotten-first-battle-of-monmouth/ ; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 7, 21 October 1776–5 January 1777, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997, pp. 414–417; Peter Force, ed., American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution 1774–1776, 9 vols. (1837–53), 5th Services, vol. 3, pp. 1514; Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Elisha Lawrence, Coll. D96, PRO AO 13/110, reel 10; Joseph Reed, Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blankston, 1847, p 287-8; Gaillard Hunt, Fragments of Revolutionary History (Brooklyn: Historical Publishing Club, 1892) pp. 112-5; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, pp. 158, 168. Dennis Ryan, A Salute To Courage The American Revolution as Seen through Wartime Writings (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979) pp. 60-1; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 178, item 159, #33; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Hunter of PA, www.fold3.com/image/#24019015 . 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 > British and Loyalist Attack Monmouth County Salt Works by Michael Adelberg Reenactors march in the original green uniforms of the New Jersey Volunteers. Loyalists, including many from Monmouth County, raided Manasquan and destroyed its salt works in April 1778. - April 1778 - When the American Revolution started, the British Navy blockaded American ports. As a result, the new nation experienced a severe salt shortage (essential to food preservation). The Jersey shore was thinly-populated and poor before the war; its sandy soil was ill-suited for farming and the inlets were dangerous and too shallow for large vessels. However, New Jersey’s shallow tidal inlets were ideal for salt making and a dozen salt works sprung up on the Monmouth shore within a year. These salt works were vulnerable to British-Loyalist attack. The importance of salt and protection of the salt works was discussed by New Jersey Governor William Livingston and General George Washington. Livingston wrote in September 1777: “the scarcity of salt is a serious consideration, and has been industriously perverted by our internal enemies.” He lobbied for bills to support and protect the salt works. Washington deemed the protection of the salt works important enough to grant Colonel David Forman a temporary reprieve from joining the Continental Army in the defense of the Delaware River: Am very sorry to hear that the information you have heard on the intent of the enemy to destroy the salt works upon the coast of Monmouth County will divert you from coming to the reinforcement of the Army; but these works are so truly valuable to the public that they are certainly worth your attention. The salt works were also on the minds of American Loyalists eager to punish their former neighbors and disrupt the Continental Army’s food supply. On January 1, 1778, an anonymous Loyalist from Shrewsbury wrote about the salt works owners and their salt works: A great many of them pretend to be friends of the King--perhaps they have sent some provisions to New York and got four times as much as they could get at home, and then they think they can make salt freely & call themselves friends of the Government, but you will judge whether or not they are friends of their own pockets... You know that these works stand near the waterside, that 200 men might destroy them all. Historian Arthur Pierce, who studied the New Jersey shore during the American Revolution estimated that the salt works may have produced 2,000 bushels of salt a month at their peak. The most productive salt works on the Jersey shore in April 1778 were the Union Salt Works on the Manasquan River (in present day Brielle). An antiquarian source claims the Union Salt Works contained "no less than one hundred houses" each with 6-10 copper pans and kettles. The largest house was said to be the property of the Continental Congress and was valued at L6,000. Surviving original documents do confirm these details. The only force assigned to defend the salt works was David Forman’s under-sized Additional Regiment , which Forman, in a blatant conflict of interest, used in 1777 to construct the Union Salt Works. In the resulting scandal , Forman lost command of his regiment; it was sent to the Continental Army campa at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania in late March 1778. The Attack on the Monmouth County Salt Works It was not long before an attempt was made to raze the salt works. The New Jersey Gazette reported on a raid made by roughly one hundred New Jersey Volunteers and forty British regulars: The enemy landed on the south side of Squan Inlet, burnt the salt works, broke the kettles; stripped the beds of some of the people there, who I fear wished to serve them; then crossed the river and burnt all except Derrick Longstreet's. The next day they landed at Shark River and set fire to two salt works... one of the pilots was the noted Thomas Okerson. The report further noted that the raiding party went in three large boats and a war-sloop commanded by Captain Henry Collins of the Royal Navy; they landed at Manasquan on April 5. Captain Boyd Potterfield of the British Army led the landing party, which faced no significant opposition. Potterfield sent his commander, General Henry Clinton, a lengthy report on the raid on April 7: The 5th, about 3 o'clock in the morning, we weighed and at 8 o'clock we anchored off Squan Inlet; after reconnoitering the place from the vessels, we landed at about one hundred yards distance from a salt work, which we immediately destroyed. We then proceeded and most completely demolished a very considerable work on the right of the Inlet, which belonged to the Congress, and is said to have had six thousand pounds--likewise some of the contiguous, but of less consequence—after completing the above, we reimbarked without opposition. Potterfield continued: The same day in the afternoon we anchored off Shark [River]; we landed a party to examine the country, but the wind coming from the eastward occasioned a very high surf, and made it necessary in the opinion of Capt. Collins to re-embark, as he apprehended it would increase, and render it impracticable to get the boats off. We immediately & with some difficulty re-embarked & proceed to the Hook. The dispatch that was necessary in destroying the works prevented our taking an exact account of everything; but there was at least one hundred houses, each containing 8 to 10 kettles and boilers (a great part of which were copper) for the purpose of making salt. We also destroyed a great quantity of beef and bacon, mostly dried, & a great deal of ready-made salt. We likewise destroyed a sloop partly loaded with flour belonging to Boston & a quantity of grain, which we found on the beach. A week later, the Loyalist New York Gazette corroborated this account, but suggested a larger raiding party of "200 of the King's troops." New York’s other Loyalist newspaper, the Gazette and Weekly Mercury , also reported on the raid, adding a detail on the limited damage at Shark River: “The wind coming eastward occasioned such a high surf, they were under necessity of re-embarking, which prevented them from demolishing the salt works there that the rebels had at that place.” After the Attack On April 15, the Pennsylvania Ledger reported on a storm that compounded the damage: The late storm has destroyed many of the small salt works on our shore--with all the salt in them. The night tide was several feet higher than has been known before--a considerable number of horned cattle were drowned on Long Beach and other places. The Long Beach is almost wholly leveled, with but little more than a sand bar left. The furniture has floated out of the rooms of some houses that flood low on the waterside. The inhabitants never saw so distressing a time. The Ledger further reported that the raid and storm had destroyed 100 salt work buildings and further “destroyed immense quantities of salt, beef, salted hams, sides of bacon, corn and hay." However, the high surf at Shark River “prevented them [the raiders] from demolishing those works." On April 9, Colonel Samuel Forman, commanding the Monmouth County militia at Toms River, wrote of the raid and suggested that the Monmouth militia offered some resistance: "15 Mounted militia” under Asher Holmes harassed the raiders’ departure at Shark River. Forman also noted that two booty-laden boats capsized as the raiders hastily rowed into the rough surf. However, Noah Clayton, a militiaman at Tinton Falls, offered a different perspective on the militia’s role: While we lay there, an express arrived stating that the Tories had burned the Squan River salt works, and [we] immediately marched in pursuit of them, but they got into their boats and made their escape, and we returned to the Falls again. News of the raid prompted letters from the leading Continental Army officers near the shore—Colonels David Forman (recently stripped of the regiment assigned to guard the salt works) and Israel Shreve (who gained Forman’s men and now had responsibility of protecting the shore). On April 7, Forman, who had predicted an attack on the salt works, wrote Shreve: I gave orders to the troops to march and were to have gone this morning. Yesterday evening the enemy had landed and destroyed the Union & other salt works; altho' the militia on duty in Shrewsbury had immediately marched to their assistance, they could not get down timely to save them - Col [Samuel] Forman and myself immediately set off in the night and after giving all the necessary orders came down to Toms River and there immediately set off in the assembled militia to reinforce the guard stationed for the protection of [Thomas] Savadge's and other works… They [the raiders] will in all probability return as soon as the militia are discharged. Forman noted that he had left some men under Captain Thomas Marsh Forman at Toms River with the militia to protect the large but non-productive Pennsylvania Salt Works . Shreve then wrote George Washington, exaggerating the size of the raiding party and requesting reinforcements: This moment I received Intelligence that the Enemy has Landed at Squan between 600 & 1000 men, and Distroyed [sic] all the Salt works in that Neighborhood. If your Excy should think proper to send more troops to this Quarter, with Artillery, I Beg for the Jersey Compy of Artillery, at present commanded by Capt: Lt Seth Bowen. Washington did not send Bowen’s company, but forwarded Shreve’s note to the Continental Congress with a cover note of his own: "The enclosure, NJ 2, is the copy of a letter from Colonel Shreve of the Second Jersey Battalion, containing an account of the destruction of the salt and salt-works at Squan." That same day, Washington directed that the men from Forman’s regiment who had just arrived at his camp at Valley Forge to return to New Jersey (under Shreve) where they could be temporarily used to protect the shore. Concurrently, the New Jersey Legislature authorized raising two companies of State Troops (militia paid by the state to serve continuously) to protect the shore. This would be Potterfield’s only foray into Monmouth County, but Henry Collins would lead an even larger raid (against Egg Harbor at the southern tip of present-day Ocean County) six months later. The salt works on Falkinburg Island in Little Egg Harbor were one of his targets. On learning of Collins’s attack, John Cooper, owner of the salt works, wrote his manager: I have just learned that there is an expedition going in towards Egg Harbor and I understand you have a quantity of salt there. I hope you will think as I do and remove it as soon as possible for, depend on it, the works will be destroyed and there should be no time lost. Collins’s Loyalist guide, Lt. Thomas Okerson, would participate in additional raids, including one a year later that razed his home village of Tinton Falls . Related Historic Site : Valley Forge National Historical Park Sources : William Livingston to New Jersey Assembly, in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 173, 182-4; George Washington to David Forman, Neilson Family Papers, box 1, folder: Rutgersania, Rutgers University Special Collections; Anonymous Loyalist, quoted in Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 228-9; The Library Company, Pennsylvania Ledger, vol. 2, Oct. 1777-May 1778; William MacMahon, South Jersey Towns (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1973) p 304; The Revolutionary Salt Works of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton Past Times Press); The Revolutionary Salt Works of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1923) pp. 41-42. John Barber, Henry Howe, Historical Collections of New Jersey (New Haven, Connecticut: n.p., 1868) p351; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 422-3; Harry B. and Grace M. Weiss, The Revolutionary Salt Works of the New Jersey Coast (Trenton: Past Times Press, 1933) pp. 41-42; The Library Company, Pennsylvania Ledger, vol. 2, Oct. 1777-May 1778; Online Institute for Loyalist Studies, www.royalprovincial.com : University of Michigan, Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, vol. 33, item 15; Monmouth, Page in History (Freehold: Monmouth County Bicentenial Commission, 1976) p 33; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 2, p 160; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) p 371; Israel Shreve to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 14, 1 March 1778 – 30 April 1778, ed. David R. Hoth. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2004, pp. 420–421; David Forman to Israel Shreve, April 7, 1778, University of Houston, Israel Shreve Papers; George Washington to Congress, George Washington, Official Letters to the Honorable American Congress Written During the War between the United Colonies and Great Britain (Boston: Manning & Loring, 1796) v 2, p245; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Noah Clayton. 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 Aftermath of the Huddy Hanging and Lippincott Acquittal by Michael Adelberg A British officer, Charles Asgill, was to be hanged in retaliation for the hanging of Colts Neck’s Joshua Huddy. A plea from French Foreign Minister, Charles de Vergennes, broke the cycle of retaliation. - May 1782 - On April 12, 1782, a party of Associated Loyalists led by Richard Lippincott hanged Joshua Huddy (of Colts Neck) on the Navesink Highlands. This was an act of retaliation for the killing of the Loyalist, Philip White. Executing Huddy for an abuse that did not involve him moved George Washington to threaten the execution of a British officer (Charles Asgill) unless Lippincott was turned over. The British refused to turn over Lippincott, but tried him for murder before a British Army court martial . Lippincott, however, was found not guilty. Now, Lippincott’s status and the threatened hanging of Asgill escalated to the highest levels of American, British, and French governments. Even before Lippincott’s court martial concluded, the British switched commanders in America—General Henry Clinton left for England and General Guy Carleton came from Canada to New York to replace him. The Associated Loyalists withered. William Franklin, their chairman, laid low. Board Member, Duncan Ludlow, "retired from it [the Board] in consequence of disapproving of the measure.” Another Board member, Tench Coxe, disavowed Huddy’s hanging. The dissolution of the Board was reported in Boston’s Independent Ledger on July 1: "We learn that the Board of Refugees is annihilated." News of Huddy, Lippincott, and Asgill went to Paris—where American emissaries were negotiating for peace and independence. On May 30, Robert Livingston of the Continental Congress informed Benjamin Franklin (father of William Franklin) about Huddy’s execution and the decision to hang Asgill if Lippincott was not brought to justice. A captain was sent to New York “to see if Carleton can be persuaded to give satisfaction for the murder.” Livingston concluded, “It is a melancholy case but the repeated cruelties of the British has rendered some retaliation absolutely necessary." Appeals to Spare Charles Asgill As news reached Europe, Asgill advocated for his life. He wrote to George Washington on May 30 claiming “protection under the 14th article of Capitulation” from the British surrender at Yorktown. Asgill argued against retaliatory executions: "I am perfectly innocent of Captain Huddy's death...nor do I know why my life should be an atonement for the misdemeanors of others." Asgill sent similar pleas to Admiral Jean Rochambeau and Carleton. He even wrote to Huddy’s estranged widow , Catherine Huddy. Asgill’s mother, leveraging her English noble status, wrote directly to the French foreign minister, Count Charles Vergennes, on July 13, to request his intervention: My son (and only son), as dear as he is brave, amiable as he is deserving to be so, only nineteen, a prisoner under the articles of capitulation at Yorktown, is now confined in America, an object of retaliation. Shall an innocent suffer for the guilty?... A word from you, like a voice from heaven, will save us from distraction and wretchedness. Lady Asgill’s letters would be printed in newspapers across Great Britain and France. With some hyperbole, French nobleman Baron de Grimm noted that Asgill’s letters appeared "all over Europe” and “resounded with the unhappy catastrophe." Purgatory for Lippincott and Asgill Washington, meanwhile, pressed Carleton for Lippincott. He wrote Colonel Elias Dayton (commanding New Jersey’s Continental Line) on June 4, to permit Asgill’s appeal to Carleton to be carried to New York: “You will therefore give permission to Capt. Ludlow to go, by the way of Dobb's Ferry into N York, with such Representation as Capt. Asgill shall please to make to Sir Guy.” Washington also urged to Dayton to make clear to Ludlow and all British officers that he would following through on hanging Asgill: My resolutions have been grounded on so mature a deliberation, that they must remain unalterably fixed. You will also inform the Gentlemen, that while my duty calls me to make this decisive determination, humanity dictates a fear for the unfortunate offering, and inclines me to say that I most devoutly wish his life may be saved. Carleton could prevent the “dire extremity” of killing Asgill only when rage over “the murdered Capt. Huddy will be appeased.” At the same time, the New Jersey partisan , Adam Hyler, attempted to kidnap Lippincott from New York. A June 19 letter discussed Hyler’s attempt (Hyler’s crew included several Monmouth Countians): 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... 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. Lippincott was acquitted of murder by the British court martial on June 25, but American newspapers initially got the verdict wrong. On June 27, the Massachusetts Spy reported: “Captain Lippincott, who was principally concerned in the inhuman murder of Captain Huddy, was tried at New York Thursday last, found guilty, and was to be sent out on Friday to General Washington's camp.” On June 28, the Pennsylvania Evening Post reported: Capt. Lippincott has been tried & found guilty; but whether the British would execute him themselves in the presence of proper persons sent by his Excellency, Gen. Washington, or send him out to the lines, was not mentioned. It later reported, "Lippincott has certainly received a sentence of death by a court martial for the murder of Captain Huddy; and, it is expected, will be executed at New York, or out, this week." General Henry Knox, leading prisoner exchange negotiations at Elizabethtown, was the first Continental Army officer to learn of Huddy’s hanging and he continued to follow the affair. In July, he wrote about Lippincott twice. Knox wrote that “this affair has created much ill blood between the tories and regular troops in New York.” Knox also expressed his views on retaliatory executions which “have been too frequent, under the color of the Laws of the different states.” These state laws “sully the purity of our cause.” He then considered Lippincott and doubted the need to execute Asgill: I am pretty well convinced that the representations, and the light in which the murder of Huddy has been received on both sides of the lines will prevent a repetition of the crime and so far render retaliation unnecessary. Knox suggested that Washington did not want to execute Asgill; Knox saw Washington as forced to execute Asgill by “his own declarations, the resolution of Congress on the subject, and the expectations of the people.” Knox then rebuffed Guy Carleton’s offer to send Lippincott’s court martial papers into American lines and with the Loyalist jurist, William Smith, to explain Lippincott’s acquittal: “The hope still exists that you will be punishing the perpetrators of this flagitious murder.” Knox then suggested that Smith, Chief Justice of New York’s Loyalist civil government, was an unfit emissary to explain a British Army court martial: “The trial having been by a military tribunal, the propriety of admitting of explanations & comments by a chief Justice of a court of civil jurisdiction does not appear to me evident.” The status of Lippincott’s court martial papers yielded wild rumors, one of which blamed James Robertson’s mother (Robertson was the Governor-General of New York’s civil government) for losing the papers. The newspaper worried, "if they are not found, Lippincott must be tried again." A reward was offered for their return. Lippincott’s court martial papers were, if ever lost, recovered. The Continental Congress had already acquired at least some of Lippincott’s court martial papers. These papers were cited among the documents related to Huddy and Lippincott when it investigated the matter in August. Congress examined: Petitions and memorials to Washington from Monmouth County on Huddy’s hanging; Continental Congress resolves approving the selection a British officer for retaliation; Proceedings of Richard Lippincott's court martial; Depositions taken in Monmouth County shortly after the hanging; Letters between Continental Army and British leaders on Huddy’s hanging and its aftermath. Initially, these documents and Lippincott’s court martial acquittal further stoked American calls for vengeance. Arthur Middleton, a delegate in Congress wrote: "Let our enemy beware of improper conduct, and let our Friends take care [not to] fall into their hands." Thomas Paine taunted the British and called for Lippincott to be turned over: You hold the one and we hold the other [Asgill]. You disown or affect to disown the reprobate conduct of Lippincott; yet you give him sanctuary and by so doing you effectively become the executioner of Asgill as if you put the rope around his neck... Deliver up one and you save the other; withhold the one, and the other dies by your choice. On our side, the case is exceedingly plain; an officer [Joshua Huddy] has been taken from his confinement and murdered, and the murdered lies within your lines. Congress and Washington Soften on Retaliation As the Huddy-Lipponcott-Asgill drama dragged into the summer, passions gradually cooled. Historian Donlad Shomette noted that the French King and Queen reviewed letters on the controversy, including a plea from Asgill's mother. They directed their foreign minister, Count Charles Vergennes to write George Washington on July 29. Vergennes forwarded Lady Asgill’s letter and wrote: "Your Excellency will not read this letter without being extremely affected... it had that effect on the King and Queen." Vergennes then asked Washington "to deliver Mr. Asgill from the fate which threatens him. I am far from engaging you to seek another victim. The pardon, to be perfectly satisfactory, must be entire." A few weeks later, on August 19, John Rutledge of Congress issued a report. Congress resolved that it was “clearly of the opinion that the acquittal of Lippincut by the court martial is not by any means justifiable.” However, Congress backed away from encouraging retaliation, noting that “General Carleton has inquired to authorities in England… to apprehend said [William] Franklin and send him in safe custody to America that he may be proceeded with in a course of justice for the supposed murder of Captain Huddy.” Congress moved to delay execution of Asgill; ordering that he “be held in safe custody" in order to give Carleton time to punish Franklin. James Madison, serving in Congress, wrote about Lippincott two days later. He observed: “The culprit did not deny the fact charged upon him, but undertook to justify it as a necessary retaliation, and as warranted by verbal orders from the Board of Refugees.” The military court “acquitted him on the pretext of no malicious intention.” Madison noted that “Carleton explicitly acknowledges & reprobates the crime, & promises to pursue other modes.” Madison also suggested that Washington was softening from his public position in support of executing Asgill: “Genl. Washington seems to lean to the side of compassion but asks the