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 > William Clark and the Raritan Bay Horse Thieves by Michael Adelberg Horse theft was a capital crime during the Revolutionary War. This sketch from Pennsylvania shows a posse chasing a horse thief. William Clark led a gang that took dozens of horses. - May 1781 - There is little known about William Clark’s early life. While an antiquarian source claims he was from Dover Township, his father (Dr. William Clark) was a physician in Middletown Township. So, William Clark (Jr.) likely grew up in Middletown. Perhaps he lived in Dover Township before the war—but he is not listed as owning land in the 1773 tax list for that township. His wife and children were in Middletown by the middle years of the war. The Clarks of Middletown were disaffected from the Revolution (another Clark family from Freehold Township solidly supported the Revolution). Dr. Clark was accused of illegally trading with the British in early 1777 and jailed in Freehold until November when he petitioned for his release. Dr. Clark’s 1779 estate was only 13 acres and one head of livestock—a very modest estate. Dr. Clark was likely a physician to prominent disaffected families along the Raritan Bayshore, such as Kearney’s of Keyport and Amboy. As their fortunes dropped, so did Dr. Clark’s. William Clark (Jr.) was also disaffected. His wife, Mary Tilton, was from a disaffected family that included Clayton Tilton, an active Loyalist raider, and other Loyalists. William Clark was arrested for high treason in January 1778 and convicted at the 2nd Court of Oyer and Terminer in June. But in an act of mercy afforded to a young man from a “good” family, he was permitted to sign a pledge of good behavior, post a bond, and was released. The Raritan Bay Horse Thieves The earliest documentation of robberies committed by Clark is a January 1782, New Jersey Supreme Court record that discusses a robbery committed by four Clark family members in January 1780. Elizabeth Pritchard was robbed of £29 of household goods and livestock by a gang consisting Nicholas Clark, Robert Clark, Andrew Clark, and James Clark. Two years later, the gang was convicted of trespass and breaking & entering "for taking away and conveying her goods & chattels to very great damage." The Raritan Bay Horse Thieves are discussed in a June 1780 report printed in a New York newspaper. The New York Packet reported: On the 19th instant, three spies and horse thieves were hanged at Headquarters near Morristown; they were taken in Monmouth County by some of our militia. The gang consisted of five, one was killed, and another made his escape. They were harbored by a Quaker, who is now in custody, and it is expected that he will in a few days receive the reward his conduct deserves. The prisoners were William Hutchinson, John Clawson, and Lewis Lacey. Lacey was from a modest Middletown family. Hutchinson and Lacey were from families that included other Loyalists. Horse thieves were particularly detested in agrarian America because horses were essential to working the farm and transporting people. The New Jersey Legislature specifically enumerated horse theft as a capital offense; the theft of other animals was not. Unlike other Loyalist raiders, such as the Black Brigade , the Raritan Bay horse thieves were not linked to “man-stealing” or arson—though stealing horses was a capital crime in its own right. By this time, William Clark was associated with these and other Loyalist irregulars based on Sandy Hook. Clark’s growing infamy prompted Middletown’s magistrate, Peter Schenck, to move against Mary (still residing in Middletown) in May 1781. Schenck wrote Governor William Livingston: I beg leave to request a favor of your Excellency - A certain Mary Clark, with two children, resides in sd township, her husband, William Clark, is on Staten Island. Said woman and children are very good [but] have no means of support to subsist on. She makes an application to the town for support. She may be willing to go to her husband, provided your Excellency permits her passing there; sd Township being overburdened with poor, seek her passage from sd Township over to Staten Island, with her children and what small matter of effects she might have. Schenck noted that people in Middletown wanted to remove Mary Clark for their own safety: We would not trouble your Excellency with sd request did we not conceive it would save the town from great cost and also may be a means of preventing sd [William] Clark, in a great measure, from coming amongst us, as he is a great villain - and has kept many in fear of being taken off by him, amongst which I include myself. While Mary Clark followed a trickle of Loyalist women from Monmouth County into British lines, Dr. Clark, William’s father, remained in Middletown. Deprived of family, he apparently suffered on his undersized estate. In September, the Loyalist New York Gazette reported that Dr. William Clark had died "from rebel cruelty." The specifics of Dr. Clark’s demise are not stated. On June 21, 1781, a massive raiding party of at least 1,000 men marched through Middletown. As the local militia left their posts to resist the incursion, horse thieves on Staten Island took advantage. Asher Holmes, commanding the Middletown militia, reported on June 22 that the prior day: "a party of refugees from Staten Island in boats landed at Shoal Harbor and took eight or ten horses" while the militia was diverted. In July 1781, Silas Condit of the New Jersey Legislature wrote Governor Livingston: We have direct information from N. York and Staten Island, the trade of horse stealing flourishes amazingly, and I think it advisable and for the good of the State to offer a pretty handsome reward for apprehending Caleb Sweezey, Isaac Sweezey, Nathan Horton, junior, James O'Hara, John Moody and there is one Giberson from Monmouth whose Christian name I am not certain of... a number may be carrying on this business with too great success, and I think we ought to give encouragement to such as may take pains to apprehend them, for without it, they are not likely to be taken. Livingston acted on August 8 when he placed bounties on the head’s of four dangerous robbers. On August 15, the New Jersey Journal advertised Livingston’s bounties: $200 on the heads of Caleb Sweezey, O'Hara, Moody, and Guisebert Giberson for their "atrocious offenses, diverse robberies, thefts and other felonies." A bounty was not put on Clark’s head. Perhaps this was because Clark was not tied to a specific violent act or because of the higher social status of his family. But his father was “suffering” in Middletown at this time—probably from extra-legal retaliation . The precise crimes of the men with bounties are not listed in surviving documents, but, for some, it may have been a combination of robberies committed along the Atlantic shore (as part of Pine Robert gangs ) and activity as a Raritan Bay horse thief. It is easy to imagine that a Pine Robber, while delivering taken goods to Sandy Hook and Staten Island, joining a group of thieves forming to raid Middletown and taking horses. Clark’s Dover Township ties make this that much more likely. The bounties coincided with quick actions against three Loyalists: Caleb Sweezey was promptly caught and convicted of counterfeiting, but escaped from the Monmouth County jail on September 4. He was indicted for murder in 1782 but never caught. James O’Hara was killed by a posse on August 8 (the same day that Livingston signed the bounty order). John Moody was the brother of the famous Loyalist partisan, James Moody. He was caught and jailed; he was hanged November 21. Interestingly, the bounty on Guisebert Giberson was a mistake. On October 9, the bounty on his head was rescinded and placed on the head of his nephew, the Pine Robber leader, William Giberson. Other horse thieves penetrated deep into Monmouth County. On November 2, Major Elisha Walton (a leading Retaliator and the antagonist to disaffected residents in the landmark Holmes v Walton litigation) was robbed of a horse, taken from his farm near Freehold. He offered a £3 reward for the return of the horse and an £10 reward "for the horse & thief." The thieves were likely John Thomson and Joshua Pierce. The New Jersey Gazette reported on December 19: John Thomson and Joshua Pierce were convicted of horse stealing and robbery, Richard Bell of Robbery, and were all sentenced to be hanged on Saturday last, -- We hear that Thomson and Pierce were executed accordingly, but that Bell was respited for a few days. Prior to their hanging, Chief Justice David Brearley (of Upper Freehold) recommended a pardon for Pierce “on account of his youth.” But the recommendation was apparently not acted upon. The Raritan Bay horse thieves likely participated in two February 1782 raids into northern Monmouth County—one against Pleasant Valley and the other against Colts Neck. The first of these raids resulted in the capture of several men, nineteen horses and five sleighs of plunder. The second raid featured, according to the New Jersey Gazette , “sundry sorties upon the sheep and the calves, making great numbers of them prisoner.” It is unknown if Clark, himself, participated in either raid. As is so often the case with outlaws, William Clark was finally caught. On July 3, 1782, the New York Gazette , printed a June 20 letter: William Clarke, the noted horse thief, is no more. He was shot somewhere in the vicinity of Woodbridge on one of his customary excursions. This man was an early refugee from Jersey, and has since the Fall of 1776 taken off upwards of one hundred valuable horses from the County of Monmouth, and other counties, for which he found ready sale on Long Island and New York. He had eluded the strictest vigilance of our guards and scouts for upwards of five years, although it is pretty certain he passed at least half that time within our lines. According to the letter, Clark was lured into an ambush by a "friend" who informed him that two horses were available for easy taking, while a militia party laid in wait. Clark was killed with an associate "one Miers, of the same profession." An antiquarian source claims that Clark led at least a dozen raids from Sandy Hook and Staten Island and "stole upwards of one hundred valuable horses which he sold to the Royal Army." Another antiquarian source discussed the “Raritan Cowboys” (a gang of Loyalist horse thieves) without specifically naming Clark. Perspective Surviving documents do not well detail the Staten Island-based Loyalists who raided Monmouth and Middlesex Counties for horses. A direct connection between these men and other Loyalist irregulars—including the Pine Robber gangs of the Jersey shore—is undocumented. While Clark focused on the Raritan Bayshore of Monmouth and Middlesex counties while the Pine Robber gangs of 1781-1782 laired fifty miles south, they may have had links. William Clark had contacts in Dover Townships (a center of Pine Robber activity) and the August 1781 bounties put out by Governor Livingston include men who were probably associated with both Raritan Bay horse thieves and the Pine Robbers. Only a handful of the specific horse robberies of the Raritan Bay horse thieves are documented. The sad reality is that there was so much violence and kidnapping in Monmouth County in 1781 and 1782 that the robbery of a horse, of itself, was not newsworthy. As such, the activities of Clark and his associates weew vastly under-reported. While the claim that Clark was involved in the theft of “upwards of one hundred” horses is likely exaggerated, it is probable that he was involved in the theft of at least few dozen or more. This would have made Clark and his colleagues a very real threat to the people of northern Monmouth County and coastal Middlesex County. Related Historic Site : Kearney Cottage Sources : Summons Clark and John Schenck (role unknown), NJ State Archives, NJ Supreme Court Collection, Case # 29412; New York Packet article printed in William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 407; William Nelson, Austin Scott, et al., ed., New Jersey Archives (Newark, Somerville, and Trenton, New Jersey: 1901-1917) vol. 4, p 465; Peter Schenck to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 14, May 22, 1781; Silas Condict to Willaim Livingston, Susan Burgess Shenston, So Obstinately Loyal, James Moody (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000) p 119; David Bernstein, Minutes of the Governor's Privy Council, 1777-1789 (Trenton: New Jersey State Library, Archives and History Bureau, 1974) p 203; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Asher Holmes to William Livingston, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 224-5; Kenneth Scott, Rivington's New York Newspaper: Excerpts from a Loyalist Press, 1773-1783 (New York: New York Historical Society, 1973) p 273; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Thomas Wilson, Notices from New Jersey Newspapers, 1781-1790 (Hunterdon House, 1820) p 17; David Bernstein, Minutes of the Governor's Privy Council, 1777-1789 (Trenton: New Jersey State Library, Archives and History Bureau, 1974) p 214; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Information on Clark and other horse thieves is in Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, unpublished at the Monmouth County Historical Association. