The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The First Battle of Monmouth by Michael Adelberg Under the command of Francis Gurney, Thomas Mifflin led 120 Pennsylvanians in routing 200 Monmouth Loyalist recruits under Elisha Lawrence at Freehold on January 2, 1777. - January 1777 - The Battle of Monmouth, fought on June 28, 1778, is the most famous Revolutionary War event to occur in Monmouth County. Thousands of men from both of the great armies participated. But the principal actors in the battle, whether Continental or British, were not from Monmouth County. A week before the battle they were outside the county; a week after the battle they were outside the county. And the Battle of Monmouth did not greatly change the trajectory of the local war inside the county. In contrast, a much smaller battle occurred in nearly the same place eighteen months earlier on January 2, 1777. Unlike the much larger second Battle of Monmouth, only a few hundred men participated in this first Battle of Monmouth. Unlike the larger second Battle of Monmouth, the majority of fighters in this first Battle of Monmouth were Monmouth Countians. And this first Battle of Monmouth was pivotal in changing the trajectory of Monmouth County’s local war. Loyalists Gather at Freehold to Form New Militia As noted in prior articles about the Loyalist insurrections in Upper Freehold and Freehold-Middletown (less so in the Shrewsbury insurrection), Monmouth County’s embryonic Loyalist regime sought to legitimize its rule by turning out all able-bodied men at Freehold starting on December 28, 1776. The men would take British loyalty oaths and either enlist in the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers or divide up into Loyalist militia companies. The resulting Loyalist militia would become the vehicle for enforcing future Loyalist rule. A week earlier, Lt. Colonel Elisha Lawrence, leading the 1st Battalion of New Jersey Volunteers, had re-entered Monmouth County. He recalled, "In December 1776, he was ordered into Monmouth County with his battalion to collect horses and wagons for use of the Army, he collected many." As the first recruits began dribbling into Freehold in the days before Christmas, Lawrence positioned himself as the commander of this nascent county militia. Establishing a camp capable of provisioning several hundred men was critical to the plan. The first document to discuss this is a December 22, 1776 letter from Colonel Joseph Reed of Pennsylvania to George Washington. Reed forwarded intelligence from an informer who saw sixteen wagons “for the Baggage of about 500 Men who were to quarter about Cranberry—inlisted Tories commanded by one Lawrence [Elisha Lawrence]." The informer was incorrect about the location—the Loyalist camp would be at Freehold. At this time, public notices went up across Monmouth County calling on men between the ages of 16 and 60 to report to Freehold on December 28. The notices were signed by three British-appointed Monmouth County Commissioners—John Lawrence of Upper Freehold, John Taylor of Middletown, and John Wardell of Shrewsbury. Small numbers of men started arriving at Freehold on December 28. Word of Washington’s victory at Trenton and a fresh snowfall likely dampened turnout. On December 31, Col. John Cadwalader commanding a regiment of Continentals close to the British Army in western New Jersey wrote George Washington on the gathering of Loyalists at Freehold: Colonel Elisha Lawrence (late Sheriff of Monmouth) is now collecting men at Monmouth Court House. He has got together about 70 men. He has put twenty men into prison for refusing to bear arms. The person who brings the intelligence flew [from Lawrence]; Major Nichols is desirous of going after Lawrence's party. I think it is not an object at this time, and have refused the application. Gurney’s Pennsylvanians March on Freehold General Israel Putnam also learned of the gathering Loyalists at Freehold as (he commanded Continental forces at Crosswicks and Allentown in the days immediately before the Battle of Princeton on January 3). Putnam detached a regiment of Pennsylvania soldiers under Lt. Colonel Francis Gurney to head to Freehold to engage the gathering Loyalists. One of Gurney’s junior officers, Adam Hubley, described the engagement at Freehold, 1/2/77: We arrived there Thursday evening, we were informed of a party of men consisting of about 200, under the command of Col Morris. We had our party (about 120 in number) formed in proper order and intended to attack them in town, about a half hour before night. Col Morris [a reference to John Morris, but it was Elisha Lawrence] it seems got account of our arrival, had his men drawn and baggage in order to move toward Middletown, a town about 18 miles below the Court House. They pushed off from town and got about a mile and a half, within sight of us. We immediately pushed after them, when they made a halt. We came up, about a quarter of an hour before night, when we engaged them, and they stood us about 8 minutes, a very heavy firing was kept up