direction of Congress." Monmouth County’s Colonel David Forman, who also headed the Association for Retaliation , pressed Washington for retaliation. On August 28, Forman bluntly asked, "What is to be done for the murder of the unfortunate Captain Huddy?" Washington replied evasively on September 3: Gen. Carlton sent me the proceedings of the court martial upon Lippincott by which means he was acquitted on proving to the satisfaction of the court that he acted under the direction of the Board of Directors of the Associated Loyalists. Gen. Carlton does not justify the proceedings. Washington stated that Carleton “has given orders to prosecute the inquiry still further. I have given him no answer, but have transmitted a copy of the proceedings to Congress." Washington told Forman that he still held Asgill "in close confinement." But the delayed retaliation was apparent. George Plater, President of Maryland’s Senate, wrote: "Pray has the affair of Lippincott blow over. I hear nothing of it." Carleton then sent the complete minutes of Lippincott’s court martial to Washington on September 13. Carleton took the opportunity to explain that Huddy’s hanging was never approved by the British Army, “my predecessor in command was wholly unacquainted with the fact” and Clinton quickly investigated the “criminal proceeding.” Clinton considered Huddy’s hanging an “a great Barbarity in itself, as well as a daring Insult on his own authority.” Carleton also chided Washington for threatening retaliation before British legal processes were exhausted: “Tho’ it might be natural for Your Excellency to make a demand of justice for outrages against the Law of Arms, it is not ’til justice is refused, that even a menace of retaliation can be justified.” Carleton asked Washington to show mercy for Asgill and restrain further retaliation: I must take leave to express my claim and confidence, that you will immediately relieve them [Asgill and a second officer] from their anxieties and confinement, as a debt due to humanity, to say nothing of the requirements of honor and policy, and of the principles of all laws, civil and moral. The trial of Lippencot is now in your hands, and you will find that he has been acquitted upon the oaths of men of rank and character, on all the circumstances of the case. Carleton promised to investigate others involved in Huddy’s murder, “I have given Orders to the Judge Advocate to make further Inquisition and to collect Evidence for the Prosecution of such other Persons as may appear to have been criminal.” But Carleton also asked Washington to consider past “violences which have naturally begotten such resentments as it is not in the condition of authority wholly to restrain.” This was a reference to Loyalist abuses in Monmouth County. Carleton complained of continued provocations from Monmouth County, including the death sentences put upon Ezekiel Tilton, Timothy Scoby and other Loyalists. Carleton asked Washington to acknowledge the equal immorality of the Associated Loyalists and radical Whigs (such as David Forman’s “Retaliators”): The same spirit of revenge has mutually animated the people of New Jersey and the Refugees under our command, equally criminal and deserving of punishment in all, as they lead to evils and misfortunes of the blackest and most pernicious sort. But they cannot, Sir, be partially suppressed. I know that mutual reproaches and acts of cruelty have been common in Civil Wars, but men of liberal minds invested with the dignities of high office, are, or ought to be, above the taint of such vulgar malignity. Carleton’s letter to Washington is in the appendix of this article. Washington continued to await guidance from Congress, writing General Benjamin Lincoln on September 30: "I am totally silent to the public, waiting the decision of Congress on the case of Huddy.” Washington confessed, “I feel, exceedingly, for Capt. Asgill; who was designated by lot as a victim to the manes of Capt. Huddy.” Washington noted the sympathies stirred by the letters of the Asgill family and expressed frustration with Congress: To this hour I am held in darkness. The letter of Asgill (copy of which I enclose) and the situation of his Father which I am made acquainted with by the British prints, work too powerfully upon my humanity, not to wish that Congress would chalk a line for me to walk by in this business. Finally, on October 17, Congress provided guidance to Washington—but the guidance was only that Washington should wait longer. Congress determined that there was not “sufficient reason why the Commander in Chief should recede from the determination expressed in his Letters [to retaliate by executing the British officer]” but Congress directed Washington “to suspend the Execution… in order to give the British General a further opportunity of saving the innocent by surrendering the guilty.” Retaliation Averted: Asgill Is Released Congress soon reversed itself. On November 7, without customary rhetorical flourish or explanation, it directed Washington to release Asgill. On November 8, it implored the British to continue investigating and seeking justice for the murder of Joshua Huddy. Newly presiding over Congress was Elias Boudinot of New Jersey. He was a former Commissary of Prisoners for the Continental government who was knowledgeable of affairs in Monmouth County. Members of Congress had, no doubt, grown tired of the never-ending drama over Lippincott and Asgill. But the specific nudge that released Asgill came from Europe. It was “a copy of a letter from Count de Vergennes, from the 29th of July, interceding on behalf of Captain Asgill: Resolved, the commander in chief be and is at liberty and hereby directed to set Captain Asgill at liberty." Robert Livingston wrote Benjamin Franklin confirming the importance of the French intervention: "General Carleton has sent out the trial of Lippencot, which admits the murder of Huddy, but justifies Lippencut, under an irregular order of the Board of refugees.” Retaliation was averted by “the interposition of their [French] Majesties prevented. The letter from the Count de Vergennes is made the ground work of the resolution passed on that subject." A few members of Congress were unhappy with Asgill’s release. On November 8, Congress heard a new resolution to "fully authorize & empower" General Washington to "demand satisfaction" for "any act of cruelty contrary to the laws of war" and "to cause suitable retaliation to be made" if the demand was not satisfied. This resolution was defeated by a resounding 4-19 vote. One member of Congress wrote that “after much parade, Lippincott was acquitted” and justice for Huddy was no longer demanded: Young Captain Asgill, some time ago allotted as a victim of Retaliation to atone for the murder of Captain Huddy, is liberated by the direction of Congress; no reasons being assigned in this resolve, the world are left to conjecture the motives. Carleton apparently did conduct a follow up investigation. Washington acknowledged as much in a December 24 letter: “the report of the Judge Advocate of your Army respecting a farther inquisition which had been proposed to be made into the murder of Capt. Huddy.” However, there is no reason to believe that the British punished anyone for Huddy’s murder. The Huddy – Lippincott – Asgill Affair Lives On The sordid Huddy-Lippincott-Asgill Affairs resurfaced periodically in American newspapers over the next decade. In June 1782, Pennsylvania’s Freeman's Journal described an April landslide on the Navesink Highlands in which "some forty acres gave way… and sunk down a considerable depth, forming a cavity." The report hinted at a super natural cause, “It is remarkable that the sunken land was a short distance from where the unfortunate Capt. Huddy suffered death." In January 1783, the Boston Evening Post published a reply to Mrs. Asgill’s plea for her son: They [the Loyalists] doubtless represent on your side of the ocean that this little barbarity was dictated by policy; but they who know all its circumstances are convinced, that it proceeded from low, mean and pitiful revenge... May my country build her fame on the most noble and exalted virtues of generosity and humanity! May your's repent of her many deliberate murders, cease her ambition, and once more restore peace to contending nations. In 1785, the Massachusetts Sentinel published an essay on returning Loyalists, "Ask the ghosts of Huddy, and a thousand others, massacred in cold blood, poisoned in the hold of a prison ship, or strangled on a gibbet." The essay attacked the Associated Loyalists who "scattered destruction over this devoted land" and hinted at violence against “those miscreants, the Refugees, insolently patrolling those streets that they had once deluged in a torrent of blood." The Pennsylvania Mercury , in 1791 published a poem: "Stanzas Written on the Hills of Navesink, near Sandy Hook.” It included these lines: The lapse of time and change of lords, beholds you still the same; You saw the angry Briton come, You saw his blasted fame. In rude retirements herd the deer, where forests round them rise; Haunted still by Huddy's ghost, [with] the trembling rustic flies. Perspective Some antiquarian accounts of the Huddy-Lippincott-Asgill controversy suggest it caused the fall of Lord Frederick North’s government in England and threatened the Paris peace negotiations. These accounts likely over-blow the importance of the controversy. But there is no doubt that the hanging of Joshua Huddy and the events that followed escalated to the highest levels of the American, British and French governments and brought international scrutiny to the local war in Monmouth County. By late 1782, the British had acceded, in principle, to American independence and were actively seeking peace. While they had a strategic interest in offering up Lippincott (or another man) for Huddy’s murder, their legal processes and the sentiments of Loyalists in New York prevented it. American public opinion was enraged by Huddy’s execution and it forced a reaction from Washington and Congress. Washington’s initial threats to retaliate for Huddy by killing Asgill were, no doubt, sincere. But rage in April gave way to fatigue in October. The plea of a critical ally—the French Foreign Minister—provided Washington and Congress with the off-ramp they needed to finally ratchet down the cycle of virulent retaliation. Subsequent articles show that ratcheting down the virulence in Monmouth County did not come easily. Related Historic Site : Independence Hall (Philadelphia) Appendix: Guy Carleton to George Washington, September 12, 1782 Gen Guy Carleton to George Washington, 9/13/82: Sends all the materials relating to the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, in addition to the follow note: "I transmit to Your Excellency a Copy of the Minutes of the Court Martial, appointed for the Trial of Captain Richard Lippencot, accused of the Murder of Mr Joshua Huddy, together with such other Documents as may serve to manifest the whole Course of the Proceedings here, both before and subsequent to Your Requisition thereon. From these Documents Your Excellency will clearly perceive, that this Event was so far from being authorised by Government, that my Predecessor in the Command was wholly unacquainted with the Fact, until he was informed of it by Major General Dalrymple and Mr Elliot, on their Return from Elizabeth Town, and that it was no sooner known to him, than he wrote to the Board of Associated Loyalists, April the 20th signifying his Orders that they should immediately enquire into and report the Fact; a Measure which he judged necessary whereon to found such criminal Proceedings, as might serve to vindicate his Command from any Dishonor with which it might be stained. That he considered this Act as a great Barbarity in itself, as well as a daring Insult on his own Authority, and such as he meant to proceed against with Measures both of Punishment and Prevention, is manifest from his Letter to the Board of Directors, dated 26th April [4/26/82], in which he gave Command, that that Board shou’d not in future remove or exchange any Prisoner of War in the Custody of their Commissary, without having first obtained his own Approbation and Orders, and required them to make an immediate Report of the Names and Number of the Prisoners of War then in their Power, and where confined, and this, Sir, that effectual Measures might be taken to prevent the like Evils, by placing those Prisoners under his own immediate Authority; which has effectually been carried into