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Monmouth Loyalists Seek to Come Home by Michael Adelberg The Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War. In the treaty, Congress promised restitution and protection for Loyalists. In war-torn Monmouth County, Loyalists were often treated harshly. - September 1782 - In spring 1782, the British ceased offensive military operations in America and drydocked the Loyalists who raided into New Jersey (including Monmouth County). It was now understood that the British were preparing to leave and American independence would be recognized. In New Jersey, where outages like the hanging of Joshua Huddy (April 12) were still fresh, thoughts turned to Loyalists returning home—and making it clear that they were unwelcome. On June 3, Governor William Livingston addressed the New Jersey Assembly on the return of Loyalists. He called for a law barring the return of Loyalists because they would be a burden on society and work against the civic culture "by increasing the number of our disaffected, which themselves is already capable of great mischief." Livingston also worried that returning refugees will "to the last degree, disgust our Loyal citizens" creating public safety problems. The Assembly referred the matter to a committee and declined to act on the Governor’s recommendations. The topic of Loyalist reintegration was discussed through summer in the Continental Congress. Two members of Congress, Edmund Pendleton and James Madison, wrote on the topic, with Pendleton noting on September 9, "the inhabitants of New Jersey must possess the keenest resentments." Members of Congress were learning that the emerging peace treaty would include language about Loyalists returning home and receiving restitution for lost property . New Jersey Whigs Oppose the Return of Loyalists Newspapers and other public documents made it clear that many New Jersians were not ready to reconcile. In April 1783, the New Jersey Gazette printed "A last advice to the Tories and Refugees in New York: Poor, unhappy, deluded and infatuated people.” The advice from “a sturdy Whig” included these questions that Loyalists should ask themselves before returning to New Jersey: If your King has no mercy upon you, after all your faithful service, how can you expect that from your enemies? Consider what courts you are to be tried [if you return]; who are the juries to try you and who your prosecutors? Are they not, to a man, determined Whigs? Have they not all suffered and been injured by you? Loyalists were urged to leave the United States and not come back: You have an opportunity to save yourself from the vengeance of an incensed country; save yourself from the trouble and painful talk of punishing... Go off in the first ships. Here you cannot live, your friends cannot help you. A cold Congressional recommendation cannot save you. You showed no mercy to your country and you will have judgment without mercy. And the essay closed with a violent threat: “I give you earnest counsel. If you do not take it, your blood will be on your own heads." The New Jersey Journal printed its own anti-Loyalist essay, which concluded: We deem it an act of humanity in order to prevent the effusion of blood to caution all persons within British lines who may have taken an active part in the cause of Great Britain not to return among the citizens of America: They may rely upon it that nothing can save them from retaliation for the many cruelties wantonly exercised in the cause of the war. Monmouth Countians Threaten Returning Loyalists As noted in a prior article , 253 Monmouth Countians joined an “Association to Oppose the Return of Tories” in 1783. Some of those same men signed a June 1783 petition for the same purpose: Whereas a number of inhabitants of this County, during this past war with Great Britain, deserted their country and joined the Enemy, and now, on the return of peace, will in all probability attempt to return back to the Country they for a number of years endeavored to destroy and ruin - Your petitioners are of the opinion they will rather be a pest & disturbance, and perhaps destroy the blessings which are usually consequent to peace. The 112 petitioners requested “that no indulgence may be granted to any person or persons coming from the enemy” and that “they not be suffered to return amongst us nor have any restoration of property.” However, unlike the Retaliators, this association pledged to follow the law and comply with “the forthcoming articles of peace.” The petitioners included several of the most important Whigs from Monmouth County: Judge Peter Covenhoven Legislator Thomas Seabrook Magistrate Peter Schenck Sheriff John Burrowes Jr. Col. Daniel Hendrickson Col. Asher Holmes Maj. Thomas Hunn Capt. Barnes Smock Capt. Samuel Carhart Capt. Moses Shepherd Capt. John Schenck Capt. Stephen Fleming That same month, Monmouth County’s three delegates to the Assembly—Thomas Henderson, John Covenhoven, Daniel Hendrickson—advertised in the New Jersey Gazette about a false report “being industriously circulated through different parts of the state designed by some to lessen our reputation as zealous and uniform friends of the independence of America.” The report apparently claimed that the three delegates “did move to bring into this House a bill for the purpose of reinstating the refugees and Tories in the full enjoyment of their estates." Fourteen colleagues in the Assembly affirmed that the report was false. The allegation that Loyalist property might be restored was so inflammatory that the delegates needed to publicly disavow it. Throughout the 1780s, Monmouth Countians repeated their strong opposition to Loyalist reintegration. In August 1784, a “letter from Monmouth” was printed in Philadelphia and Boston newspapers. The author describes the suffering of good Whigs while Loyalists were returning home comfortably: In all this time of difficulty to the officer, soldier, and Whig citizen, who are next to begging for their bread in the place they saved, the prescribed traitor, the murderous refugee, and the double-faced trimmer, with all the scum and refuse of the Continent, we hear, are living comfortably, and following the business of advancing the interests of their families among you without intervention. The author then called for vigilante violence now in the interest of avoiding more bloodshed later: Remember that a little uncommon conduct now will contribute to your peace and save you from committing more at a future date. I hear some sly scoundrel call this violence, let that be so and let Whigs always consider that violence, and not law, brought about this glorious revolution, and that the majesty of the people can never be supported without a little of this blessed ingredient. As late as April 1787, petitioners from Monmouth County felt a need to restate their opposition to Loyalists (labeled "atrocious monsters of wickedness" in the petition) returning to the United States. Acts Against Loyalists Indeed, there is evidence of vigilante violence against Loyalists after the war. Historian David Fowler described three acts of retribution against Pine Robbers: Sylvester Tilton of Stafford Township, after being wounded by John Bacon’s Pine Robber gang in late 1781, hunted down one of those Pine Robbers and gave him "an unmerciful beating." Rueben Soper, also of Stafford (whose brother had been killed by Bacon), located Bacon’s guide William Wilson at Long Branch. Wilson was given "a sound thrashing" and thrown in a pond. Pine Robber, Stephen West, was hunted down and killed by a Continental Army veteran whose father's farm was burned during war. Even Pine Robber-allies with some wealth—such as boat owner William Dillon of Toms River—suffered after the war. 1791 court records list Dillon as an "absconded debtor" defaulted on nineteen debts. To fail so badly, it is probable that vengeful neighbors seized his boat and other property. Most acts of vengeance, such as those likely taken against Dillon, went undocumented. Loyalists Trickle into Monmouth County For all of the vigor devoted to keeping Loyalists from returning, some did. Noncombatants were most likely to come home successfully. On April 3, 1783, the Shrewsbury Friends (Quakers) re-admitted the family of Samuel Deloplane from New York. On August 18, George Washington vouched for the return of another Loyalist, Timothy Mount “late from Monmouth in N. Jersey State, but some time residing in the City of N. York” because of his “particular services to many of the suffering citizens of these States.” Presumably, Mount, though a Loyalist, assisted prisoners during the war. Washington wrote: Hereby permitted to return to the place of his former abode, and is hereby recommended to His Excels the Governor and the people of the State of N Jersey; with my wish that he may be received to the favor of his fellow citizens, as his merits appear to deserve it. The inoffensive Loyalist, William Opey, was turned out of Monmouth County. In October 1785, Opey was examined by local officials at Amboy. Before the war, he had lived (likely as a sailor) at Amboy, Woodbridge, and Mt. Pleasant (in Middletown Township). When the war began, he went to Staten Island. After the war, he returned to New Jersey, “traveling throughout different parts without obtaining settlement in any part… rambling about place to place." No longer drawing a British pension after they quit New York, Opey requested poor relief at Middletown. But Hendrick Hendrickson, Middletown’s magistrate, sent Opey to Amboy with a note from David Forman and Elisha Lawrence stating that Opey did not reside two years continuously at Mt. Pleasant and therefore was not deserving of relief. Fowler notes that the Loyalists of the Giberson family went to Canada after the war, but Gilbert Giberson returned home in 1786, apparently without incident. The notorious William Giberson waited until 1790 to return to New Jersey. When he did return, he re-settled near Little Egg Harbor , arguably the most disaffected area of the state. Loyalist combatants took a considerable risk returning home. John Wardell "was very active in taking submission of the inhabitants” during the Loyalist insurrections of 1776. Wardell spent the war in New York City. He returned to Monmouth County in 1783 and attempted to recover his confiscated estate but received a rough reception: Being informed by Governor Livingston and the rulers of the province, that the penal laws were yet in effect against Loyalists who had adhered to the British, Your Memorialist was therefore apprehended by a party of armed men who insulted him and abused him much, and obliged him to leave the province. In June 1784, according to an article in the New Jersey Gazette , Thomas Crowell and Elias Barnes, attempted to return to Woodbridge. Crowell (formerly of Middletown) had been a captain in the hated Associated Loyalists . The article stated that “Thomas Crowell and Elias Barnes exhibited their well known faces at Woodbridge, a village about five miles distant from Amboy, where Barnes had purchased a place.” Once recognized, a mob formed. The newspaper is not specific about what the mob did to Crowell and Barnes but an antiquarian source claims they were tarred and feathered and forced to flee. Ezekiel Forman, a Loyalist whose family connections led to two pardons after felony convictions (once for High Treason) resettled in Monmouth County after the war. But he lived on a small estate and likely returned to British lines after a few years. Another Loyalist from a prominent family was the infamous Loyalist partisan , Chrineyonce Van Mater. He attempted to return home after going to Canada. A report in the Middlesex Gazette noted that in January 1787: Apprehended, lurking at his father's house, the very active and noted Refugee, Chrineyonce Van Mater, lately from Shelburne, and much noted during the war for burning and plundering without the lines of the Enemy at New York. There had been a forty dollar reward for him which was punctually paid by the high sheriff to his two captors. He is at present committed on the charge of High Treason and has been refused bail. Van Mater’s fate is unknown, but the article noted that the Van Mater family had retained “a number of lawyers… to plead on his behalf at the next supreme court." Perspective Historian Robert Calhoon noted that in areas of the United States wracked by civil warfare, reintegration of Loyalists and erasing local resentments "was a century-long rather than a decade-long process." Indeed, most Monmouth Countians were likely against reconciliation. This put them at odds with Article V of the Treaty of Paris which stated that Congress "shall earnestly recommend" that the States: Provide for restitution of all estates, rights, and properties which have been confiscated; [Loyalists] shall have free liberty to go to any part of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain for twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution… All persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their rights. While Congress made these recommendations to the New Jersey Legislature, the request for leniency fell on deaf ears in most of New Jersey. In Monmouth County, it can be safely assumed that vigilante violence was more common than the peaceful accommodation for known Loyalists. With reintegration difficult and no restitution for their confiscated estates, most Loyalists remained dependent on the British. They were resettled in Canada and many were eventually compensated for their lost estates by the British government. This is the topic of another article. Related Historic Site : Independence Hall Sources : The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 3, 1782, p 22; New Jersey Gazette, April 16, 1783; Edmund Pendleton to James Madison, The Papers of James Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977) vol. 5, p 109; Journal of the Continental Congress, Library of Congress, p152 ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_ygyz ::); John Wardell’s Application, Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Coll. D96, PRO AO 13/112, reel 11; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 46-7; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; David Fowler, egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 277-9; Library of Congress, New Jersey Journal reel 1930 (mistakenly included on film with NJ Gazette, next to NJ Gazette March 19, 1783); New Jersey Gazette, April 16, 1783; Petition, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War Documents, #132; George Washington to Timothy Mount, Library of Congress, George Washington, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw270137)) ; Fowler cites from John C. Paterson, The Pine Robbers of Monmouth County, unpublished manuscript in the collection of the Monmouth County Historical Association, 1834, p 5; Calhoon writing in Jack Greene, The American Revolution: Its Character and Limits (New York: New York University Press, 1989) p 69; New Jersey Gazette, July 5, 1784; Continental Journal (Boston), September 9, 1784; Honeyman, A. Van Doren, “Concerning the New Jersey Loyalists in the Revolution,” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 51 (1933) p 123; Overseers of the Poor Collection, Folder: William Opey - Examination, Monmouth County Archives; David Fowler, egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 135; Middlesex Gazette (Connecticut), February 19, 1787; Petition, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War Documents, #147; Monmouth County Archives, Common Pleas (Loose). 