between us for that time. The enemy at last gave way, and retreated very precipitously, at this time it was quite dark and we could not see what loss the enemy sustained. On our side, we had none killed. We marched from the field to the town and lodged there that night. The next morning we sent out a party to the field we engaged in, they brought four dead bodies, which we buried. We took during the engagement 23 prisoners, which we brought to this place. We also took from the enemy 7 wagon loads of stores and 12 horses. Putnam summarized the battle similarly on January 6, though his numbers differ slightly from Hubley: Major Mifflin [Thomas Mifflin], at the head of 120 men, attacked a body of 250 Tory recruits in Monmouth County a few days ago, killed 4 of them and took 24 prisoners. They were enlisted during the American rebellion. Captain Smith, with about 30 rifle-men has brought 22 prisoners with a wagon containing their baggage. Putnam’s choice of the term “Tory recruits” explains why the smaller body of Pennsylvanians was able to rout the larger body of Monmouth Loyalists. The Pennsylvanians, though poorly armed and trained in comparison to the British Army, were vastly better armed and trained than the Loyalists. It can be safely assumed that the Loyalists lacked the cohesion, discipline, and munitions necessary for battle. When the first few Loyalists turned and ran, it likely induced a general panic in their ranks. If 200+ committed Loyalists were not taken and shipped out of state in December, the outcome might have been different. An additional account of this first Battle of Monmouth is in the pension application of John Hunter of Pennsylvania, who served under Major Thomas Mifflin: They then marched against Col [John] Morris [actually Elisha Lawrence] of Monmouth and drove him and his forces, that they killed some and took others prisoners and that they took plunder from the enemy in that encounter to amount to ten dollars per soldier when sold. Nathaniel Scudder of Freehold also described the battle: Gen'l Putnam detached a party of militia [Flying Camp] under command of Col Francis Gurney of Philadelphia, who marched them into Monmouth, routed the Tories and seized a considerable body of stores in several places. After the battle, Scudder guided Gurney to Middletown and Shrewsbury in a campaign that finished off Monmouth County’s brief Loyalist regime. It is interesting that Hunter chose to note that the Pennsylvanians received a bounty based on the sale of confiscated Loyalist stores. This might explain why the Pennsylvanians were so eager to continue the campaign against Monmouth Loyalists, the subject of the next article . Related Historic Site : Monmouth Battlefield State Park Sources : Michael Adelberg, The Forgotten First Battle of Monmouth, Journal of the American Revolution, March 2013, https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/05/the-forgotten-first-battle-of-monmouth/ ; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 7, 21 October 1776–5 January 1777, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997, pp. 414–417; Peter Force, ed., American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution 1774–1776, 9 vols. (1837–53), 5th Services, vol. 3, pp. 1514; Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Elisha Lawrence, Coll. D96, PRO AO 13/110, reel 10; Joseph Reed, Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blankston, 1847, p 287-8; Gaillard Hunt, Fragments of Revolutionary History (Brooklyn: Historical Publishing Club, 1892) pp. 112-5; Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, pp. 158, 168. Dennis Ryan, A Salute To Courage The American Revolution as Seen through Wartime Writings (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979) pp. 60-1; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 178, item 159, #33; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Hunter of PA, www.fold3.com/image/#24019015 . Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Pennsylvania Continentals Travel Through Allentown by Michael Adelberg Col. Samuel Miles commanded a regiment of Pennsylvanians that passed through Allentown on its way to eastern New Jersey; he was directed to return to suppress a Loyalist uprising. - July 1776 - As noted in a prior article, Pennsylvania soldiers were ordered to march to Monmouth County in early July to quell the Loyalist insurrection in Upper Freehold Township. That regiment, under Colonel Broadhead, delayed their march and ultimately played no role in the campaign against the insurgents. At least 3,000 other armed Pennsylvanians would travel across New Jersey in July on their way to join the Continental Army in the defense of New York and New Jersey. These men traveled through Allentown because it was an important crossroad connecting the Delaware River towns of western New Jersey with the towns and coastline of eastern New Jersey. A handful of Pennsylvanians discussed their time in Allentown. The first recorded incident in Allentown occurred on July 7. Lt. James McMichael was part of 1,000 