Execution. Your Letter, Sir, demanding Satisfaction for this Injury, appears to have been dated on the 21st April and was received here on the 24th—4 Days after the Enquiry, which Sir Henry Clinton had commenced, and to this Observation I must add, that, tho’ it might be natural for Your Excellency to make a Demand of Justice, for Outrages against the Law of Arms, it is not ’til Justice is refused, that even a Menace of Retaliation can be justified, and Yet after You had been informed by Sir Henry Clinton and Lieutt General Robertson of the Proceedings and Purposes of the Government here, and while the Court Martial was sitting on the Trial of Lippencot, You have, as I am informed, put two British Officers in actual Arrest, One of them taken by Lot out of Thirteen, for the declared Purpose of Execution, tho’ under the Protection of the Capitulation of York Town, the other under Infirmities, which beside his Innocence, gave him a Title to Compassion—To Your Excellency’s cooler Judgment it is now referred, to consider, if these Things be conformable to the Law and Practice of polished Nations, and whether while You demand Justice of Us, You can rightfully take the Judgment into Your own Hands; for by holding these Gentlemen under hourly Apprehension of their Lives, as Pledges that Your Demands shall be specifically complied with, You leave Us nothing, by the most manifest Implication, but the Priviledge of blindly executing Your Decrees—But, Sir, until it is undoubtedly apparent, that the specific Satisfaction demanded under the Name of Justice cou’d be given, without a Violation of the same Justice towards others, and until it is manifest that the will to do what may and ought to be justly done, is wanting, the Right of designating innocent Persons, for the last Extremities of human Severity, cannot possibly commence, and even then it is not ’till in the very last Resort, and for the sole Purpose of staying those Injuries, which cannot otherways be stayed, that this Right (almost in any Case too horrid for Practice,) can be executed; a Right after all, which however it may exist in Theory, Yet in Practice and as extending to the Lives of innocent Men, is, as far as I have learnt in the present civilized State of Europe, happily influenced by the benevolent Maxims of Christianity, wholly unknown. And therefore to remove all Question concerning these Gentlemen, I must take Leave to express my Claim and Confidence, that You will immediately relieve them from their Anxieties and Confinement, as a Debt due to Humanity, to say Nothing of the Requirements of Honor and Policy, and of the Principles of all Laws, Civil and Moral. The Trial of Lippencot is now in Your Hands, and You will find that he has been acquitted upon the Oaths of Men of Rank and Character, on all the Circumstances of the Case—To shew my thorough Disapprobation of the Execution of Huddy, I have given Orders to the Judge Advocate to make further Inquisition and to collect Evidence for the Prosecution of such other Persons as may appear to have been criminal in this Transaction. But, tho’ I mean, Sir, to prosecute this Matter, with all the Effect which a due Regard to Justice will admit, Yet You cannot fail to observe from the Minutes before You, how very much precedeing Injuries have perplexed the Rules of Justice, and on this Account how difficult it is become, to ascertain the Quality of Actions, from the Diversity of Intentions, or to trace these pernicious Evils to any certain Motive or Source. The Province of New Jersey, You will perceive, has even legitimated these Violences, during our Contest, which have thereupon been openly acknowledged and avowed. Violences which have naturally begotten such Resentments as it is not in the Condition of Authority wholly to restrain. And in further Proof of these Facts I transmit herewith a Letter from Governor Livingston, together with our total Correspondence, to which that Letter refers. From this Letter dated the 25th June, it should appear that two Prisoners of War have been lately executed in Jersey on their Treason Law, that is, for ranging under our Standards. The whole Letter deserves Your Excellency’s most serious Consideration, and will doubtless impress upon Your Mind the Necessity of reducing as soon as possible our Contests to the accustomed Laws of War. It were well if those who so lightly pass these Bounds would ask themselves what other Limits there are, by which men may be restrained from mutual Destruction in every savage Form. Upon Occasions of like Complaint Your Excellency has refered me to the Civil Power of the Provinces, but You will now see that I am refered back again to the Commander in Chief, and indeed the Demand which Your Excellency has made of public Justice in the Case of Huddy, and Your Proceedings thereon, seem to take the whole general Question into Your own Hands. This Letter, Sir, together with the Minutes of the Court Martial, will prove too plainly that the same Spirit of Revenge has mutually animated the People of New Jersey and the Refugees under our Command, equally criminal and deserving of Punishment in all, as they lead to Evils and Misfortunes of the blackest and most pernicious Sort. But they cannot, Sir, be partially suppressed. I know that mutual Reproaches and Acts of Cruelty have been common in Civil Wars, but Men of liberal Minds invested with the Dignities of high Office, are, or ought to be, above the Taint of such vulgar Malignity; and You will acknowledge with me that it is their Duty most earnestly to join in the Check and Prevention of private Miseries, which cannot forward the Decision of any great Point, that may on either Side be desired. It is with great Satisfaction, that I read the Sentiments which Your Excellency has expressed, and the Declarations You have made of Your Desire "to soften the inevitable Calamities of War, and of introducing on every Occasion as great a Share of Tenderness and Humanity as can possibly be exercised in a State of Hostility," And You may rest assured, Sir, of my most hearty Concurrence in every Measure which can promote so desireable an End." Sources : Robert Livingston to Ben Franklin, May 30, 1782, Ben Franklin Papers on line: http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=37&page=240a002 ; Hugh Edward Egerton, The Royal Commission On The Losses And Services Of American Loyalists, 1783-1785 (London: Kessinger, 2010) p 180; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Oracle of Dauphin (Harrisburg, PA), October 20, 1800; Huddy’s will discussed in Spirit of '76, vol 5, 1898, p46; The will of Joshua Huddy, Catalog of the Exhibition: Joshua Huddy and the American Revolution, Monmouth County Library Headquarters, October 2004; David Library of the American Revolution, Independent Gazeteer, n2, April 20, 1782; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015); Charles Asgill to George Washington, Catalog of the Exhibition: Joshua Huddy and the American Revolution, Monmouth County Library Headquarters, October 2004; George Washington to Elias Dayton, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw240336)) ; Anonymous letter printed in John Barber, Historical Collections of the State of New Jersey (New Haven, Conn., J. W. Barber, 1868) pp 316-7; Massachusetts Spy, June 27, 1782; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post, June 28, 1782; Independent Ledger (Boston), July 1, 1782; Freeman's Journal, December 25, 1782; Henry Knox to Alexander Hamilton, New York Historical Society: Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC02437.01498; Henry Knox to Guy Carleton, New York Historical Society: Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC02437.01513; Library of Congress, New York Packet, August 1, 1782; To George Washington from Guy Carleton, 13 August 1782,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-09120, ver. 2013-09-28); National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 171, item 152, vol. 10, #701; Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 19, VI, folio 403, and No. 36, IV, folio 197. ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:17:./temp/~ammem_ygyz ::); Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; James Madison to Edmund Randolph, Letters to Delegates of Congress, vol. 19, p186 ( www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html ); David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 87, August 25 and 28, and September 3, 1782; George Plate to Robert Morris, The Papers of Robert Morris (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973) vol. 6, p 303; David Forman to Geroge Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence; George Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw250250)) ; Journals of the Continental Congress, American Memory, Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html ; Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-89, US Govt Printing Office, v 23, p688; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Journals of the American Congress, (Washington, DC: Way and Gideon, 1823) vol. 4, p103; National Archives, Papers of Continental Congress, I36, Motions Made by Congress, v1, 421-6; Continental Congress Resolution, New York Historical Society: Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC00496.091; Robert Livingston to Ben Franklin, Ben Franklin Papers online: http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=37&page=240a002; Letters to Delegates of Congress, vol. 19, p485 ( www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html ); Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; George Washington to Guy Carleton, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw250538)) ; Boston Evening Post, January 25, 1783; Massachusetts Centinel, February 7, 1785; Pennsylvania Mercury, January 29, 1791. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Monmouth Militia March to Perth Amboy to Defend Against British Attack by Michael Adelberg Perth Amboy was within easy reach of British warships. Three Monmouth County militia companies helped defend the strategic and vulnerable town in July 1776. - July 1776 - Monmouth County was rife with troubles in July 1776. Foremost among them, the northeast tip of the county—the Sandy Hook peninsula—was a British military base and a beacon for the county’s many Loyalists. They were forming associations throughout the county and challenging the authority of the fledgling New Jersey government. Revolutionary leaders such as John Covenhoven of Freehold, a delegate to the New Jersey Convention and the body’s Vice President, begged for assistance, but little was available. But July 1776 was also a moment of crisis for the Continental Army which was scrambling to form a defensive perimeter on the land that circled the British Army, now landed on Staten Island. Thousands of men from Pennsylvania and New Jersey rushed to northeast New Jersey to form this perimeter, including three volunteer militia companies from Monmouth County—under Captains Joshua Huddy, Barnes Smock, and Reuben Randolph. In July, Joshua Huddy of Colts Neck (in Shrewsbury Township) raised a company of volunteers from a string of neighborhoods between Colts Neck and Upper Freehold. John Parsons of Upper Freehold joined this company and recalled “their company marched to Perth Amboy, the Hessians were at this time on Staten Island and fired upon Perth Amboy... their balls knocked down two of the pillars on the Market House in that place." He served for two months, one at Perth Amboy and one on the Monmouth shore of Raritan Bay. Huddy, a zealous (and sometimes overzealous ) supporter of the Revolution would subsequently raise and lead volunteer companies of State Troops in 1777 and 1782. Barnes Smock, with his kinsmen John Smock and Hendrick Smock, was from one of Middletown’s leading Whig families. He was elected militia Captain in early 1776. Elisha Morris, a member of Smock’s company, recalled: "He first marched to Amboy under Captain Barnes Smock and after remaining there on guard for two weeks, he was marched back to Monmouth County and put on guard on Conkaskunk [on Raritan Bay]." John Howland of the same company recalled similar service: "They marched as far as Perth Amboy, three days, and then returned to Monmouth." Interestingly, Howland did not originally expect to perform this service. He also recalled: “Elisha Gird had volunteered to go to meet the British… He got frightened and gave this deponent eight dollars to take his place, which he did.” Captain Reuben Randolph recruited volunteers from Dover and Stafford