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 Marches Through Middletown to Navesink Highlands by Michael Adelberg This British Army map of northeast Monmouth County shows Middletown as the midpoint between hostile inland villages like Colts Neck (called “Jewstown”) and safety at Sandy Hook. - June 1778 - As discussed in prior articles, following the Battle of Monmouth (June 28, 1778), the British Army marched east through Middletown on its way to Sandy Hook. It would take the British Army a week to travel only 25 miles. Despite wanting to leave New Jersey, the British commander, General Henry Clinton moved his troops slowly from Middletown. He wrote of waiting there two days "in hopes that Mr. Washington [George Washington] might have tempted to advance to a position near Middletown." Dr. John Campbell of the British Army was more explicit: The army marched without farther opposition, where they waited two days, in hopes that General Washington might be induced to take post near Middletown, where he might have been attacked to [our] advantage. Washington, however, had consulted with Monmouth County leaders , and understanding the inferior ground he would possess, chose not to pursue the British. He sent only a small force led by Colonel Daniel Morgan, accompanied by Monmouth militia , to shadow the British. The British baggage train, with a sizable guard, left Freehold for Middletown even before the Battle of Monmouth began. It was attacked twice on June 28, but the heat was the greater enemy that day. A German Quartermaster officer wrote, "The heat was so enormous today that almost the whole regiment was sick… Many men fainted during the day and some died on the spot." The baggage train stopped at Nut Swamp that evening, three miles from Middletown. The main body of the British Army, after fighting the Battle of Monmouth, rested until midnight and then left Freehold for Middletown. A German Officer Heinrich von Feilitsch wrote, "Our column marched all night… at five o'clock in the morning we halted three miles from Middletown." The British Army entered Middletown in the morning of June 29. John Peebles, a British Officer, described Middletown: "This little village surrounded with hills is about 2 or three miles from Raritan Bay, and about 12 miles from the Light House." The British Camp at Middletown General Clinton established his headquarters at the house of John Taylor, the town’s largest home. Taylor had led a Loyalist insurrection in the township in 1776. The British took most of Taylor’s livestock while in Middletown, but compensated him for the taken animals. According to militiaman Albert Vanderveer, Clinton also “issued a proclamation offering protection to all inhabitants who would not take up arms against them.” At least one family took the opportunity to leave with the British. Israel Bedell’s family left Middletown with the British and settled on Staten Island afterward. The British stay in Middletown did not include the arsons that marred its stay at Freehold. However, there were several incidents. John Truax, a militiaman, recalled that on June 30 "he was robbed when the Army passed through the Country." John Tilton recalled that his family’s Bible was "destroyed by the British in their retreat through Middletown in June 1778." For many middling farm families, the family Bible was the only book they owned and many families recorded births and deaths in it. So, the destruction of the family Bible was an act of cruelty. Antiquarian sources also discuss the looting of two Middletown homes by German soldiers. General William Knyphausen commandeered the homes of Richard Crawford and James Paterson for his senior officers. Both homes were looted of their silver. Women camp followers further reportedly plundered Mrs. Crawford of all her clothes. When the Germans left Middletown, a party of stragglers remained behind at Crawford's and was reportedly surprised by a party of mounted Continentals. The Americans recovered some of the lost goods and killed a local Loyalist guide named Hankinson. Knyphausen also reportedly took Paterson’s seven horses and forced him to accompany the Germans as a guide for two days, before releasing him with one of his horses. Paterson's amiable release led to his arrest for treason (he was found not guilty). The Germans also reportedly burned a barn known as “the Old Fort” because it was a militia meeting place. Middletown’s Baptist congregation , which had purged its Loyalist members a year earlier, was also targeted. Minister Abel Morgan held Sunday service on June 28 with cannon fire from the Battle of Monmouth audible in the distance. However, on July 5, he recorded: “There was no meeting on this Lord's day because of the enemy's passing thro' our town the week past, putting all in confusion by their plundering and ravaging as they went." Morgan wrote again on July 10 about holding a meeting “in mine own barn, because the enemy had took all the seats in the meeting house in town.” He did not preach again until July 19—and then he preached in a barn "because the enemy had took all the seats in the meeting house." Morgan did not preach again in the meeting house until August 30. Three Loyalist officers were court martialed for actions taken after the Battle of Monmouth. Lt. Boswell of the Maryland Loyalists was tried for horse theft. He reportedly “took two horses, property of the inhabitants of the Jerseys… contrary to the General order issued by General Sir Henry Clinton against plundering and marauding." Captain Martin McEvoy of the Roman Catholic Volunteers "behaved in an ungentlemanlike manner, plundering in the Jerseys in taking a horse and a cow, and behaving indecently in parade"—or at least he was accused as such. Captain John McKinnon, also of the Roman Catholic Volunteers, was tried for ungentlemanlike behavior, including "plundering in the Jerseys." McKinnon was found guilty and cashiered from service. A few additional incidents occurred as British forces moved east from Middletown. According to an antiquarian source, Rebecca Dennis, the wife of militia Captain Benjamin Dennis, was struck by a German soldier with his gunstock. Noah Clayton of the Shrewsbury militia recalled being captured by British regulars: “I went to S'berrytown and [was] taken prisoner by the 42nd Regiment of Highlanders, from thence I was taken to New York, where I remained for better than two years." The hot weather that harried the British during the march across New Jersey continued. German officer, Charles Von Krafft, wrote of his camp at “Mittletown” on June 30. The soldiers camped on “a large hill” to lessen the heat, but to little effect. “Huts were built, but owing to the heat, it was almost impossible to breath underneath them." An antiquarian source suggests June 30 was the start of the infamous Pine Robber career of Lewis Fenton (he deserted from the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers just a few days earlier). Fenton reportedly went to the farm of the Cooper family two miles south of Freehold and demanded food from Mrs. Cooper and her two daughters. However, before Fenton could carry away the food, he was chased off by five German deserters who unwittingly came onto the scene. The Germans took the food and Fenton went into hiding. He assembled a small band in Tinker Swamp near Manasquan that soon robbed widow Harris and her tavern—starting his outlaw career. British Army Moves toward Sandy Hook Irrespective of the disorders, the British continued to occupy Middletown and parts of the army spread east to the Navesink Highlands. A German officer, Jacob Piel recorded that on June 30 "camped in the woods near the Shrewsbury River" and then the Navesink Highlands on July 1. Near there, a meeting occurred between General Clinton and officers of the Royal Navy. Captain Henry Duncan of the Royal Navy wrote of the July 1 meeting: "Anchored outside Sandy Hook, Sir H. Clinton arrived near there and sent off an express requesting to see me as soon as possible… we met Sir Henry at the Neversink." According to Colonel Thomas O’Bierne, who attended the meeting, the officers discussed the arrival of the French fleet off Cape May. As a result, "the utmost expedition was now requisite to take off the troops, that… they might be placed in safety [in New York]." Clinton would no longer dither at Middletown hoping to tempt Washington into attacking. Clinton now moved the entire army toward Sandy Hook. General James Pattison wrote that "we gained the heights of the Neversink" on the evening of July 1. According to antiquarian sources, Henry Clinton used the houses of James Stillwell and Richard Hartshorne as his temporary headquarters while camped on the Highlands. Hartshorne’s house may have been the headquarters of the Monmouth militia a year and a half earlier when it was routed by British regulars at the Battle of the Navesink . The British did not feel threatened by Colonel Daniel Morgan’s regiment and the Monmouth militia that shadowed them. German Capt. [?] Hiendrich wrote that the camp was “naturally secure.” Von Feilitsch, at Middletown on July 1, wrote that "the enemy patrol approached but did not make contact." British Army Officer, Andrew Bell, wrote on July 1 that there was "no firing of any consequence since the action on Sunday." On July 2, O’Beirne wrote: "the enemy did not dare pass the heights of Middletown" and that the British now camped on the Navesink "without molestation." That same day, Captain Hiendrich wrote that his men “lay completely quiet” at Middletown. However, two other British Army officers noted skirmishing at Middletown as the British began to withdraw. On July 1, Peebles wrote that the enemy was “expected” and that skirmishers “are still hovering about us, showing themselves in different places in our front & right, [taking] some popping shots." Johann Ewald, a German officer recalled being in a more considerable engagement at Middletown on July 1: Today a strong enemy corps appeared here from Middletown. A sharp engagement between the Jaegers and the enemy riflemen, in which three Jaegers were killed and five wounded. Toward evening, the enemy withdrew. Skirmishing, it appears, is in the eye of the beholder. For those not engaged, it was easy to dismiss skirmishing as minor. But when directly engaged, skirmishing could be a “sharp engagement.” Ewald further reported a second engagement on July 2, "although the patrol was cautious, it was attacked unexpectedly by the enemy, and one Jaeger was killed and two captured." By July 3, Henry Clinton had moved the entire army to the Navesink Highlands and the British began moving their baggage onto Sandy Hook—the move would be completed with considerable help from the navy on July 5. The Monmouth Campaign had caused the British Army considerable losses—300 battlefield dead, several hundred desertions, and several dozen more deaths along the line of march from heat and skirmishing. After nearly three weeks of marching, fighting, and enduring many hassles and privations, the soldiers were truly safe again. Related Historic Site : Historic Portland Place Sources : Henry Clinton’s letter printed in New York Journal as printed in Frank Moore, Diary of the American Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1865) v2, p68-9; Abel Morgan’s sermons in Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), pp. 522-3; Stephen Jarvis, An American's Experience in the British Army, Journal of American History, v1, n3, 1907, p452. New York Historical Society, MSS Microfilms, reel 17, Stephen Jarvis Autobiography, p 30; John Campbell, Biographica Nautica, Memoirs of an Illustrious Seaman () p 482; William Stryker, The Battle of Monmouth (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1927) p 232; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Truax; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Tilton; John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v5, 50-9; Correspondence from Don N. Hagist, British Court Martials; Great Britain, Public Record Office, War Office, Class 71, Volume 87, pages 179-181; Samuel Smith, The Hessian View of America, (Monmouth Beach, N.J.: Philip Freneau Press, 1975) p 20; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p199; John U. Rees, "What is this you have been about to day?" The New Jersey Brigade at the Battle of Monmouth, 2003, Appendix I link: https://revwar75.com/library/rees/monmouth/MonmouthA.htm ; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Noah Clayton; John C. Paterson, The Pine Robbers of Monmouth County, unpublished manuscript in the collection of the Monmouth County Historical Association, 1834, p 1-2; Peter W. Coldham, comp., American Loyalist Claims (Washington, D.C.: National Genealogical Society, 1980), p 534; Journal of Daniel Youngs, Brooklyn Historical Society, New York State-New York City, 1778-1788, coll. 1974.002; Abel Morgan’s sermons in Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), pp. 522-3; Henry Clinton to Richard Howe, Clements Library, U Michigan, Henry Clinton Papers, 6/29/78 & 7/1/78 & 7/3/78; David Library of the American Revolution, James Pattison Papers, reel 1; Mary Hyde, Retreat after the Battle of Monmouth, Spirit of '76, vol. 5, 1899, p253; John Parke’s Account in Pennsylvania Archives, Pennsylvania Historic & Museum Commission, reel 14, frame 0338; Stephen Moylan to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, June 29, 1778; John Peebles, John Peebles' American War, p221-8; John Knox Laughton, "Journal of Capt. Henry Duncan" in Publications of the Naval Records Society, vol. 20, 1920, p169-70; Thomas Lewis O'Beirne, A Candid and Impartial Narrative of the Transactions of the Fleet, Under the Command of Lord Howe (London, 1969), pp. 8-9; Francis Downman, The Services of Lieut. Colonel Francis Downman (London: Royal Artillery Institution, 1898) p64-72; Bell, Andrew, "Copy of a journal by Andrew Bell, Esq., at One Time the Confidential Secretary of General Sir Henry Clinton. Kept during the March of the British Army through New-jersey in 1778.” Proceedings of the New jersey Historical Society, vol 6, 1851, p18; Bruce Burgoyne, Journal of the Hesse Cassel Jaeger Corps (New York: Heritage Books, 1987) p43-7; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Albert Vanderveer; Johann Ewald, Diary of the American War: A Hessian Journal (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979) pp. 136-7; Mary Hyde, Retreat after the Battle of Monmouth, Spirit of '76, vol. 5, 1899, p254-5Bruce Burgoyne, Diaries of Two Ansbach Jaegers (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p42-3; Jared Sparks, Correspondence of the American Revolution: Being Letters of Eminent Men (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853) pp. 152-3; Jones, E. Alfred. The Loyalists of New Jersey, (Newark, N. J. Historical Society, 1927) p 261. 