Pennsylvania Flying Camp on their way to Perth Amboy. He recorded that "Capt. Farmer's gun went off accidentally, and shot a soldier of his own company" that day. The man was left behind under the care of locals. The orderly book of McMichael’s regiment offers additional information on the Pennsylvanian’s two days at Allentown. Perceiving the locals to be potentially mischievous or even dangerous, the regiment assigned "an officer's guard of thirty men to be mounted, five whereof to be placed with the wagons which are to be brought together as near as may be.” The purpose of the guard was likely to limit any pilfering or vandalism of the regiment’s supplies. The Pennsylvanians also placed a guard at the “commanding officer's doors," presumably to prevent an attack. An order was also issued to locals: "The tavern keepers are not to sell any liquor to the soldiers without an order from an officer." And if there was any doubt that the Pennsylvanians perceived themselves as camping amongst the enemy, the regiment’s counter-sign during its stay in Allentown was “Tory.” Colonel Samuel Miles’ regiment came through Allentown the day after McMichael’s and stayed one night. Miles’ orders for his evening in Allentown were similar: The men to cook provisions as soon as can be delivered & hold themselves in readiness to march at a minute’s warning – the tavern keepers not to sell any liquor without an order from the officer. Miles also ordered that “an officer’s guard to consist of thirty men mounted” should patrol the encampment. Miles made it to New Brunswick by July 9, but he would return later in the month in a belated attempt to quell the local Loyalist uprising. More Pennsylvanians continued through Allentown, some going north to New Brunswick, others going east through Freehold. On July 18, the New Jersey Convention recorded that Colonel Burd, with his regiment of “Associators” (temporary soldiers), had arrived at Middletown. They would have passed through Allentown and Freehold during their march. By July 26, General Hugh Mercer, commanding the patchwork of Continental forces in New Jersey facing the British on Staten Island, reported to the Continental Congress: There are now on duty, of the Pennsylvania Provincial Battalions and the Association of the same Province, three thousand rank and file in all -- contained from Bergen Neck to Middletown, and these are not the only troops who have joined. On August 10, Mercer further reported: “Our whole force, including N. Jersey militia, from Powles Hook to Shrewsbury, amount to eight thousand three hundred." It is not known whether the Pennsylvanians stationed in Middletown and Shrewsbury found the local militia uncooperative, as had Benjamin Tupper a few weeks earlier. Mercer also observed boats traveling the Raritan Bay and bringing food to the British at Sandy Hook: Shallops were sent with flour round to the fleet; but I am this moment informed by the officer of the guard on South-Amboy shore that soldiers appeared thick on their decks after getting round Billup's Point into Prince's Bay. This morning they fell down to Sandy-Hook. A flag was seen hoisted this morning on the Light-House, which is an unusual thing. Even after the surge of July, companies of Pennsylvanians continued to travel across New Jersey. On August 17, the company of Captain Algernon Roberts reached Allentown. He complained about “the extraordinary conduct of the innkeepers, who had grown insolent to the degree that we could scarce refresh ourselves.” But Roberts also commented on the great generosity of the Upper Freehold farmers: "We found the inhabitants very kind and hospitable, supplying us in a plenteous manner, as their circumstances would admit." Allentown would remain a critical crossroads and Pennsylvania soldiers would visit it again several more times during the American Revolution, some of which are subject of additional articles. Related Historic Site : The Old Mill Sources : McMichael, James, “Diary of Lieutenant James McMichael of the Pennsylvania Line, 1776–1778,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 16 (1892), 131–2; New Jersey Historical Society, collection 224, Orderly Book - Pennsylvania Regiment; Orderly Book, Col. Samuel Miles’ Regt., MG 224, New Jersey Historical Society; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 1165; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 139; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 56; General Hugh Mercer, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 178, item 159, #153, 178; Algernon Roberts, "A Journal of a Campaign from Philadelphia to Paulus Hook," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 7 (1883), p 459. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Monmouth Militia During the Monmouth Campaign by Michael Adelberg Philemon Dickinson led the New Jersey militia. He sent the 1st Regiment of Monmouth militia to march with Col. Daniel Morgan, while keeping the 2nd and 3rd regiments under his direct command. - June 1778 - As the British Army marched across New Jersey, it was continually harassed by New Jersey militia that impeded its march by fouling wells, obstructing the roads, and skirmishing with the enemy. After dysfunction early in the war, the Monmouth County militia improved greatly toward the end of 1777. But even with improvements, the Monmouth militia was in a poor state as the British prepared to march into New Jersey. In March 1778, Captain Thomas Chadwick compiled a return on armaments for his Tinton Falls militia company at Shrewsbury. The 53 men, between them, had 14 guns, three bayonets, eight cartridge boxes, "enough lead for 7 1/2 men" and enough powder for four. Despite this, much of the Monmouth militia answered the call in 1778. On April 18, the Monmouth militia skirmished with a Hessian foraging party at Flourtown in Burlington County. Major Bernhard Bauermeister wrote of the engagement (the casualty figures are likely exaggerated): Fifty dragoons had taken the Burlington Road as far as Flourtown, where they encountered the Jersey militia from Monmouth County. Of these, sixteen men were killed, some twenty were left wounded, and eighteen taken prisoner. As the British prepared to leave Philadelphia, George Washington assigned one of his army’s best regiments, Colonel Daniel Morgan’s Riflemen, to hang on the flanks and harass them. And General Philemon Dickinson, the head of the New Jersey, on June 9, assigned the First Regiment of Monmouth Militia under Colonel Asher Holmes to guide and assist Morgan’s regiment: I beg you will hold your Regiment ready to march at a moment's notice. You must pay particular attention to the removal of bridges and felling the trees upon the roads... You will keep your men concealed, and act in small parties by a constant and incessant fire upon their front, flanks and rear as the occasion may require. Yet, the Monmouth militia began the Monmouth campaign with grievances. On June 15, Col. Samuel Forman, leading the militia for Upper Freehold and the shore townships of Dover and Stafford, wrote Nathaniel Scudder in Congress about the lack of pay for his men: There is universal complaints through our militia, their pay being held back… on the late alarm it was supposed the enemy was coming through this State, I rec'd orders for marching with one half of my Regt., I gave orders for that purpose -- They assembled at Toms River in full expectations of receiving their pay & marching, but they disbanded & went home, determined to remain there until paid. Five times, I had been to our Paymaster & with less encouragement the last then the first -- sure I am that there is fault somewhere, where it is I cannot tell you. He also wrote of a lack of military supplies: I have express orders for keeping up an important fire on the enemy's flank & rear when they march through this State, this without one single cartridge for my men. I have applied to the Governor [William Livingston] without success, we are very badly provided. The Monmouth County Militia Mobilizes It is safe to assume that Forman’s grievances applied equally to Holmes. Still, his regiment turned out. Morgan and Holmes would shadow the British prior to the Battle of Monmouth and for a week afterward. One of Holmes’s men, Jonathan Hildreth of Freehold Township recalled that on June 9 "he was again called out again on alarm... in pursuit of the British army as they marched through Monmouth & he followed them until they got on board of their shipping, when he was discharged at Middletown." As noted in a prior article, militia under Morgan’s command skirmished with British troops as they entered and exited Allentown . It is probable that Monmouth militia were involved in the skirmishing. As the British headed east toward Freehold, Morgan stayed east of them. As Morgan and Holmes arrived near Freehold, other militia companies joined them. When Continental Army units under General Charles Lee engaged the British Army on the morning of June 28, they did so from the west. Morgan’s 800-man command (half Monmouth militia) never received orders to join the battle. Many Monmouth militiamen recalled their service under Morgan during the Monmouth Campaign in their post-war pension applications. A few men recalled being with Morgan for the entire campaign. Zachariah Hankins of Dover Township recalled: They marched under Genl. Forman [Col. Holmes, actually] to meet the British on their retreat from Philadelphia. He thinks that near Mt. Holly in Burlington County, they fell in with the British [June 25] and then retreated before them to Crosswicks Creek where they cut down the bridge and made a stand, a pretty severe skirmish ensued and a number of men were killed upon both sides. On the march, they were joined by detachments of the American Army - his company was with Morgan's Riflemen and were on the right flank. Morgan's men and the militia companies formed a flanking party and were not engaged in the battle, though they had some skirmishing. Other militiamen recalled joining Morgan near Freehold. For example, James Perrine, in Michael Sweetman’s company, recalled "being