townships (present-day Ocean County). He raised 25 men. Recruiting from across the isolated shore villages took time, as did their long march from Toms River. But they reached Perth Amboy in early August and stayed for 35 days. One of Randolph’s men, Zachariah Hankins, recalled this service: He performed his first monthly tour of duty under Captain Reuben Randolph of the township of Stafford… his company composed one half of the Dover militia and one half of the Stafford militia, that they were marched to Amboy and there remained for one month of duty... he was discharged from his monthly tour at Amboy, he went home to the township of Dover. Another one of Randolph’s men, John Chamberlain, corroborated Hankins’ account. He also recalled that his service at Perth Amboy included “making and repairing fortifications at that place.” The short tenure of the Monmouth militia at Perth Amboy was attributable to their temporary service, especially militia that left their homes knowing those same homes were vulnerable to British attack and local Loyalist insurrection. The routing of the Continental Army at the Battle of Long Island in late August also probably weighed on the decision to stay at a place within easy reach of the victorious British. The Monmouth men were back home by the early fall. It would not be long before their local enemies would prove more formidable than the British. Related Historic Site : Proprietary House Sources : National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Parsons of VA, www.fold3.com/image/#25332426 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Elisha Morris of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#25351171 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Howland of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#27247928 ; New Jersey State Archives, Revolutionary War, Book of Indents, Capt Reuben Randolph, p401; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Parsons; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Zachariah Hawkins of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#22623931 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Chamberlain. 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 > British Fortify Sandy Hook in Preparation for French Attack by Michael Adelberg Admiral Richard Howe focused his ships and shore battery into a firing position at the channel above Sandy Hook. Confined to the narrow channel, the French fleet chose not to attack. - July 1778 - The Sandy Hook peninsula sits at the entrance of Raritan Bay and Lower New York Harbor. Its lighthouse brings in ships from the Atlantic Ocean. The British navy took the unguarded Hook in April 1776 and held it continuously through the end of 1783—longer than any other piece of the rebelling colonies. The British gradually fortified Sandy Hook following land-based attacks in June 1776 and March 1777 . But the threat faced in July 1778—with the arrival of a large French fleet—was on a different scale, and so were the corresponding fortifications. On July 5, the British Army completed the Monmouth campaign and left for New York via Sandy Hook. This was a few days before the arrival of the French. The German officer, Johann Ewald, described the fortified Sandy Hook Lighthouse as it appeared on that day: It is built of the most beautiful stones, some thirty feet wide in the square, and is about two hundred feet high. Since the Americans constantly threatened to destroy it, the Light House has been fortified with a stone breast work in which loop holes have been constructed. In the tower itself, port holes for cannon have been cut on all four sides, four of which are on the first floor for defense. The defenses were built to protect the lighthouse and its one-company guard from land-based attacks. The cannon were likely small and most did not face into the channel where New York-bound ships enter. Fortifying Sandy Hook The French fleet anchored off Shrewsbury Inlet on July 11. That same day, British officer Frederick Hamilton noted that construction had begun on a five-gun channel-facing battery. The next day, Major John Andre offered a more complete description of the full scope of efforts underway to fortify Sandy Hook: The 44th and 15th Regiments were added to these, and Colonel O’Hara [Charles O'Hara] took the command and marched from Bedford to be embarked for Sandy Hook. They were here employed in throwing up a battery of two 8-inch howitzers and three 32-pounders. Eight Companies from the Light Infantry and Grenadiers were distributed on board the ships of war. The Companies were chosen by lot and the whole drew at their own request. The ardor to serve and the confidence in Lord Howe were as conspicuous in the seamen of the transports, who almost to a man were Volunteers to go on board the King’s Ships. Andre reported seventeen warships arrived at the Hook along with “three sloops, three fire-ships, two bombs and three galleys.” The ships were lined up near the tip of Sandy Hook, so that they could fire on any French ship coming into the channel immediately north of the Hook. The shore battery still needed cannon. Admiral Richard Howe at Sandy Hook wrote to General Henry Clinton at New York: "I shall be obliged to you to furnish me with a couple of 8-inch Howitzer, with Artillery Men Ammunition &ca., to place on the point of the Hook.” Howe also expressed concern about the lack of engineers and whether Sandy Hook was ready for a French attack: Your engineer is not yet (that I have heard of) arrived. The wind being easterly, furnishes our adversaries with a favorable opportunity to make their attempt… Some tools will be necessary amongst the other requisites for making a bed & Breast Work for the Howitzer. But a skillfull engineer to direct our undertakings will be a treasure. We wish to borrow a few light infantry of which Duncan [Henry Duncan] writes. No time should be lost in the dispatch of the Howitz &c. The requested British Army engineer, John Montressor, returned to Sandy Hook on July 13 (he was there a week earlier during the British Army’s withdrawal). He wrote of his activities to complete the channel-facing battery at the tip of the Hook: "I detached 3 engineers to Sandy Hook to construct two batteries for 3 eighteen pounders and 2 howitzers, with tools and materials." More troops continued to arrive; a troop return listed 1,349 men (of which 1,076 “were fit & present”) at Sandy Hook. In New York, General James Pattison wrote of Loyalists volunteering to man the British ships in this moment of need: "A hot press of seamen began this evening but was soon put to a stop upon a sufficient number of men from the transports turning out as volunteers to serve in the fleet." After the war, David Ramsey, a Continental officer, noted the spirited response from New York City: “The sight of the French fleet raised all the active passions of their adversaries ...the British [and Loyalists] displayed a spirit of zeal and bravery which could not be exceeded.” Pattison noted that the requested howitzers were on their way: “A battery was begun at the Hook & eighteen pounder were sent down there, also 2 eight inch howitzers." The next day, Pattison noted the loss of a sloop to the French. More ominously, he wrote that "the French were observed to be sounding the channel into Sandy Hook & to take several prizes." The British placed retired ships next to the shore battery. On July 13, Captain Henry Duncan wrote of the placement of a “fireship” at the tip of Hook, to be set afire and sent toward the French if they entered the channel. Also on site was the aged storeship, Leviathan , which was turned into a 16-gun floating battery. Another navy officer, Peter Alpin, noted 200-New York City volunteers “variously employed" at Sandy Hook. This included rowing casks of fresh water to the men on the dry peninsula. On July 15, Colonel Thomas O’Beirne, noted another asset at the tip of the Hook: Four galleys were ranged across the narrow part of the channel abreast the Hook; from which situation, in case of attack, they could row upon the shoal and cannonade at such a distance as should be most convenient for the purpose of annoying the enemy. Sandy Hook as Key British Defenses On July 15, Colonel Charles O'Hara, the commanding army officer on Sandy Hook, toured the Hook with Admiral Howe. He reported to Henry Clinton on the Hook’s vulnerability: “The French Fleet could cover the descent of troops on almost every part of the coast of the Hook.” O’Hara called for a fort on the south end of Sandy Hook: “So many formidable attempts may be made upon this Island, I conceive that it would be absolutely necessary that a very considerable Reinforcement, not less than fifteen Hundred Men with Six Pieces of Field artillery, would be requisite for its defence.” O’Hara reminded Clinton of the importance of holding Sandy Hook: The possession of this post I conceive to be of the greatest importance as it enables Lord Howe under its cover to take a position that puts him upon a Level with the French fleet—who by being obliged to pass the bar by single ships would be beat by our fleet—But were the French masters of this Island, they would by erecting batterys [and] oblige our Ships to quit this present advantageous situation & move higher up the bay—the Enemy would then pass the bar unmolested & attack Lord Howe in line of battle—I must therefore take the Liberty of repeating that I conceive this Post to be of the very first Importance & that an Immediate considerable reinforcement is necessary. On July 15, O'Beirne underscored O‘Hara’s assessment by sizing up the two fleets: The French held a fourteen-to-nine edge in large warships, though the British had more smaller ships, but some of the British ships remained "wretchedly manned" even with a thousand Loyalist sailor-volunteers ("masters and mates of the merchantmen and traders"). Soldiers were placed on the British ships as marines. A few days later, Henry Clinton visited Sandy Hook. Montressor wrote that "Sir Henry Clinton went this morning to the Hook." Montressor was also at Sandy Hook and visited the ship-turned-gun platform, Leviathan , which Montressor reported now carried 70 cannon." He noted that "the [French] fleet have now taken eleven sail of our vessels besides the fishing craft." Peter Alpin reported that three French ships approached and the two fleets exchanged long distance fire, "but not the least attention [was] paid to them" because they did not come close. On July 21, Pattison reported to Admiral Howe about the defenses on Sandy Hook: “All the larger ships of his fleet were ordered to Sandy Hook & the cruisers called in… the fleet was properly arranged & batteries erected on the Hook, where a corps of two battalions was encamp'd.” Pattison observed that because of the narrowness of the Sandy Hook channel, “not more than one or two of their [French] ships at most can come in at a time” during which time the British could concentrate fire on that ship. Knowing this, he concluded, “We have the satisfaction to find that we are pretty secure from an attack in this quarter." From Sandy Hook, the British observed the French ships moving on July 22. Lord Carlisle, in New York City, speculated that the climactic naval battle would soon begin, “we expect every day to hear of some major event that may be very decisive, as his whole force is collected." A British officer also noted very high tides, "the spring tides were at their highest and that afternoon, thirty feet deep at the bar". So, July 21-22 were ideal days for the large French ships to enter Sandy Hook’s narrow channel. The French, however, had other ideas. Local pilots had informed them that their largest ships sat too deep in the water to enter the channel. Their fleet, receiving only a fraction of needed provisions from Shrewsbury, decided to sail for Rhode Island—where deeper waters and greater provisions awaited. With the threat passed, the British quickly divested resources from Sandy Hook. On August 3, Pattison reported that Admiral Howe pulled his fleet away from Sandy Hook, "leaving only the Leviathan , an old 74 gun ship, now carrying 54, and the Amazon of 32 guns." The troops left a week later. Montressor reported on August 10, "The troops evacuated the post at Sandy Hook and proceeded to Long Island, all but 3 companies of Jersey Volunteers ." Had the French arrived a week sooner, the British fleet would have been scattered and unable to resist them, and the British Army could have been cut off in New Jersey. It is quite possible that the American Revolution might have ended on the Navesink Highlands in July 1778. This was not lost on Colonel Thomas O’Beirne who observed, "had the French squadron arrived a few days sooner, or had the evacuation of Philadelphia been deferred a few days later, the whole force of Great Britain on that side of the Atlantic must have been annihilated." Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse and HMS Surprise (Replica of the Rose) (San Diego, CA) Sources : Johann Ewald, Diary of the American War: A Hessian Journal (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979) p 138; Frederick Hamilton, The Origin and History of the First or Grenadier Guards (Ulan Press, 2012) vol. 1, p 233; Jack Coggins, Ships and Seamen of the American Revolution, (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 1969) p 142; Major John Andre, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 357; Richard Howe to Henry Clinton, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 359-360; British Army Return, Clements Library, U Michigan, Henry Clinton Papers, July 13, 1778; Gen Richard Howe to Henryt Clinton, Clements Library, U Michigan, Henry Clinton Papers, July 13, 1778; Montresor, John. “Journals of Captain John Montresor.” Edited by G. D. Scull. (New York: Collections of the New-York Historical Society, 1881) p 505-9; James Pattison in Ritchie, Carson I. A., ed., “A New York Diary of the Revolutionary War.” in Narratives of the Revolution in New York (New York: New-York Historical Society, 1975) pp. 242-3; David Ramsey, The History of the American Revolution, Liberty Fund: Indianapolis, 1990, Vol. 2, 88-89; John Knox Laughton, "Journal of Capt. Henry Duncan" in Publications of the Naval Records Society, vol. 20, 1920, p169-70; Clements Library, U Michigan, Peter Alpin Collection, Logbook of the Roebuck; Charles O’Hara to Henry Clinton, Clements Library, U Michigan, Henry Clinton Papers, July 15, 1778; Thomas Lewis O'Beirne, A Candid and Impartial Narrative of the Transactions of the Fleet, Under the Command ofLord Howe (London, 1969), pp. 3 - 15; David Library of the American Revolution, James Pattison Papers, reel 1; Joseph Reed, Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, William B. Reed, ed. (Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1847), p 389; Mahan, A. T., The Major Operations of the Navies in the War of American Independence, (London: Sampson Low, Marston & Co., 1913) pp. 64-8; James Pattison in Ritchie, Carson I. A. “A New York Diary of the Revolutionary War.” in Narratives of the Revolution in New York (New York: New-York Historical Society, 1975) pp. 246; David Syrett, The Royal Navy in American Waters, 1775-1783 (Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press, 1989), p 99; Montresor, John. “Journals of Captain John Montresor.” Edited by G. D. Scull. (New York: Collections of the New-York Historical Society, 1881) p 509. 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 > County Elections Marred by Violence and Voter Intimidation by Michael Adelberg County elections, like this one depicted in the 1800s, were crowded and chaotic. In Monmouth County, Machiavellian supporters of the Revolution intimidated voters and beat opposing candidates. - October 1780 - By 1780, Monmouth County Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) had split into rival factions . “Due Process Whigs” supported the war effort but not to the point of sacrificing individual protections under the law; “Machiavellian Whigs” believed that individual protections under the law could be sacrificed in order to wage war effectively. The two factions argued over impounding goods from farmers and negotiating prisoner exchanges with the enemy. The establishment of the Association for Retaliation —a vigilante society led by the most Machiavellian Whig leader in the county, Colonel David Forman—ratcheted up tensions between leaders of the two factions. As noted in a prior article, the New Jersey Assembly investigated the Association for Retaliation in September 1780 and issued a scathing report about the group. However, because the report did not explicitly declare the group illegal, James Mott, a Monmouth County Assemblyman, sought to amend the report with a statement that would outlaw the group. Mott’s amendment failed because Monmouth County’s other two delegates would not support it. Just a week later, Mott would stand for re-election at the county’s annual election. The Tainted 1780 Election On October 10, at the annual election, three Machiavellian Whig leaders—Nathaniel Scudder, Thomas Henderson, and Thomas Seabrook (all Retaliators) won seats in the Assembly—defeating Mott and Hendrick Smock (Seabrook was re-elected). Elisha Lawrence (cousin of the Loyalist of the same name ) replaced John Holmes in the Legislative Council (the legislature’s upper house). Scudder, a former delegate to the Continental Congress , who had stayed out of politics for a year, wrote his son: I am again, through the importunity of friends and from the imminent dangers threatening the State, on the point of entering public life, having been elected to serve in the General Assembly for the ensuing year... My colleagues are Doctor Henderson and Major Seabrook -- Colo. Elisha Lawrence is our Counselor. The party of Mr. Holmes and Mott were thrown out by a majority of almost three to one, are outraged and threaten to correct the election, but I believe they will find themselves unable. The “outrage” of Holmes and Mott was expressed in a petition that was waiting for the New Jersey Assembly when it reconvened on October 26. The minutes of the Assembly summarized “a petition and remonstrance from 241 inhabitants of the County of Monmouth, setting forth that at the late election of the 10th instant, they had not a free and fair election.” The petitioners made two arguments. First, the election judges should have held the polls open for a second day to allow for militia—serving on the shore—to vote in shifts over two days: It was not prudent for the whole of the frontier to leave their habitations all at one time, lest the enemy might take advantage thereof, that a number of the inhabitants of the County were on duty at separate posts, which posts could not prudently be left without a guard – It was therefore proposed that part of said guards should have the opportunity of electing on the first day and the other part on the following day… The judges of elections did close the polls at 7 o'clock in the evening of the same day, though they were earnestly requested not to close the polls that day, but to continue the ensuing day. Second, the petitioners argued that voters were intimidated when a candidate (Mott) was beaten in front of voters and protesting voters were threatened: “One of the candidates was most shamefully beaten and otherwise ill treated, and orders were made that his aiders should be treated in the same manner.” The petitioners demanded that the election be voided and new elections held. Another petition came into the Legislative Council from the defeated incumbent, John Holmes, and Colonel Daniel Hendrickson, commanding the Shrewsbury militia. His men were deployed on the Atlantic shore and subject to dramatic fines if they skipped militia service to vote. The petition argued “that the election lately held in said County for representatives was not a free one, and that the election was closed by the Judges on the evening of the first day, before all the voters intending to vote had given their votes, owing to their being on militia duty and other duties." They also called for the election to be voided and new elections held. These petitions were countered by statements supporting the October 10 election. The Assembly read "a memorial from 244 inhabitants of the County of Monmouth.” The memorialists “do highly approve of the judge's conduct at said election and of the members returned to the Legislature; that they are convinced, from good information, that the election was carried on and closed legally." The Assembly also received "a certificate from 60 inhabitants of said county setting forth that the election was carried on strictly according to the law; and that there were very few votes presented for two hours before the close of the poll." New Jersey Assembly Considers the County Election On October 27, the Assembly considered the Monmouth County election controversy. The House took into consideration the petitions and other papers presented to them relative to the late election for the County of Monmouth, on which a motion was made by Mr. Van Cleave that the petitioners [calling for voiding the election] be heard before the Legislature. The motion failed 8-15. A motion to hold new elections failed 3-15. The new Monmouth delegates—Scudder, Henderson, and Seabrook—voted against both motions. The Legislative Council considered voiding the Monmouth election on November 10: A resolution to hold an investigation failed by a 3-4 vote; a resolution to hold hearings only if the Council supported the complaining petitions passed by a 4-3 vote; and a resolution to dismiss the complaining petition passed by 4-3 vote. Monmouth's Elisha Lawrence abstained on each of these votes. The geography of Monmouth County greatly favored the Machiavellian Whigs—who were clustered around Freehold, the county seat. Here, the large Presbyterian congregation , combined with a few dozen families forced to move inland for their safety created a powerful voting bloc of strident Whig voters proximate to the polling site. Due Process Whigs—though almost certainly more numerous—generally lived in Middletown and the Atlantic shore townships. Their election-day strength was diluted by distance from the polling site, particularly when election judges refused to hold the polls open a second day. While the New Jersey Legislature was willing to void the county’s 1777 election when Forman and followers intimidated voters, it was unwilling to do so in 1780 when Forman’s conduct escalated to assaulting a candidate and threatening voters. Perhaps, after the three years of war, legislators were more tolerant of Machiavellian behavior. Perhaps legislators believed that men like Forman—whatever their excesses—were needed to win the war. The tainted election was allowed to stand. After the Election James Mott would gain a small measure of satisfaction in the courts. Mott hired one of New Jersey’s most prominent attorneys, William Paterson, and sued Forman in the New Jersey Supreme Court. In the court’s filing, Mott claimed that Forman "made an assault on the said James… then and there did beat, wound and evilly treated, so that his life was greatly disdained of and other enormities.". Mott sought £1,000 in damages—roughly the value of a small farmstead. While documentation is not conclusive, it appears that the case of Mott v Forman was not heard by the Supreme Court but was heard in the Monmouth County Court of Quarterly Sessions instead. Forman pled guilty to the assault charge, admitting that he did “beat, wound, and ill-treat” Mott. Forman’s fine is not listed, but £20—the value of a good horse—was the upper limit for an assault charge in other cases where the outcome is known. This was only one-twentieth of the amount sought by Mott. Meanwhile, the vigilantism of Forman’s Retaliators grew more aggressive . Far from ostracized, Forman was appointed a judge of the Monmouth Court of Common Pleas. Given the inaction following the 1780 election, it is not surprising that violence would again mar Monmouth County’s 1781 election. Petitioners recorded: At the late election, when a number of men (some in arms) appeared in a hostile manner, threatening all such persons at they called Tories and [London] Traders, if they should vote; A writing was put up at the Court House to the same effect; several persons were inhumanly beaten, some of them after they had voted, and some of them drove away who were legally entitled to vote, and went away without voting, not thinking themselves safe, as they did not confine their abuse to people they judged disaffected, but beat and abused several… and at the close of the election, one of the inspectors was attacked going down the stairs, and most barbarously beaten. In October 1782, the New Jersey Legislature passed an election reform law. The purpose of the law was to limit the power of "internal enemies" who engage in "clandestine practices and secret combinations." In some elections, blocs of disaffected voters supported "corrupt and disaffected candidates." (This was the case in Monmouth County’s lower shore townships of Dover and