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 Difficult History of the 1st Battalion of New Jersey Volunteers by Michael Adelberg Re-enactors in the uniform of the 1st Battalion of the New Jersey Volunteers. Raised from Monmouth County in 1776, the battalion would re-organize and lose cohesion as the war went on. - May 1777 - In the days leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Elisha Lawrence, the Monmouth County Sheriff under the Royal Government, led approximately 60 men from Upper Freehold Township to the British base at Sandy Hook. There, they joined the British Army. They became the 1st Battalion of the New Jersey Volunteers . Lawrence and his men went to Staten Island to drill and wait for the opportunity to be useful. Historian Todd Braisted, who has comprehensively studied the New Jersey Volunteers, notes that the 1st Battalion saw its first action in October 1776 when it participated in repelling a Continental incursion into Staten Island. Sergeant Lewis Barber was killed in a guard boat off of Staten Island shortly after that—the battalion’s first combat death. In December 1776, Lawrence returned to Monmouth County and raised 200 Loyalist militia and recruits at Freehold, only to be routed by a regiment of Pennsylvanians on January 2, 1777. After that, Lawrence withdrew inside British lines. The 1st Battalion spent the early months of 1777 at Woodbridge, New Jersey, helping to form the British perimeter that rimmed its encampment around New Brunswick and Amboy. These were hard months for the regiment. Lawrence recalled camping "at an outpost on the Raritan River, where he remained for six weeks until his party was reduced by deaths, prisoners & sickness to only 25 men fit for duty, owing to the exceptional duty & extreme cold weather." When the British quit New Jersey, they returned to Staten Island (July 1777). This would be the battalion’s home for the rest of the war. The 1st Battalion defended the island from Continental attack, but were caught off-guard when attacked by John Sullivan’s Continentals in August 1777. In that action, Lawrence, several of his officers, and 80 enlisted men were captured (64 from his battalion). While the 1st Battalion was the first and, initially, largest battalion, its character changed considerably over the course of the war—from a cohesive Monmouth County unit at the start of the war to a conglomerate of units and geographies by war’s end. Elisha Lawrence, himself, lost command of his battalion in 1778. 1st Battalion Guards Sandy Hook Defeated and depleted, the 1st Battalion was relegated to guard duty on Staten Island and Sandy Hook for the rest of the war. Most of the time, only a single undersized company of New Jersey Volunteers was stationed at Sandy Hook; they would stay for a month at a time; to be replaced by another undersized company. David Forman described the defenses at Sandy Hook a year after it was fortified in July 1778 (when the French Fleet threatened New York): The Hook at present is guarded by a Lieut and twenty of the new raised troops at the Light House - in the cedars are about 60 or 70 refugees, white and black... the enemy erected a battery at the point of the Hook; the works are now entirely out of repair, the cannon has long since been removed. The British navy supported the New Jersey Volunteers by stationing a ship at Sandy Hook. But by the later years of the war, rebel privateers and raiding parties made Sandy Hook vulnerable. Accordingly, General Courtland Skinner’s orders to the commanding officer at Sandy Hook mandated caution: You are to be careful that the men do not stroll about the Hook, but that they are always near the Light House & one half always within the stronghold during the day, & at night, the whole in the House, & a sentry always in the lantern by day… no expeditions with the refugees are to be made without permission. The orders allowed the New Jersey Volunteers to admit deserters from the Continental Army and militia, but “women who have joined their husbands and child within the lines -- they are not to be committed... they are to be sent back." Officers were also instructed to learn the geography of the Hook, including “the Gut,” a channel of water that, due to violent storms, made Sandy Hook an island during the winter of 1777: You will as soon as you can view the Gut, Spermacity Cove and the Cedars and the grounds in your front, that you and your officers may have knowledge of the whole & should the enemy pass, you may be able to follow with a party. -- You will not pass the Gut at any other time than high water, lest the enemy, who can pass easily [onto the Hook] at low water should be concealed in the high Cedars on the opposite shore... Never follow the enemy at night. The Monmouth militia was similarly interested in the Gut and widening it to prevent Loyalists from coming off the Hook, and opening Shrewsbury Inlet to sail vessels at present-day Sea Bright. Militiaman Peter Paterson recalled his company opening the channel in the summer of 1777: He was moved with others by Genl. Forman to Shrewsbury Inlet which was then closed and was there some time -- three weeks at least, in opening said Inlet, and by that means depriving the British and Refugees of the facility they had enjoyed of coming over from the Hook and plundering the inhabitants. Other Duty of the 1st Battalion Beyond guard duty on Staten Island and Sandy Hook, the 1st Battalion participated in numerous raids against New Jersey including several into Monmouth County. The larger actions included incursions against Shark River-Manasquan (April 1778), Middletown Point (May 1778), eastern Middletown (April 17779), Tinton Falls, (June 1779), Middletown (June 1781), and Toms River (March 1782). One historian estimated that the New Jersey Volunteers (all battalions) participated in over 100 raids over the course of the war. Actual raids mixed with rumored raids. In October 1778, for example, a Staten Island spy sent the following note an unnamed correspondent in New Jersey warning of a potential attack against Monmouth County: Last night, I rcd [received] a letter from a corespondant in [New] York informing me that the Army was returning from the English naberhood and that the report in town was that they wair [were] to imbarck [embark] and land on Jersey at Shroesbury [Shrewsbury] or Mideltown [Middletown]. And directly after, I saw a number of flat boats coming up the Kill as was sent to take the baggage of the different ridgt [regiments] on Board. This faulty warning of an upcoming raid came while a large British-Loyalist raid, involving the 1st Battalion, was occurring against the Little Egg Harbor area. This raises the possibility that the warning was a deliberate deception aimed to keep the Monmouth militia from marching against the raiders. Long periods of inactivity filled the time between short periods of action. It is likely that the majority of men, separated from families, likely hated camp life. Roughly one third of the men brought their wives with them. A May 1777 British Commissary report from Staten Island noted the need to supply rations to 582 men and 179 wives (drawing 1/2 soldier rations). The troops and their camp-followers did not farm or fish in any great amount and were dependent on British support. In 1778, the New Jersey Gazette noted that “they [the New Jersey Volunteers] have no provisions or stores of any kind, but what are drawn of N. York.” Shortages of military supplies were also acute at times. An inventory of James Nealon’s company showed that the company had only half a full complement of ammunition: “Ammunition in Possession - 768. Ammunition Wanting - 752.” With Lawrence captured and his battalion decimated, the battalion fell on hard times. According to a November 1777 muster roll, the battalion had 64 men held as prisoners and was 391 “wanting to complete.” An undated muster roll, likely late 1777 or early 1778, lists only 92 men “fit & present.” Other New Jersey Volunteer battalions were also under-strength. Lawrence was pushed out of his command while a prisoner—as the 1st, 5th and 6th battalions were combined in July 1778 into a new consolidated 1st battalion. Command given to Sussex County’s Joseph Barton, leader of the 5th battalion. Lawrence was retired on a half-pay pension without his consent. Braisted noted that resentments ran high between the original Monmouth County officers, who remained loyal to Lawrence, and the new Sussex County senior officers. This led to various quarrels between the officers, exacerbated by General Skinner, who remained friends with Lawrence. Lawrence returned as a staff major and was loaned a company from his battalion to lead a raid against a Continental detachment at Manasquan in April 1780. All of the squabbles and intrigue hurt the effectiveness of the 1st Battalion. It marched with British regulars and participated in the Battle of Springfield in June 1780, but was otherwise not requested to join with British regulars in formal battle. As noted by Braisted, the battalion continued to diversify, but with little success. An attempted absorption of a company of Gloucester County Loyalists led to most of the Gloucester-men deserting within weeks of the attempted integration. Continental Army deserters joined the battalion but these men were not committed Loyalists and most quickly deserted. New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and Marylanders drifted into the battalion. In 1781, Barton was cashiered from service and replaced by Stephen DeLancey, a New Yorker. The original battalion of the New Jersey Volunteers was no longer led by a New Jersian. The 2nd Battalion of the New Jersey Volunteers, raised from Shrewsbury and the Monmouth County shore, was comparatively more successful. Led by John Morris, a career British officer who settled along the Monmouth Shore in the 1760s, the 2nd Battalion was judged worthy of campaigning with British regulars. It fought at Brandywine, Germantown and Monmouth. Later in the war, it sent companies with the British Army into the Carolinas and fought at Eutaw Springs and King’s Mountain. Morris did not last as battalion commander. In fall 1780, he was listed on a New Jersey Volunteer muster roll as a “cripple.” Morris finished the war on a half-pay pension in New York. Related Historical Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Adjutant General's Loyalist Manuscripts, Muster Rolls of New Jersey Volunteers, microfilm; Linda Grant-DePauw, FORTUNES OF WAR: NEW JERSEY WOMAN AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION New Jersey's Revolutionary Experience (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1975) pp. 25-6, New Jersey Volunteers, Troop Return, Library of Congress, MMC - Courtland Skinner, box 5; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Strangely Contaminated: The Loyalists of New Jersey; New York State Library, https://www.njstatelib.org/strangely-contaminated-the-loyalists-of-new-jersey-program-recap/ ; Braisted, Todd, A History of the 1st Battalion, New Jersey Volunteers, http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/rhist/njv/1njvhist.htm#:~:text=Led%20by%20the%20young%20and,grow%20in%20size%20and%20activity ; Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Elisha Lawrence, Coll. D96, PRO AO 13/110, reel 10; John Vanderhoven, Intelligence, in The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 17, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008, pp. 412–416, note 2; Nealon’s Troop Return, Clements Library, U Michigan, MacKenzie Papers, March 11, 1780; Monmouth County Historical Association, Diaries Collection, box 2, John Stillwell's Diary (photocopy); Return, New Jersey Volunteers, New Jersey State Archives, Dept of Defense, Military Records, Revolutionary War Copies, box 29, #14; Courtland Skinner, orders, David Library of the American Revolution, Great Britain Public Records Office, British Headquarters Papers, #4481; Spermacity Cove, the cedars and the ground in front so as to be able to follow should the enemy pass" -- BF Stevens, Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain (London: Mackie & Co, 1906) v2, p468; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Peter Paterson; Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, at the Monmouth County Historical Association. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Lewis Fenton, the Infamous Pine Robber by Michael Adelberg Major Henry Lee’s Dragoons were stationed in Monmouth County through much of 1779. They involved themselves in local affairs, including hunting down and killing the infamous Lewis Fenton. - July 1779 - Before the war, Lewis Fenton reportedly worked as a blacksmith’s apprentice near Freehold. He participated in the Loyalist insurrection of December 1776 but was not prominent in that short-lived movement. Historian David Fowler, who rigorously studied Fenton, notes that Fenton, like other early Pine Robbers, drifted toward outlaw activity after the Loyalist insurrections collapsed. In early 1777, Fenton stole clothes from a tailor. As he heard that a posse was forming to go after him, Fenton reportedly returned the clothes with a defiant note: "I have returned your damned rags. In a short time I am coming to burn your barns and houses, and roast you all like a pack of kittens." Fenton was indicted for larceny in Monmouth County Court of Common Pleas in 1777, for this incident or potentially for something else. Fowler notes that Lewis Fenton’s father, Thomas Fenton, composed his will in early 1777. He conveyed his land to Lewis Fenton’s brother-in-law, rather than Lewis. Thomas likely understood that Lewis’s disaffection and criminality would jeopardize his ability to pass on the estate. The extended Fenton family, based on what can be gleaned from tax lists and court documents, were people of modest standing who did not play prominent roles in the war—for either side. Lewis Fenton was an outlier. A man named Lewis Fenton is listed as having deserted from the First New Jersey Regiment of the Continental Army on July 13, 1777 document. He deserted with two men who had common Monmouth County surnames—Schenck and Buckalew. This raises the strong possibility that Fenton enlisted in the Army and briefly served; other disaffected Monmouth Countians were pardoned for their crimes in exchange for army service in the spring 1777, so Fenton might have received an offer to enlist. By late 1777, Fenton was again publicly disaffected. He was implicated in the case of State vs. John Pancas of Upper Freehold. Pancas was charged before the New Jersey Supreme Court for speaking Seditious Words. He was described in court papers as "being a pernicious & disaffected person and possessed of a turbulent mind.” On December 21, 1777, John Pancas “intending to terrify and dispirit the good subjects of this State”: Did falsely say and affect 'I have a great deal of cyder and whiskey to treat my friends with (meaning the soldiery of the King and certain disaffected subjects of this State) when they shall come through, and hope that they will come through soon, and I will get clear of the rebels and live in peace.’ Pancas was accompanied at the time by “a certain Lewis Fenton.” For this incident or others, Fenton was indicted at the 2nd Court of Oyer and Terminer (June 1778). Lewis Fenton, the Pine Robber Fowler notes that Fenton’s career as a Pine Robber may have begun a few weeks later. On the day following the Battle of Monmouth , Fenton robbed the Cooper family, two miles south of Freehold. Antiquarian sources recount that Fenton went to the farm and demanded food from Mrs. Cooper and her daughters. As the women were gathering food, Fenton was chased off by the appearance of five German soldiers recently deserted from the British Army . The small incident illustrates the chaos of the days following the battle. According to antiquarian sources, Fenton established a lair in Tinker Swamp, inland from Manasquan. From here, he robbed the tavern of Widow Harris and robbed travelers on their way to and from Manasquan. In August 1778, Major Richard Howell, with thirty Continental soldiers at Black Point (Rumson), wrote of Pine Robber activity to his south and suggested he would pursue them. This is probably a reference to Fenton, who was operating due south of Howell, although it is also possible that Howell was referring to Jacob Fagan whose gang laired further inland. Ultimately, Howell did not march after either of the Pine Robbers. The relationship between Fenton and Fagan is unknown, but they both had associates who called themselves “Burke.” They must have known of each other and might have even collaborated. This may be why Fenton killed Captain Benjamin Dennis, the man who killed Fagan , and then killed three of Fagan’s companions in early 1779. The Loyalist Royal Gazette wrote: "On Monday, June 5, 1779, Captain Dennis of Monmouth was shot by some freebooters that harbor in that County." It is notable that the Loyalist newspaper labeled Fenton a “freebooter” and did not embrace him. Fenton was now Monmouth County’s most notorious outlaw—and he grew bolder. On June 21, he and a small gang plundered the home of John Andrews of Upper Freehold. The robbery was not random—Andrews opposed the Loyalist insurrection in December 1776 and testified against insurrectionists in 1777. He owned a prosperous 135-acre farm. A month later, Fenton committed another brazen robbery. This time, his victim was Thomas Farr of Imlaystown. Farr was the Deacon of the local Baptist congregation , strong supporters of the Revolution. He was also Upper Freehold Township’s tax assessor. So, Farr was probably an enemy of locals with Loyalist leanings. The New Jersey Gazette reported (somewhat mistakenly) that on July 31: Thomas Farr and his wife and daughter… in the night were beaten by a gang supposed to be led by Lewis Fenton. About the same time, Fenton broke into and robbed the house of one Andrews, in Monmouth County. A second report in the same newspaper was more accurate and detailed: "The house of Mr. Thomas Farr, near Crosswicks Baptist Meeting House, was attacked by several armed men, who demanded entrance." Farr perceived their intent to rob the house, so "the family consisting only of himself, his wife and daughter, barricaded the door." Fenton and his gang "finding they could not get in there, fired several balls through the front door, one of which broke Mr. Farr's leg." The Robbers then entered the house through the back door where they “mortally wounded Mr. Farr with a bayonet, and shot his wife dead on the spot. Their daughter made her escape, after being badly wounded, to a neighbor's house." The robbers then left quickly, fearing that Farr’s daughter would spread the alarm. The newspaper reported that Fenton’s gang left "without any plunder” and “have not been discovered" since. New Jersey’s Legislative Council (Upper House of the Legislature) considered Fenton’s actions on August 24. It reported receiving affidavits: Concerning a number of villains who on the night of July 31st, broke into his home and shot him, the said Farr, who of the wounds he received is since dead, and also an affidavit from one Elizabeth Andrews of the robbery and burglary committed on the night of June 21st in her house by Lewis Fenton. The Council recommended a £500 bounty for the capture of Fenton and a £250 bounty for his associates; Governor William Livingston promptly issued it. The governor’s proclamation did not mention the killing of Captain Dennis, but detailed Fenton’s Upper Freehold felonies: Thomas Farr and his wife were most barbarously murdered in the house of said Farr, in the County of Monmouth, by a number of persons unknown, and in the night of June 21st last, the house of a certain Andrews, in the County of Monmouth, was feloniously broken open and plundered by one Louis [Lewis] Fenton, and a number of persons unknown. The Death of Lewis Fenton Fenton’s days were numbered. In early September, the New Jersey Gazette reported "a few days ago, a gang of villains, associates of the infamous Lewis Fenton, were made prisoners by a party of our militia in Monmouth County, and safely lodged in the county gaol." The report was not correct. New Jersey Gazette , reported again on September 23: "On Thursday last… a Mr. Van Mater [William Van Mater] was knocked off his horse… by Lewis Fenton and one DeBow [James DeBow], by whom he was stabbed in the arm and otherwise much abused, besides being robbed in the saddle.” Van Mater escaped and "went directly and informed a Sergeant's Guard of Major Lee's Light Dragoons , who were in the neighborhood, of what had happened.” The report continued: The Sergeant immediately impressed a wagon and horse and ordered three of them to secret themselves under some hay... on the approach of the wagon, Fenton (his companion being gone) rushed out to plunder it... while advancing toward the wagon, one of the soldiers shot him through the head, which killed him instantly on the spot. The men who killed Fenton were Virginians from Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee’s cavalry regiment. As noted in a prior article, Lee’s cavalry spent much of 1779 in Monmouth County, headquartered at Freehold but sending out small parties continuously to search for the expected French fleet (which never appeared). During that time, Lee’s men had the opportunity to participate in Monmouth County’s local war. Among other deeds, Lee’s men raided the British base at Sandy Hook and killed Fenton. One source notes that the sergeant who killed Fenton was named Cusak. Lee’s men killed Fenton, but the bounty proclamation called for Fenton’s capture. So, it was an open question whether the bounty could be paid to Lee’s men. The New Jersey Assembly ended the debate on October 6 by resolving to pay the £500 bounty to Major Henry Lee, who was not present at Fenton’s undoing, but commanded the men who did the deed. Presumably, Lee shared the bounty with his men. Fenton’s death was reported in the Virginia Gazette in December: A desperate gang of murderers, chiefly refugees and deserters from New York, were lately brought to punishment in a most striking manner. For months past, these miscreants have plundered the county of Monmouth with impunity; all means used to curb their excesses being eluded by their vigilance and sudden retreats to the pine forests. At length however, they were waylaid by a party of armed men, who put the whole to death on the spot. Fenton’s death was, no doubt, welcome news to many in Monmouth County. While it effectively ended inland Pine Robber activity, it was not the end of the Pine Robbers. Pine Robber gangs led by William Davenport, John Bacon, and others operated on the shore between Toms River and Little Egg Harbor through the end of the war. Davenport and Bacon are the subject of other articles. Related Historic Site : Old Yellow Meeting House Sources : David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) pp 146-164; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 10, 11 June 1777 – 18 August 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000, pp. 263–267; New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #37504; John Raum, The History of New Jersey (Philadelphia: John Potter, 1872) v2, p72; John C. Paterson, The Pine Robbers of Monmouth County, unpublished manuscript in the collection of the Monmouth County Historical Association, 1834, p 1-2; Benson Lossing, Pictorial Fieldbook of the Revolution (reprint: Kessinger Publishing, NY, 2006) v2, p368 note 1; Kenneth Scott, ed., Rivington's New York Newspaper: Excerpts from a Loyalist Press, 1773-1778 (New York, 1973) p 184; New York Royal Gazette published in William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 403; Robbery of Robert Andrews discussed in David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 161; Killing Benjamin Dennis discussed in Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p199; David C. Munn, "Revolutionary War Casualties," Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey, vol 55 (1980) p 144; Lewis Fenton’s robbery of the Farr family is in Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p 198 and other saources; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; William Livingston’s Proclamation and related papers are in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 161-2, 163, 206; David Bernstein, Minutes of the Governor's Privy Council, 1777-1789 (Trenton: New Jersey State Library, Archives and History Bureau, 1974) p 125; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; New Jersey Gazette report on Lewis Fenton’s death in Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p198; New Jersey Assembly resolve is in The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 6, 1779, p 198; Virginia Gazette, December 26, 1779; For information on Fenton’s extended family, see Michael Adelberg, Biographical File (on file at the Monmouth County Historical Association). Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Pulaski's Legion in Stafford Township by Michael Adelberg Kasimir Pulaski was a heroic officer who gave his life for the American Revolution. However, his newly-recruited Legion lost about half of its men during a disastrous two weeks in Stafford Township. - October 1778 - On October 15, 1778, Count Kasimir Pulaski and his new cavalry Legion was in dire straits. Hours earlier, in a pre-dawn attack that would become known as the Osborn Island Massacre , fifty of his 220 men were “cut to pieces” by a British-Loyalist raiding party, five others were captured, and 25 of his remaining men had just deserted. The only nearby town that might have had provisions for his men, Chestnut Neck , was razed a week earlier and incapable of assisting. The British flotilla that carried the raiding party had left Little Egg Harbor (called Egg Harbor at the time) that day—amid rumors that it would land men again on its way back to Sandy Hook. Pulaski’s decimated force rode north to shadow the vastly more powerful British force. As they did, they rode through Stafford Township, which was sparsely populated and poor. The life of the people living the region’s barrier islands and shallow bays was described by a German officer, Andreas Wiederholt, who spent days outside of Little Egg Harbor, in October 1779: The people who live on scattered islands are pilots who guide ships through channels and earn a living fishing. The islands are of poor soil, sandy and swampy so that not much grows except scrub cedar, pine, and marsh grass and reeds. Some of the ground around their houses is cultivated with soil amended with dung fertilizer which only support miserable vegetables. They have few livestock which graze on marsh grasses. The inhabitants must obtain wood, grain and other necessities from the mainland. The homes are all surrounded by dams and ditches, which constantly need replenishing or clearing out to protect the houses from floods or gales from the nearby ocean. A Quaker missionary, John Griffith, visited the region prior to the war; he wrote that it was filled with “loose and libertine” people. Pulaski’s Troubled March through Stafford Township Count Pulaski first wrote to Congress about his problems with the people of Stafford Township on October 16. He was unable to rally the local militia: “Major Montfort had been sent to the forks [on the Mullica River] to gather and bring the militia, but half of them were gone home and the remainder found so many difficulties that they almost mutinied." He continued: I beg you will order the militia to be obedient, or take them away entirely, for they are so ill-inclined that they will only spoil our affairs; besides, they disperse and retire when they please, particularly when they are wanted to face the enemy. Even worse were the local disaffected and Loyalists of Stafford Township (the southern third of today’s Ocean County) who were emboldened by Pulaski’s defeat: “I am constantly alarmed by parties of Tories who seem to make a sport of us, and who in all appearance make use of all opportunities to injure us.” Pulaski continued: I shall at last be forced to search the houses and take the oath of fidelity from the inhabitants, otherwise I shall be continually exposed. I shall endeavor to discover those who conceal the enemy although it will be dangerous as the Tories have sometimes fired on my patrols. But Pulaski singled out the Monmouth militia under Colonel Samuel Forman, arriving from Toms River: "toward the sea are good Whigs." Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress, received Pulaski’s letter and replied on October 18: "With respect to the Tories and the conduct of the militia which you complain of, attempts are daily made for reforming the conduct of both, but in infant States such evils are not to be removed in a moment." By this time, Pulaski was in motion, traveling to Barnegat in Stafford Township. Here, he was informed by locals that the British flotilla would land on the Monmouth County shore: “I am informed that the enemy have made some movement and that they may land this night. For fear of surprise, I shall wait for them under arms.” Pulaski’s intelligence included a report, presumably, from David Forman (now a Colonel, having resigned as a General of the militia amidst scandal ). “We were assured on this by the General [David Forman], who went to reconnoiter, himself.” The British flotilla did land a party near Barnegat. A militiaman, John Holmes, recalled camping at Barnegat where “the enemy landed in small parties & burnt some houses but could not effect landing to burn the salt works.” Barnegat was the site of a large and controversial salt works (likely never completed) co-owned by David Forman. Forman had proposed that these salt works would, in exchange for government funding, produce salt exclusively for the Continental Army. Pulaski reported that the quick departure of the British prevented him from engaging them. The landing party was also aided by local disaffected: “As they [the British] were concealed and favored by the Tories, they found means to re-embark.” Pulaski did not mention the role of the militia in blocking an easy landing by the would-be raiders. Pulaski promised to keep shadowing the flotilla in order to protect the Monmouth shore, “I shall conduct my forces toward Barnegat for fear that the Enemy may burn as they go on." He continued to complain about the militia, “I expect no assistance from the militia, for they have abandoned me.” However, according to Holmes, it was wisely-stationed militia that likely compelled the British landing party to give up its landing without burning the salt works at Barnegat, “the enemy landed in small parties & burnt some houses but could not effect landing to burn the salt works.” The next day, Gerard St. Elme, writing for Pulaski, informed Congress that, "We are betrayed on all sides, we cannot take a step but an hour later the enemy is informed.” St. Elme was not optimistic: “The number of the Legion is too small and in too ungrateful a country to undertake anything." Two days later, on October 21, Pulaski reported to Congress from Barnegat. The British ships were finally leaving, "the enemy are going away… save one frigate that ran ashore.” He also noted that other American forces were now headed back to Philadelphia: “I have directed Col Proctor to return to Philadelphia twenty-four hours after they are gone. I shall stop at Barnegat until they are passed.” Pulaski concluded, “My Corps is very much fatigued and require some days rest... I send you signatures of several inhabitants who have taken the Oath of Allegiance; they ought all take it." Between October 16 and October 21, Pulaski administered Loyalty oaths to at least eleven local residents: Silas Ireland, Joseph King, Stephen Ayers, Edward Parker, Samuel Parker, Noah Ridgeway, James Crammer, Adam Pettit, Cajah Willets, Peter Parker, Joseph Parker. The oath is below: I do swear before God the Supreme, that now being persuaded of the justice of our cause in defence of liberty, to be always faithful in fulfilling the will of the United States of America, their orders issued by the Honorable Congress, and also endeavor all in my power to render our country independent, so help me God. And I do solemnly swear or affirm that I do not hold myself bound to bear faith and allegiance to George, the King of Great Britain. I will solemnly declare and affirm that I do bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and will do all in my power to support the law established under the authority of the People. After the March Through Stafford Township Pulaski’s officers were Europeans, and most of the men who served in his Legion were recruited from Pennsylvania and Maryland. They probably were viewed as unwelcome foreigners by most of the locals. Stafford Township would become the center of Pine Robber activity later in the war, hosting the gangs of William Davenport and John Bacon. The residents and Stafford and Dover Townships continued to elect disaffected men to local offices through the end of the war. One of the few New Jersey recruits in Pulaski’s Legion was William McBride of Middlesex County, who enlisted at Britton’s tavern as the Legion headed toward the shore. His time in Stafford Township must have made an impression, as he volunteered for the State Troops regiment in 1780 that was sent into Stafford Township. He recalled serving at Cedar Creek (Tuckerton) "where there were many Tories and disaffected" and recalled pursuing a party of Pine Robbers who "were plundering the inhabitants." (McBride incorrectly stated the Loyalists were led by the African-American partisan leader, Colonel Tye .) After permitting his men a few days of rest at Barnegat. Pulaski ended the miserable assignment in Stafford Township. His men rode for Trenton, where they arrived on October 28. The New Jersey Gazette ’s brief article on Pulaski's return flatteringly suggested his Legion had "had driven the enemy on board their vessels." In reality, the two weeks in Stafford was a disaster—it had resulted in the death, capture, or desertion of more than a third of his men. This was an ominous sign of the misfortune that would befall a string of Continental regiments sent into Monmouth County in 1779. Related Historic Site : Barnegat Light Museum Sources : Kasimir Pulaski to Congress, Szymanski, Leszek, Casimir Pulaski: A Hero of the American Revolution, (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1993) p 216; Henry Laurens to Kasimir Pulaski, Szymanski, Leszek, Casimir Pulaski: A Hero of the American Revolution, (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1993) pp. 217-8; Kasimir Pulaski to Congress, Szymanski, Leszek, Casimir Pulaski: A Hero of the American Revolution, (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1993) pp. 217-8; Gerard St. Elme to Congress, Szymanski, Leszek, Casimir Pulaski: A Hero of the American Revolution, (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1993) pp. 218-9; Kasimir Pulaski to Congress, Szymanski, Leszek, Casimir Pulaski: A Hero of the American Revolution, (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1993) pp. 218-9; Griffith’s description is John Griffith, Journal of the Life, Travel and Labors in the Work of Ministry of John Griffith (London: James Phillips, 1779) p388-9; Weiderhold’s description is in JP Hand, The Cape May Navy, (Charleston, SC: History Press, 2018) pp. 71-76; Waldenmaier, Nellie Protsman, Some of the Earliest Oaths of Allegiance in the United States of America (Lancaster, Pa.: privately printed, 1944) p 72. Szymanski, Leszek. Casimir Pulaski: A Hero of the American Revolution, (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1993) p 220; Szymanski, Leszek, Casimir Pulaski: A Hero of the American Revolution, (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1993) p 220; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of William McBride of NJ, National Archives, p3-4, 20-2. 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 Defeated by New Jersey Volunteers Near Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg Captain John Dennis’s militia company was stationed in the town of Shrewsbury. The town’s proximity to the British base at Sandy Hook and disaffection of many residents put the militia at risk. - October 1777 - As noted in prior articles, in late September 1777, hundreds of Monmouth County’s most committed patriots mustered under Brigadier General David Forman and left the county to join George Washington’s Army in the defense of the nation’s capital, Philadelphia. Loyalists in the British service, camped on Staten Island and Sandy Hook, had good intelligence into Monmouth County through regular contact with illegal traders and disaffected inside the county. They saw an opportunity to attack while the best defenders were away. New Jersey Volunteers Attack Shrewsbury In early October, while Monmouth County was lacking Forman’s Additional Regiment and its most spirited militia, a company of New Jersey Volunteers (Loyalists) came off Sandy Hook and launched an incursion into Shrewsbury Township. Antiquarian accounts from the 1800s combined oral histories and sources to narrate this attack. According to the plurality of accounts, a company of New Jersey Volunteers under Captain John Taylor came off Sandy Hook to take back the cargo of a beached British vessel. A local militia party under Captain John Dennis was at the village of Shrewsbury, near the beached vessel. The Loyalists turned to attack the militia prior to taking the cargo. After a brief battle, the militia was scattered. The Loyalists captured Dennis and six or nine of his men. A junior officer, John Little, was killed. Dennis was jailed in New York and died three months later. Loyalist newspapers in New York reported on the attack. The New York Gazette offered a brief account that exaggerated the scope of the Loyalist victory: On Thursday last, about 40 men, part of Col. [Elisha] Lawrence's corps, proceeded from the Light House into Shrewsbury; that same night they met with a party of rebel Captain Dennis at Shrewsbury, guarding a schooner lately taken belonging to the Crown. They immediately attacked and took all the Rebels prisoners, and they are now on their passage to this city. The New York Gazette & Weekly Mercury published two similar but not identical accounts of the skirmish. These reports provide additional details on the clash. The reports state that the Loyalists “went in search of some rebel Light Horse that he [Taylor] heard was at Shrewsbury, and soon fell in with a party of militia.” The battle was brief but intense: “a smart firing ensued.” The reports did not mention retaking the cargo of a beached vessel. The reports list the captured militia beyond Captain Dennis; they were: “Lieut. Cook Lester, George Rivets, Abraham Lane, Michael Maps, Cornelius Treat and William Herrell.” One report lists Lieutenant John Little as fatally wounded. That same report notes that John Williamson, in Taylor’s party, was shot in the thigh during the action. Responding to the Attack Dr. Thomas Henderson, a close ally of David Forman who remained in Monmouth County, conveyed news of the attack to Forman, who was leading the Monmouth troops in Pennsylvania. Henderson sent militia Captain Andrew Brown to brief Forman. Brown carried a letter from Henderson: I have the unhappiness to inform you that we have lost a brave man, John Little, who was wounded in a skirmish with the Tories & died soon after. We have also lost Capt. John Dennis & nine of his men were lost by disobeying orders, for particulars, must refer you to the bearer or until I have the pleasure of seeing [you], which I wish speedily to be the case. Henderson also referenced observations made about British ships leaving Sandy Hook. Forman forwarded Henderson's letter to George Washington with a brief note vouching for Henderson’s credibility. Forman called Henderson, "a gentleman that has taken an early & warm attachment to our cause, a man of understanding and good information." On hearing from Brown, at least one Monmouth militia company broke off from Forman and returned to Monmouth County in haste. Tunis Aumack, a member of that company, recalled: He marched part of the way to Germantown in Pennsylvania before the engagement took place, but his company was sent back to drive off the British and Tories who were pillaging along the shore in their absence. Captain John Taylor (not the same man as the John Taylor who led the Middletown Loyalist Insurrection) was a tavern keeper at Colts Neck before the war. He was among the first wave of Monmouth Loyalists who joined the British in July 1776. He served in the New Jersey Volunteers throughout the war and was among the New Jersey Loyalists selected to join the British Army during the Carolina campaign. He was captured at the Battle of King’s Mountain in October 1781. John Dennis was replaced as militia captain by his brother, Benjamin Dennis. Despite the danger, the company continued to station itself in Shrewsbury village. Benjamin Dennis was killed by Pine Robbers in 1779. A third family member, Samuel Dennis, replaced him. In December 1778, Colonel Daniel Hendrickson, commanding the Shrewsbury militia, gave $30 to Rebecca Dennis, wife of Captain John Dennis, to help support the family. The author’s prior research demonstrates that roughly half of the militia officers from Shrewsbury and Middletown, the township’s closest to Sandy Hook, were victimized during the war. Overall, leaders were twice as likely to suffer during the war as the general population. Related Historic Site : The Allen House Sources : Mary Hyde, Jersey at Germantown, New York Times, May 3, 1896, p1-2; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p204; David C. Munn, "Revolutionary War Casualties," Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey, vol 55 (1980) p 144; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 1, pp. 473-4; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Tunis Aumock; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Thomas Henderson to David Forman, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 44, October 5 and 9, 1777; Michael Adelberg, “An Evenly Balanced County: The Scope and Severity of Civil Warfare in Revolutionary Monmouth County New Jersey,” Journal of Military History , January 2009, vol. 73, n. 1, pp. 9-48; Daniel Hendrickson, Certificate, Monmouth County Historical Association, Haskell Collection, box 1, folder 10. 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 > Defending the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River by Michael Adelberg Often called the “Financier of the American Revolution,” Pennsylvania’s Robert Morris served in the Continental Congress and twice sought to protect the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River. - November 1776 - A prior article discussed the establishment of salt works along the Jersey shore in the early years of the American Revolution. The most ambitious of these salt works was the Pennsylvania Salt Works. It was established at Toms River in July 1776 by Thomas Savadge of Philadelphia with financial backing from the Pennsylvania government. These and other salt works along the Jersey were vulnerable to attack and their defense was a continuous concern. With the Continental Army in retreat across New Jersey in early November, the Pennsylvania government moved to protect its investment at Toms River. On November 2, the Pennsylvania Council of Safety resolved to send "an officer and twenty-five men to the Salt Works at Toms River as a guard, and twenty-five spare muskets and two howitzers, and sufficient amount of ammunition to defend in case of attack." The Continental Congress was also requested to "write to Gov. [William] Livingston of New Jersey for two companies of militia to guard the salt works near Toms River." The Continental Congress acted on this request just three days later but, notably, focused on more than just the defense of the Pennsylvania Salt Works: Resolved, that the President write Governor Livingston and request him to send two companies of militia to Toms River to guard the salt works, and one company to be stationed at or near Shrewsbury to intercept and put a stop to the intelligence said to be carrying on between the Tories and Lord Howe's fleet; that the companies to consist of 50 men each. Meanwhile, Robert Morris, a Pennsylvania delegate in the Continental Congress, advised his state’s Council of Safety: If you were to man Cap Rice’s Galley immediately & send her round to Toms River she would not only save the Salt Works until a proper Land force can be appointed but would also probably be very useful in retaking some of the Prizes the Men of War send along shore for N. York. There is no evidence, however, that Captain Rice made it to Toms River. On November 21, in response to the prompt from the Continental Congress, Governor William Livingston ordered Colonel Isaac Smith of the Hunterdon County militia to Shrewsbury, "You are hereby directed to detach one company of fifty men under your command to be stationed at or near Shrewsbury." Col Bowes Read received orders on the same day to take Burlington militia to Toms River to protect the salt works. With the British Army pushing across New Jersey in late November, it is doubtful that the Hunterdon or Burlington militias reached Monmouth County. The Pennsylvania Salt Works were unguarded in early December when Colonel John Morris and his 2nd Battalion of New Jersey Volunteers re-entered Monmouth County and established Loyalist control over the Monmouth shore. In January, Thomas Savadge wrote about his meeting with Colonel Morris on December 23: When I heard the Colonel and his party were at Toms River, I thought it best to go to him and know the truth of it. When I was introduced to him, he told me he had positive orders from Lord Howe to destroy them [the salt works], but by informing him that ye works were not altogether publick property, he politely told me he would not destroy them or send his party there. Two days later, two noted Tories, John