Stafford.) The annual elections for state office would now be "viva voice,” so that anyone voting for a disaffected person could be identified. The vote was also taken away from those "on parole, or persons against whom inquisitions and indictments for aiding and adhering to enemies of the State hath been found." The law was part of a broader range of activities at war’s end to “oppose the return of Tories . ” One provision of the law spoke to a condition in Monmouth County that tainted the annual elections. Under the law, counties now could have more than one polling place. Six New Jersey counties established second polling sites; curiously, Monmouth County did not establish a second polling site (though voting would be moved to the townships in the early 1800s). Perhaps Monmouth’s Machiavellian Whig officeholders blocked establishing a second polling place that would favor their political opponents. The law did not address voter intimidation as carried out by Forman and his followers. Related Historic Site : Museum of the American Revolution Sources : The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 26-27, 1780, p 1-8; Nathaniel Scudder to John Scudder, New Jersey Historical Society, Letters: Nathaniel Scudder; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1780) p1-9; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 26-27, 1780, p 1-8; Court Docket, Monmouth County Archives, Court of Quarterly Sessions, folder: 1780; Mott v Forman, New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #25199; Larry Gerlach, New Jersey in the American Revolution 1763-1783 A Documentary History (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1975) pp. 397-9; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #10948 and 11036, and Collective Series, Revolutionary War, document #114; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, October 1782, reel 1930. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > New Jersey Proprietors Sell off Land on Monmouth Shore by Michael Adelberg The East Jersey Proprietors usually met in Amboy and kept their records in this building. They met in Freehold in July 1778 to sell land near Barnegat that was being trespassed by local salt makers. - July 1778 - From its founding as a British colony, vacant lands in New Jersey were under the supervision of a Board of Proprietors. There were Boards for the counties of East New Jersey and West New Jersey respectively. Monmouth County was part of East New Jersey and its Board typically met at Perth Amboy to consider selling or granting vacant land. By the time of the Revolution, the majority of New Jersey was carved up into family farmsteads. In Monmouth County, it appears that the last swaths of vacant land were along shore and nearby pinelands ill-suited for farming. As noted in prior articles, the British blockaded the American coast in 1776 and dozens of New Jerseyans (and some Pennsylvanians )—deprived of imported salt—went to the shore to begin salt works in New Jersey’s shallow bays. Salt works consumed enormous amounts of wood, as fires were needed to boil salt brine into usable salt. The vacant lands of the proprietors were inevitably trespassed by salt-makers in need of new sources of wood. The Board of Proprietors for East New Jersey considered this problem on July 15, 1778, at an exceptional meeting held in Freehold. The Board met there to discuss "a number of persons in Monmouth County having erected works and made use of wood from vacant lands… for carrying on said salt works." The Board’s concerns were almost certainly valid. Months earlier, salt work laborers—including Continental troops under Colonel David Forman—were found trespassing and harvesting wood from the land of Trevor Newland near Barnegat. This and other controversies forced George Washington to strip Forman of command of the Additional Regiment he had raised a year earlier. The Board’s Freehold meeting was attended by two of Monmouth County’s leading citizens—Colonel David Forman (who co-owned two salt works) and his cousin, Colonel Samuel Forman (the militia colonel for Dover and Stafford townships). Colonel John Neilson of Middlesex County also attended, as did Colonel John Cox of Burlington County, owner of the Batsto Iron Works. Neilson and Cox had invested in salt works and privateering ventures on the shore. Presumably, these leaders lobbied the Board to sell off its shore lands; the Board resolved to do so. A notice was promptly posted in the New Jersey Gazette : "The General Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, will attend at the Court House in Freehold, in the County of Monmouth, on Wednesday, the 12th day of August, to dispose of rights to locate vacant lands adjacent to the Salt work in said County." A follow up notice appeared on August 5: ”A number of persons in the County of Monmouth have erected a salt works on Barnegat Bay… and make use of the wood on adjacent lands of the Genl. Proprietors for carrying on said Salt works." These persons "have declared their intentions to purchase the rights to said land." The East Jersey Board of Proprietors met again in Freehold, at the home of James Wall, on August 11 and held a three-day session there. James Parker, President of the Board, recorded: We received information that a certain number of persons who have engaged in salt works near the shore of Monmouth County are cutting and carrying away timber and wood on vacant lands [of the Proprietors]... some of them spoke to said Proprietors and expressed an inclination to purchase a right to cover said lands. The Board approved a plan to sell the lands in question near Barnegat as "great waste is made of common lands by the owners of said salt works and that great advantage must accrue by making the sale of vacant lands convenient to said works." Samuel Forman and Kenneth Hankinson, a militia captain from Freehold and one of the township’s largest land holders, appeared and heard the Board’s offer to sell the land "most convenient to their salt works." However, the Board’s price "appearing very high to said Forman and Hankinson, they desired to leave and consider it till the next day." Forman and Hankinson reappeared the next day and an agreement was reached to buy 800 acres from the Board for a total of £75 (less than the cost of four good horses). That same day, the Board sold 77 additional acres to John Covenhoven of Freehold at 40 shillings an acre "for land near his works." Proprietors Protect Remaining Land With these lands sold, the Board moved to take a hard line on future trespassers. On August 14, it resolved: The Proprietors, taking into consideration the great waste and depredations committed by divers[e] persons on the common lands near the sea shore in the County of Monmouth -- Mr. Stevens, one of the trustees for take care of the same, is requested to discover such transgressors and bring action against as many of them as he shall think proper. The Board further resolved: The meeting, resuming consideration of preserving the timber, appointed John A. Johnston and John L. Johnston a committee to be assisted by David Knott, to go to the salt works and land adjacent to acquaint the concerned... that the Proprietors will hereafter direct the Attorney General to bring actions against trespassers on the common lands. The selection of Knott and the Johnstons is noteworthy. Knott was a prominent Shrewsbury Township resident who was serving as the township’s Surveyor of Highways at the time that the Board hired him. But his commitment to the Continental cause was an open question—he had supported Samuel Wright’s Loyalist association in late 1776 and would be arrested for misdemeanor (probably illegally trading with Loyalists in New York) in 1781. John Johnston was likely the John Johnston who signed a petition supporting Peter Schenck, a magistrate who ran afoul of the Forman family as political factions formed in the county between moderate and radical Revolutionaries. Johnston was also an adversary of David Forman in trespass litigation in 1782. The second John Johnston was likely a younger kinsman of the first. As such, it appears that the Board (probably deliberately) selected men who had frosty relationships with the Formans and Hankinson. It is also noteworthy that the Board sought to prosecute trespassers through the New Jersey attorney general rather than Monmouth County’s magistrates and courts; it made no mention of seeking to work with local authorities. This is likely a reflection of the Board having little confidence that local peace officers would be responsive to their concerns. It is not known based on surviving documentation whether any trespassers on the Board’s remaining shorelands were arrested and prosecuted. As for Forman, Hankinson, and Covenhoven, while the Board sold them land at a very low price, there is no reason to think that they profited greatly from the purchases. With the British naval blockade weakening, imported salt returned to American ports and salt prices fell. As noted in other articles , a number of Jersey shore smaller salt works continued producing salt throughout the war, but the larger salt works did not survive. They continually lacked laborers and resources, and Loyalist raiders levelled them with impunity. Investors like Neilson and Cox soon found that privateering required less of their time and, though risky, had the potential for far greater profits. Related Historic Site : The Proprietary House Sources : East New Jersey Board of Proprietors, Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 230; East New Jersey Board of Proprietors, New York Historical Society, http://dlib.nyu.edu/maassimages/amrev/jpg/n001136s.jpg ; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Minutes of the Board of Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 1960) pp. 250-4; Minutes of the Board of Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 1960) pp. 250-4; Information on Knott and the Johnston’s in Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, in the collection of the Monmouth County of Historical Association. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > British Army Boards Ships Via Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg Captain Henry Duncan of the Royal Navy captained one of the ships that covered the British Army as it marched onto Sandy Hook and then transported the Army to New York. - July 1778 - Even before the Battle of Monmouth, British leaders determined that the best route to safety in New York was via Sandy Hook. The peninsula at the northeast tip of Monmouth County was taken by the British navy in April 1776 , and attempts to dislodge the British in June 1776 and March 1777 were easily turned back. Following the Battle of Monmouth (June 28), the British Army took a week to march 25 miles through Middletown to the Navesink Highlands. Here, they would cross to safety on the Hook. Still, marching 12,000 soldiers with their camp followers, baggage train, and livestock onto the narrow peninsula was a huge task—one made more complicated by the peninsula being turned into an island by an enormous winter storm. Admiral Richard Howe, commanding the Royal Navy at New York, wrote of the job at hand: March the Army “over a Bridge formed with the Flat-Boats across the Channel which had been made by the sea last Winter, and separated the peninsula of Sandy Hook from the Main." Crossing “the Gut” onto Sandy Hook The British fleet would have to create a bridge across “the Gut” (the waterway between Sandy Hook and the mainland), cover the troops as they came across the open egress, and then transport the Army from Sandy Hook to New York. The available ships were not initially up to the task. On July 1, Captain Henry Duncan, commanding a warship at New York, wrote: "our ships, in general, were very indifferently manned, owing to sickness and being short of their compliment." That same day, engineers at Sandy Hook constructed a pontoon bridge across the Gut by lining up boats and laying boards across them. German Officer Johann Hinrich wrote: Today, the baggage was brought to the bay at Sandy Hook in order to be embarked. We waited in this position, formed in a crescent for an attack from the enemy but no one appeared before our outposts except Morgan's Corps [Daniel Morgan]. The pontoon bridge was constructed before the end of July 2. It was sturdy but narrow. The German officer, Templehoffe, wrote the bridge made the Gut “passable only by a narrow bridge of boats, which not more than six men a‑breast could pass." General Archibald Robertson wrote