Williams and Joseph Allen, came with orders from General Skinner [Courtland Skinner] to seize the works for the King's use, accordingly, one of them came to the works on the next day and put 'R' for Royal on each building, but Monday morning they decamped in haste and I have seen no more of them since. In the same letter, Savadge reminded the Pennsylvania government that his salt works were still vulnerable: Lord Howe has a galley near completed that carries a brass 18 pounder in her bow & 12 pounder in her stern, with a number of swivels and cohorns, and is intended to lay in Toms River and Barnegat Inlet and in consequence will destroy the works if not prevented by some vessels of the same force stationed in ye bay. The Pennsylvania Council of Safety responded to Savadge’s letter. On February 5, it resolved that “a Captain and a Company of Penns. Regt with two pieces of cannon be sent into New Jersey for the protection of the salt works there [Pennsylvania Salt Work at Toms River], at the expense of this State." Before the Pennsylvania guards arrived, Savadge felt a need to remind the Council of Safety about the problems with the local militia: The militia in this part of the county is by no means calculated for the defense thereof; for more than half of them are Tories and the rest but little better. I am of the opinion that if this part of the county is to be defended it must be by Continental troops who know their duty, or militia of another State. He also reported a rumor about Col. Morris's return, "if this is true, the works are gone." On February 17, the Council of Safety, acting on another nudge from Robert Morris, ordered a guard for the Pennsylvania Salt Works. “Resolved, that the armed boat Delaware , under the command of Richard Eyre, be immediately fitted out and ordered to proceed with all expedition to said works for the defense thereof, until further orders." However, there were delays in readying the vessel and it did not leave for Toms River until March 27. The defense of the Pennsylvania Salt Works was a legitimate concern. An April 1778 British-Loyalist raid destroyed several of the salt works north of Toms River and probably would have destroyed the Pennsylvania Salt Works were it not for a change in the weather inhibiting the raiders. But, in reality, Savadge’s salt work was a failing venture that, despite significant investment, did not produce any appreciable amount of salt. Labor shortages, exacerbated by mandatory militia service, blocked progress and frustrated Savadge. Similar problems would plague the Union Salt Works on the Manasquan River, the other large-scale salt works on the Jersey shore, were it not for soldiers being deployed as laborers. That topic and the demise of the Pennsylvania Salt Works are discussed in other articles. Related Historic Sites : Ocean County Historical Society Sources : William Fischer, The Toms River Block House Fight, March 24, 1782; Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 14, p419-20; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 193-4; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 419; Peter Force, American Archives, 4th series, vol. 3, pp. 182-183; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 6, p 925; Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 6 January 1, 1777 - April 30, 1777, Robert Morris to Benjamin Rush, p311, n2; Pennsylvania Archives, Second Series, Vol. I., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1879, pp. 491; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 173, 182-4; William Fischer, The Toms River Block House Fight, March 24, 1782; Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 14, p420; William McMahon, South Jersey Towns — History and Legend (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1973) p 304; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, p 177; Library Company, Minutes of the Pennsylvania Council of Safety, vol. 2, p114; Minutes of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Theo. Fenn, 1853) vol. 11, pp. 114; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, p 216; Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 6, p 310 note 2; Library Company, Minutes of the Pennsylvania Council of Safety, vol. 2, p126, 191; Minutes of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Theo. Fenn, 1853) vol. 11, pp. 126, 191; Clement Biddle to John Hancock, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 83, item 69, vol. 1, #355. DH Previous Next

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > 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 > The Establishment of the Association for Retaliation by Michael Adelberg Conrad Alexandre Gerard, the French diplomat, wrote with concern about rising vigilantism in Monmouth County in 1779; he could not stop formation of the Retaliators, a vigilante society, in 1780. - July 1780 - In spring 1780, Loyalist raiding parties ungoverned by military officers emerged as a dangerous, new enemy for Monmouth Countians. They kidnapped a dozen militia officers and several other Monmouth leaders. Inside Monmouth County, rage and desperation reached a new level; meanwhile, the expected return of the French fleet put county leaders in motion—traveling from Freehold to shore to create stores of provisions. This enabled Freehold Township leaders, particularly a clique of Machiavellian leaders who attended the Tennent Church together, to promote a bold idea—establishing a vigilante society to inflict eye-for-an-eye retaliation whenever a member of the society was attacked. Continental Leaders Worry about Vigilantism Throughout the war, Continental leaders worried about Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) engaging in lawless violence. Dr. Benjamin Rush, serving in the Continental Congress, for example, discussed "furious Whigs" who “injure the cause of liberty… by their violence." George Washington worried about New Jersey militia officers from “the lowest class of people… leading men into every kind of mischief; one species of which is plundering the inhabitants under pretense of being Tories." Worries about local leaders behaving lawlessly pushed Governor William Livingston to issue a proclamation on February 5, 1777. He scolded local officials who have “forcibly carried away and seized the goods of their fellow inhabitants on pretense that the owners thereof were inimical to the Liberties of America." Livingston warned that retribution would "inflame the minds of the sufferers... and abolish all discipline." Livingston ordered militia officers and other civil officials to "desist for the future from all depredations and violence" without legal due process. Monmouth Countians Petition for Tougher Laws Against Enemies In Monmouth County, scars from the Loyalist insurrections and the disastrous Battle of the Navesink trumped the Governor’s warning. Over the next three years, they repeatedly petitioned the Legislature for stronger laws to punish Loyalists and their kin at home. The petitions are summarized below: In March 1777, petitioners argued against leniency for disloyal citizens who “have nothing to fear from violation of the laws of this state.” They called for stricter laws to punish the at-home disaffected. In June 1777, petitioners (in two petitions) plundered of property during the Loyalist insurrections sought a law that would compensate them from the estates of Loyalists. When the Legislature did not act, Nathaniel Scudder, the County’s leading political figure, wrote Governor Livingston in April 1778: The Tory race, who have increased under our nurture, that is to say our lenient measures, are now much more dangerous than the British troops. Alas, my dear sir, instead of rearing our heads as heretofore like the stout oak, we flag like the parcel of bull rushes. Other petitions called for the State to prevent Loyalists from returning home, and re-punishing Loyalists formerly jailed but now “suffered to go at large." At least three more petitions went forward in 1779 calling for more vigorous actions against the at-home disaffected. In May and September 1779, petitioners (in three petitions) argued that county residents were “deprived of their property by some of the fugitives that have joined the enemy from this county.” They wanted victims “compensated by [the estates of] such fugitives as have left their estates." Extra-Legal Acts Against Loyalists in Monmouth County Even while Monmouth Countians were seeking stronger laws against Loyalists and at-home disaffected, some were taking matters into their own hands. Perhaps most notably, in October 1777, David Forman, a Colonel in the Continental Army (who would soon have his troops taken away from him) hanged the Loyalist Stephen Edwards without a civil trial. Other events would follow. In January 1778, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard a trespass case against William Wikoff. The state charged Wikoff “with diverse other persons, with force and arms… unlawfully did assemble and close the stable of a certain Denice Holmes.” There, he “unlawfully did break and enter, and a horse belonging to Daniel Van Mater, did maliciously and unlawfully take from said stable to the evil example of all others." Van Mater was a Loyalist whose horse was apparently being boarded by Holmes. Wikoff had served as a captain under David Forman and his family had opposed the Loyalist insurrections. In 1782, the Supreme Court heard a case in which the State charged three leading Monmouth Whigs--John Burrowes, David Forman and Elisha Walton—with illegally detaining a Loyalist. Prosecutors charged that on April 1, 1778, "James O'Hara had then and there committed a felony & was flying from justice and was on his way to New York.” O’Hara was taken by the men who “falsely and unlawfully did conceal and keep secret the wicked intentions of the said James O'Hara... whereby O'Hara was not then & there brought to justice." O’Hara was detained without arrest; he re-emerged as a Pine Robber in 1781. After the destructive raid against Middletown Point in May 1778, a Monmouth County Whig published a threat to retaliate against civilians in Brooklyn in the New Jersey Gazette on June 6: O, ye butchering British monster! We are not obliged to delay retaliating any longer! - Therefore, as you value the safety of your friends on the Island, do not send another example as that of Middletown [Point], for the consequence may prove fatal to the Tories on the Island. Concurrently, William Marriner and John Schenck launched their surprise counter-raid against Brooklyn, and the Monmouth County Court of Oyer and Terminer issued a dozen capital convictions—more than any county court would issue during the war. Later that year, the captured Loyalist, James Pew, was murdered in the Monmouth County jail by the prison guard, James Tilley. Word of vigilante activity in Monmouth County reached Philadelphia. Conrad Alexandre Gerard, the French diplomat at Philadelphia, wrote with concern on February 10, 1779: The impunity with which the Tories who lived in New Jersey have exercised all kinds of exhortation in the proximity of the English [has] embitters the Whigs, who have themselves re-assembled throughout all parts of the County of Monmouth, which is very fertile in Tories. They [Tories] infest the roads with robbery, the Whigs give their hunt; they seize property all over where they find [Tories]; they kill in great numbers [and] they accuse throughout. They [Whigs] drag them [Tories] before the juries of their choice and assume the right of the [entire] body of people; they pronounce the guilty and enforce their sentences immediately without due processes, and confiscate their goods. People hope this rage will calm down through public vengeance and the particular exercises of the Whigs. If such exercises are the good fruits of Democratic Liberty, this is a good fruit people cannot wish on their enemies. Extra-legal retaliation also had its moments in the Continental Congress; a few times, it threatened eye-for-an-eye retaliation. For example, on May 24, 1779, Congress stated that the British ”have perpetrated the most unnecessary, wanton and outrageous barbarities… deliberately putting many to death in cool blood after they had surrendered, abusing women and desolating the country." So, Congress resolved: “Congress will retaliate for cruelties and violations of the laws of nations committed in these states against the subjects of His Most Christian Majesty, in like manner and measure.” Establishing the Association for Retaliation A year later, in June 1780, the New Jersey Legislature’s Upper House, the Legislative Council, recorded receiving a petition from Monmouth County praying "that retaliation may be made on the disaffected to induce the enemy to treat our citizens more humanely." The Council minutes do not record a response to the petition, but the petition was sent to the Assembly (the Lower House). The Assembly’s minutes record receiving two petitions from Monmouth County about retaliation. The first one: "praying that a law may be enacted to enable them to retaliate upon the disaffected in the said County, under proper regulations and restrictions" was referred to the Committee. The second one prayed for a law that would allow petitioners “to apprehend a number of the most notoriously disaffected who are related to the most considerable among the Refugees, and to keep them in close custody until the loyal subjects of the State, in the hands of the refugees are liberated.” The petitioners well knew that many families split apart during the war. Punishing the kin of a Loyalist based on the (alleged) sins of that Loyalist is impossible to ethically defend. If the kin of the Loyalist was “notoriously disaffected,” those individuals could stand trial for their own actions. One of these petitions has survived. The petitioners complained of: The enemy amongst us, who not only conceal the plunderers, but we believe, give information as to most of our movements, and are so crafty that we are not able to bring lawful accusations against them, although there is great reason to think they are active aforesaid, by which means they take off any persons they please, plunder our houses, take our property. The petitioners worried about the militia and state troops “not being up to the task.” They then requested: As no means appears to us to be so effective as that of retaliation, we therefore earnestly pray that your honourable body will form such a law as may enable us to make such retaliation, as person for person and property for property, under such restrictions & regulations as to your honours will seem most adequate to the suppression of aforesaid. Importantly, the petitioners requested a law to enable “person for person and property for property” retaliation—a tacit acknowledgement that such actions were not legal under existing law. On June 23, David Forman (who was assisting the Continental Army with preparations for the arrival of the French fleet) wrote George Washington regarding a raid against Middletown that took ten captives (seven were liberated). Forman interrogated a Loyalist captured during the raid: On his examination, he confesses he is not a soldier - neither was he to receive any pay - that their sole business was to take a number of inhabitants from their houses and to plunder, & that the plunder was to be divided amongst them. The fact is they were probably a marauding gang. Forman called on Washington to clarify that he could execute such a man for “marauding”—a power granted to British officers. Forman referred to a standing British order: Declaring that all persons not uniformed & acting without a commissioned officer, if taken, should be hanged immediately as marauders - some such example, I am sure, is necessary in this part of the country to deter that class of people; we can no longer be secure at night. My next dispatch shall cover, for your Excellency's opinion and if agreeable to the rules of war, that prisoners taken in that way may be executed. At this same time, articles that would establish the Association for Retaliation were being drafted. Forman and others were traveling between Freehold and the shore, making it easier to promote the Association for Retaliation’s first meeting—to be held at Freehold on July 1. The articles were circulated; signatures were collected. On July 1, the Association for Retaliation held its first public meeting at the county courthouse to elect a nine-man Board of Directors. According to antiquarian sources, Retaliators were sworn to secrecy under threat of the "direst penalty." 436 Monmouth Countians signed the articles—more signatures than any Monmouth County document from the Revolutionary Era. A number of David Forman’s political rivals —including Colonel Asher Holmes—chose to sign, though they probably regretted doing so later on. The articles of the Association for Retaliation stated the worldview of the Retaliators: Whereas from the frequent incursions and depredations of the enemy (and more particularly of the refugees) in this county, whereby not only the lives but the liberty and property of every determined Whig are endangered, they, upon every such incursion, either burning or destroying houses, making prisoners of, and most inhumanly treating aged and peaceable inhabitants, and plundering them of all portable property, it has become essentially necessary to take some different and more effectual measures to check said practices. They further complained about local disaffected who “in general have been suffered to reside unmolested among us, numbers of which, we have full reason to believe, are aiding and accessory to those detestable practices.” The Retaliators, therefore, “actuated solely by the principles of self-preservation… solemnly associate for the purpose of retaliation” and “obligate ourselves” to: Warrant and defend such persons as may be appointed for the purpose of making restitution to such friends to their country as may hereafter have their houses burned or broke to pieces, their property wantonly destroyed or plundered, their persons made prisoners. The eye-for-an-eye credo of the Retaliators was then laid out in three provisions: First, for every good subject of this state residing within the county that shall become an associator, that shall be taken… on the errand of plundering and man-stealing, there shall be taken an equal number of the most disaffected and influential residing and having property within the county, and them confine within the Provost jail and treat them with British rigor, until the good subjects of this state taken as aforesaid shall be fully liberated. Second, for every house that shall be burned or destroyed, the property of a good subject that enters with this association, there shall be made full retaliation upon or out of the property of the disaffected as aforesaid. Third, for every article of property taken as aforesaid from any of the associators, being good subjects, the value thereof shall be replaced out of the property of the disaffected as aforesaid. Finally, the Retaliators pledged to support the militia (“We will turn out at all times when the country is invaded, and at other times do our proportionate part towards the defence thereof.”) and advertise themselves in the New Jersey Gazette . These provisions may have been included to assuage fears that the Retaliators would work in opposition to Whig institutions such as the militia. (The full Articles for Retaliation are in Appendix 1 of this article.) The Retaliators knew that their existence was controversial; Nathaniel Scudder, a member of the Retaliator Board, wrote letters on July 12 and 17 to Philadelphia seeking to legitimize the group in the nation’s capital (see Appendix 2). In one of his letters, Scudder was too frank, writing (and underlining): “We are well aware of the objections this distressing mode is liable to cause, as being not agreeable to law, liable to abuse and likely sometimes to injure the innocent - but alas my dear friend, necessity has no law.” With this statement, Scudder crystalized the problem posed by the Retaliators—they judged themselves so righteously aggrieved that they could commit unlawful and brutal acts , including against people whose only “crime” was having Loyalist kin. The Loyalist New York Gazette also printed the Articles for Retaliation. The writer noted that two members of the Retaliator Board had been prisoners in New York “whereupon, instead of the pains of imprisonment, were through the grace & benignity of Government, they were genteelly lodged and protected from every kind of insult.” While Loyalists, “merely for conscientious adherence to principle” are “condemned at mock tribunals, tortured and ignominiously put to death." The writer concluded that the Retaliators should be "most exemplarily and emphatically retaliated upon." Indeed, the vigilante Associated Loyalists in New York would emphatically retaliate upon the Retaliators, and they would retaliate in kind. As this author has previously written, retaliation propelled the local war Monmouth County for the next two years toward climactic retaliation in April 1782. Related Historic Site : Old Tennent Church Appendix 1: Articles of Association for Retaliation Whereas from the frequent incursions and depredations of the enemy (and more particularly of the refugees) in this county, whereby not only the lives but the liberty and property of every determined Whig are endangered, they, upon every such incursion, either burning or destroying houses, making prisoners of, and most inhumanly treating aged and peaceable inhabitants, and plundering them of all portable property, it has become essentially necessary to take some different and more effectual measures to check said practices, than have ever yet been taken; and as it is a fact, notorious to every one, that these depredations have always been committed by the refugees (either black or white) that have left this country, or by their influence or procurement, many of whom have near relations and friends, that in general have been suffered to reside unmolested among us, numbers of which, we have full reason to believe, are aiding and accessory to those detestable practices. We, the subscribers, inhabitants of the county of Monmouth, actuated solely by the principles of self-preservation, being of opinion that the measure will be strictly justifiable on the common principles of war, and being encouraged thereto by an unanimous resolve of the honorable the congress, passed the 30th of Oct., 1778, wherein they in the most solemn manner declare that through every possible change of fortune they will retaliate, do hereby solemnly associate for the purpose of retaliation, and do obligate ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, and every of them jointly and severally, to all and every of the subscribers and their heirs, to warrant and defend such persons as may be appointed to assist this association in the execution thereof; and that we will abide by and adhere to such rules and regulations for the purpose of making restitution to such friends to their country as may hereafter have their houses burned or broke to pieces, their property wantonly destroyed or plundered, their persons made prisoners of whilst peaceably at their own habitations about their lawful business not under arms, as shall hereafter be determined on by a committee of nine men duly elected by the associates at large out of their number; which rules and regulations shall be founded on the following principles, FIRST - For every good subject of this state residing within the county, that shall become an associator, and shall be taken or admitted to parole by any party or parties of refugees as aforesaid, that shall come on the errand of plundering and man-stealing, the good subject not actually under or taken in arms, there shall be taken an equal number of the most disaffected and influential residing and having property within the county, and them confine within the Provost jail and treat them with British rigor, until the good subjects of this state taken as aforesaid shall be fully liberated. SECOND - For every house that shall be burned or destroyed, the property of a good subject that enters with this association, there shall be made full retaliation upon or out of the property of the disaffected as aforesaid. THIRD - That for every article of property taken as aforesaid from any of the associators, being good subjects, the value thereof shall be replaced out of the property of the disaffected as aforesaid. We do also further associate for the purpose of defending the frontiers of this county, and engage each man for himself that is a subject of the militia that we will turn out at all times when the county is invaded, and at other times do our proportionate part towards the defence thereof. We the associators do hereby direct that a copy of this association be, as soon as the signing is completed, transmitted to the printer of the New Jersey Gazette, for publication, and that the original be lodged in the clerk's office. Also we do request, that the associators will meet at the courthouse on Saturday, the 1st of July, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon for the purpose of electing a committee of nine men, as before mentioned, to carry the said association into effect. Appendix 2: Nathaniel Scudder’s July 1780 Letters on Retaliation Nathaniel Scudder letters to Philadelphia on July 12 and July 17. Excerpts on Retaliation: July 12 : “After petitioning the Legislature without success for a law of retaliation or other remedy for depredations of the Refugees, and now despairing any other effectual mode of redress, the inhabitants of the County have entered into a solemn association (near 500 have signed it) to retaliate in kind upon the disaffected among us for all the damages, burnings, kidnappings, etc., done or perpetrated by the Refugees - and the Association has chosen a committee to execute the general purposes of the said association & General Forman is our chairman & that the association have jointly pledged themselves and their fortunes to support & defend us, you will not doubt that the execution will be rigidly punctual & delivered.” July 17 : “We suffer greatly in this part of the country from the murder, depredation, and kidnappings of the refugees and disaffected... we have from the necessity of the case on the sole ground of self-preservation been compelled to enter into a general association for the purpose of retaliation on the persons and property of the notoriously disaffected yet residing amongst us, for all damages depredations, burnings, kidnappings & c. done or committed by any of the refugees on the associators in this neighborhood; [we] amount to near or quite 500, & the number is daily increasing - they have chosen a committee of execution and have solemnly pledged themselves to defend them in the prosecution of the business - an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth [underlined], we are well aware of the objections this distressing mode is liable to, as being not agreeable to law, liable to abuse and likely sometimes to injure the innocent - but alas my dear friend, necessity has no law [underlined], we could no longer consent to be murdered and plundered by rule while from the laxness and timidity & indecision of our own magistrates the law was rather a screen for the Tories, while they [laws] afforded but little security to the well-affected citizens." Sources : Washington’s quote is in Ruth M. Keesey, "New Jersey Legislation Concerning Loyalists," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 79 (1961), p 81; Governor Livingston's Proclamation, American Revolution Digital Learning Project, www.amrevonline.org ; Petition contained in: National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, James Wall of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 20366031; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, February 18-19, 1778, p 55, 58; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, May 29, 1778, p 123 and June 3, 1778, p 129; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 245; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, September 28, 1779, p 178-180; New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #39523; Nathaniel Scudder to William Livingston, Massachusetts Historical Society, William Livingston Papers; New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #34123; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 2, pp. 246-7; Conrad Alexandre Gerard, Despatches and Instructions of Conrad Alexandre Gerard, 1778-1780, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1939) pp. 510-1; Journals of the Continental Congress, (Philadelphia: David Claypool, 1782) vol. 5, p220; the articles establishing the Association of Retaliation are printed in Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p206; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1780) p95-6; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 9, 1780, p 229; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 67, June 23, 1780; New Jersey Historical Society, MG-14 (Ely Collection), Petition, Monmouth County; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 219-20; Nathaniel Scudder to John Scudder, New Jersey Historical Society, Letters: Nathaniel Scudder; Nathaniel Scudder to Henry Laurens, Pennsylvania History Society, Dreer Collection, Nathaniel Scudder, August 17, 1780; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Tilton, LeRoy W. "New Jersey Petition of 1780, Concerning Retaliation," National Genealogical Society Quarterly, vol. 34, Spring 1946, pp. 75-76; “’A Combination to Trample All Law Underfoot’”: The Association for Retaliation and the American Revolution in Monmouth County, New Jersey,” New Jersey History , 1997; Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, unpublished compendium at the Monmouth Historical Association. Previous Next