on July 1 that he “began to take the artillery to the beach." On July 2, he wrote: "All the provision train wagons embark'd & a number of horse swam the gut across to Sandy Hook." Captain Duncan wrote that the Army "began to embark the baggage & swim the horses across the Hook." He also recorded that only three ships were at the Hook—not nearly enough to carry the Army to New York. On the Navesink Highlands, tents and provisions were sent off before the men. The German officer, Captain Weiderholdt, recalled “days of rest since all the baggage went to Sandy Hook for shipment” but, as a result, the men now lived in a “primitive encampment, consisting of twig huts because our tents were shipped with the baggage." Another German officer, Johann Ewald, was also miserable. He wrote: We were so terribly bitten by the mosquitoes and other kinds of vermin that we could not open our eyes from the swelling on our faces. Many men were made almost unrecognizable, and our bodies looked like those people who have suddenly been attacked by measles or small pox. After artillery and baggage, the horses went next. But many of the horses were weakened from the long campaign , heat , and insufficient forage. While horses were a valuable resource, the decision was made to leave behind any horse in a compromised condition. On July 2, General James Pattison wrote: From the difficulty of transporting the horse & probably scarcity of forage, I was under necessity, by direction of Sir Henry Clinton, of leaving about 70 of the worst artillery horses behind, the Quarter Master General having the same reason, left three or four hundred. Pattison noted that the horses were "turned loose in the woods." Just a day later, the Quartermaster General William Erskine, realizing the mistake, sent George Taylor, Colonel of a non-existent Loyalist militia , to round up the salvageable horses being left behind: "Colonel George Taylor has the Commander in Chief's permission to take up these horse wherever he can find them." Taylor’s party took some horses and killed many others. Colonel John Laurens of the Continental Army later reported that Taylor’s Loyalists “cut the throats of a great many horses.” By the end of July 3, General Robertson, noted that "all the baggage of the Army embark'd" and then on July 4 "the Dragoons, bat horses, light baggage, etc. etc. etc., all got off." This happened amidst terrible weather. Lt Colonel Francis Downman wrote that on July 3, "it rained very hard the greater part of the day, the embarkation of stores and baggage, however, went on, as did the transportation of horses to Sandy Hook by swimming them over a passage of about 50 or 60 yards of breadth." On July 4th, the rain continued. British soldiers heard cannon fire in the distance—not from hostilities, but from the Continental Army’s Independence Day celebrations. The movement of the Army onto Sandy Hook was completed on July 5. General Robertson remembered the march of the remainder of the British Army on the morning of July 5: “Early, the Army marched in four columns and got over the bridge of boats into the Hook by 10 o'clock without a shot being fired." Men on Sandy Hook started loading onto boats bound for the transport ships anchored offshore. Lieutenant Stephen Jarvis, a Loyalist cavalryman, wrote: The army continued its march, the [Queen's] Rangers bringing up the rear. The army crossed over a pontoon bridge to Light House Island. The Queen's Rangers embarked in flat bottomed boats and rowed up to New York. Weiderholdt wrote of moving the horses that were not previously transported: The horses and cows were tied up, 8 or 9 together, four men got into a boat, tied a rope to the boat and rowed off, this way the horses & cows had to swim over... we laid all night in the sand by the light house. John Montressor, an engineer on Sandy Hook, wrote of General Henry Clinton's arrival on Sandy Hook: "He [Clinton] was saluted by the guns from the forts as he left with the Army at the Neversink in New Jersey." Clinton, himself, reported: "Preparations were made for passing Sandy Hook Island by a bridge, which by the extraordinary efforts of our Navy were soon completed." The Sandy Hook Encampment and Embarkation On Sandy Hook, accommodations were no better than at the miserable Navesink camp. Potable water was scarce. Montressor wrote on July 3 that "the heat so extraordinary this morning that five or six persons fell dead principally by drinking [bad] water." German Officer Jacob Piel called Sandy Hook "this sandy wasteland." Lt. John Von Krafft noted the need to forage for his own food while on Sandy Hook, “I dug up some fine large clams on the beach, a thing I had learned from the English and I immediately ate them with ravenous appetite owing to my hunger.” From a distance, the red lines of men marching across the Gut must have been an extraordinary sight. Locals came onto the Navesink Highlands to watch. A Continental Army officer, Parke Custis, wrote: "The number, order and regularity of the boats, and the splendid appearance of the troops, rendered this embarkation one of the most brilliant and imposing spectacles of the Revolutionary War." Grenadier John Peebles, however, was not impressed, “deep sand... a very irregular & ill-managed embarkation." British leaders worried little about the vulnerability of the Army as it crossed onto Sandy Hook. Admiral Howe noted that "the Enemy desisted from every purpose of further obstruction.” But junior officers on Sandy Hook were less sure. Lieutenant Von Krafft worried that the transport ships were “without guns.” He further wrote: I was greatly surprised that the Rebels did not take advantage of the disorder in our arrangement and crossing since we were without cannons and even our muskets were unloaded... They would have succeeded since we were too confident. From Sandy Hook, the men were ferried on flatboats to transport ships. This occurred on July 5 and July 6. Captain Duncan noted that the same British flatboats that were used to form the pontoon bridge across the Gut were now used to ferry men from Sandy Hook to the ships. “Made a bridge of the flat boats across the gully that separated the Hook from the Neversink, over which the army marched with great ease -- Took away the boats, and embarked the troops from the Hook.” In keeping with the previous two weeks, boarding the ships at Sandy Hook—the last leg of the Monmouth Campaign—was difficult. Lt. Von Krafft described the difficulties. The men had to “wade through water up to our knees” to get into the boats. And because there were not enough boats, there was no room for animals. They “were tied to them [the boats] so as to swim behind.” The loaded boats moved slowly to the transport ships which “lay at quite a distance [from shore]. We had to row nearly an hour and a half before we reached it.” Once on board, the men had no food: “We made a great noise there because there were no provisions on board and no one knew where to get any.” Von Krafft’s complete account is in the appendix of this article. As the British completed the Monmouth Campaign, Henry Clinton and a few other senior leaders wrote of their success. The British Army had marched across New Jersey facing various harassments, miserable weather, and a Continental Army attack. It achieved its strategic goal of reaching New York. But other officers understood the campaign very differently. Estimates of losses through desertion varied from 500 to 1,500. Stephen Kemble worried about "the great irregularities of the Army during the march." Francis Downman worried about the hostility of the locals and concluded it “was a most fatiguing march.” The British Army had earned a rest. For the British navy, however, their troubles were just beginning. In less than a week, a large French fleet would anchor just outside Sandy Hook. Related Historical Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Appendix Journal of Lieutenant John Charles Philip von Krafft, July 5, 1778: At 5am we marched forth about – English miles in the neighborhood of – where we soon marched up to the water, for we had left camp by the left flank. Some companies of the Body Regiment and also the first two files of the Body Company of our regiment had already embarked in long boats. Many of these boats were also used for the transportation of animals which were tied to them so as to swim behind. Therefore we went back again and to the right across a pontoon bridge made of boats covered with boards, across which all the Engineer regiments had marched also. We had to follow them to the little island of Sandy Hook upon which stands the lighthouse for the ships. We had difficulty marching through the sand almost as far as the lighthouse, which is situated at the extreme [north] end of the island. Here we immediately went into the long boats, having, however, to wade through water up to our knees, because it was high tide. From the pontoon bridge to this place was a distance of – English miles, the time of our arrival, after 11am. Our ship, which we and the Body Company had to get to by means of two long boats for each, was three-masted, without guns and named - It lay at quite a distance [from shore]. We had to row nearly an hour and a half before we reached it and we made a great noise there because there were no provisions on board and no one knew whereto get any. Someone was sent to other ships for provisions [for us]. There is yet to be mentioned that, when we were crossing the pontoon bridge, I was greatly surprised that the Rebels did not take advantage of the disorder in our arrangement and crossing since we were without cannons and even our muskets were unloaded, according to orders received the night before. They would have succeeded since we were too confident. During a momentary detention near the water I dug up some fine large clams on the beach, a thing I had learned from the English and I immediately ate them with ravenous appetite owing to my hunger. Before we crossed the pontoon bridge all unnecessary horses were turned loose and chased back into the country. Sources : Henry Duncan is quoted in John Laughton, The Naval Miscellany (Naval Record Society, 1952) pp. 159-60; Andrew D. Mellick, Jr., Lesser Crossroads, ed. Hubert G. Schmidt from Andrew D. Mellick, Jr., The Story of an Old Farm (1889 reprint) (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1948), pp. 262-4; Gen. James Pattison, Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - British Sources; C.W. Heckert, The Diary of Captain Weiderholdt (Buckhannon, WV: CW Heckert, 1984), p10; Colin Lindsay, Extracts of Colonel Templehoffe's History of the Seven Years War (London: T. Cadel, 1793), v2, p484; Montresor, John. “Journals of Captain John Montresor.” Edited by G. D. Scull. (New York: Collections of the New-York Historical Society, 1881) p 502; William Erskine to George Taylor, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Treasury, Class 1, vol 634, folio 187; Johann Ewald, Diary of the American War: A Hessian Journal (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979) p 137-8; Moss, George H., Jr. Another Look at Nauvoo to the Hook, (Sea Bright: Ploughshare Press, 1990) pp. 18-9; Francis Downman, The Services of Lieut. Colonel Francis Downman (London: Royal Artillery Institution, 1898) p64-72; New York Historical Society, MSS Microfilms, reel 17, Stephen Jarvis Autobiography, p 30; John Laurens, The Army correspondence of Colonel John Laurens in the years 1777-8 (New York: New York Times, 1969) pp. 204-5; Jacob Piel quoted in Bruce Burgoyne, Defeat, Disaster and Dedication: The Diaries of a Hessian Officer (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p32-3; John Peebles' American War, 1776-1782 (Stackpole Books) p196; Stephen Kemble, The Kemble Papers (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2009) vol. 1, pp. 602-3; George Washington Parke Custis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington (Philadelphia: J. Bradley, 1861) p 30; Bruce Burgoyne, Journal of the Hesse Cassel Jaeger Corps (NY: Heritage Books, 1994) p47; John Knox Laughton, "Journal of Capt. Henry Duncan" in Publications of the Naval Records Society, vol. 20, 1920, p169-70; Lt. Wiedenholdt, Journal, New Jersey State Archives, Revolutionary War, Manuscripts Coll., box 2, #11; John Von Krafft, Journal of John Charles Philip Von Krafft, 1776-1784 (New York: Privately Printed, 1888) pp. 51-52; Adm Richard Howe, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 285; Capt. Henry Duncan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 267. Previous Next