on the right of the British Army where the Riflemen [Daniel Morgan's command] were parted, though his company was not actually engaged in the battle." Jared Stillwell, as a second example, recalled: “The company of light horse to which he belonged were on the flank of the British army… in which he piloted Captain Waln of Virginia and then he came when one of his party which killed three and took six prisoners of the enemy.” Morgan’s command camped southeast of Freehold at a place he called “Squan Swamp” on June 26 and moved to nearby Richmond Mill (in present-day Howell) on June 27. That day, as the British sacked Freehold , Morgan attacked a German guard at Gardener’s Mill. Morgan wrote George Washington: I arrived at this place Yesterday encamp’d in the woods—sent out small parties—Capt. Leong fell in with fifteen Grenadeers and made them prisoners—deserters are continually comeng in—I have several parties out—whom I expect something from—I shall continue on the enemies right till I have orders to the contrary—They keep in so compact a body that it is impossible to do them much damage—However I will annoy them as much as possible. A German officer, Jacob Piel, wrote about the skirmish at Gardener’s Mill. His guard "was attacked by a rebel corps of several hundred men" which was repulsed "with the loss of a man." When the Germans brought up the cannon the Continentals and militia "hurriedly pulled back." The Monmouth militia lost two men in that skirmish, Privates Daniel Newberry and Richard Wolcott. Also that day, a party of Morgan’s men and Monmouth militia surprised a British party and took several prisoners. Major Thomas Massie of Virginia wrote, “The second attempt was a complete surprise, from thick shrubbery in the pines, where 16 or 18 prisoners were brought off and a few killed, with little loss to the Americans." Rhoda Sutphin wrote that her husband, Joseph Sutphin, was “stationed near a brook, flanking the British Army on the south, about 20 British came down to wash their clothes, who were taken prisoners.” The Continental Army’s Commissary of Prisoners, John Beatty, noted the arrival of these prisoners at his Provost Jail on July 2. "There are some 20 men in the Provost as those that marched up last Sunday, taken by Col Morgan - which arrived here Sunday evening." As Morgan harassed the British to the east, General Dickinson assembled militia from Burlington, Cumberland, Essex, Hunterdon, Morris, Salem, and Somerset arriving from the west and north. His command also included the Upper Freehold militia under Samuel Forman. On June 26, Dickinson wrote Washington: I took post at this Place an hour ago, since which, nine Prisoners have been brought in—& five more on their way—the Enemy’s rear halted four miles from Monmouth Court-house which is three miles distance from this—I shall execute any order. Meanwhile, Col. John Neilson, with 200 Middlesex County militia, approached from Spotswood. Washington instructed him to "fall in on the flanks or rear” of the British. He further noted that “the Monmouthshire Militia may be of great service by attaching itself to one of the Continental detachments." Neilson replied that he would “throw what Obstructions we could in their way.” He also hoped to link up with Shrewsbury Township militia heading east from Tinton Falls. “I am informed about 100 Monmouth Militia on their March within a small Distance of this Place who have left their Quarters at Tenton Falls [Tinton Falls] in Shrewsbury not knowing the Situation of Our Army." One of these militiamen, James Bowne, recalled the arcing route they took to find Dickinson. He wrote: Previous to the Battle of Monmouth, they were marched to Tinton Falls where they lay. By way of Mount Pleasant to Englishtown, from thence to Tennant Meeting House, from thence to the front of the British Army near the farm of James Taylor. Some Monmouth militia stayed in the eastern part of the county and never attached to a larger unit. Lieutenant James Wall of Middletown recalled taking a lone British officer—probably a deserter. William Lloyd recalled being with a small party of militia that chased two disaffected locals on their way to sell goods to the British Army. Some Shrewsbury militia apparently stayed to destroy gunpowder and provisions that might be seized by the British Army as it marched east. A Loyalist newspaper in New York reported that British ships at Sandy Hook “observed a great fire” near the shore on June 27 and: On Sunday morning [June 28] about sun rise, a conflagration appeared at two different places, not far distant from the first, supposed to be raised by the rebels, in order to destroy their magazines of provision and forage; to prevent them from falling into the hands of the royal army. On June 27, Dickinson wrote Washington about the imminent arrival of the vanguard of the Continental Army. It "will give great spirit to the militia - who are now collecting very fast… our numbers increase hourly.” Dickinson’s optimism is tempered by the observation of Governor William Livingston who observed: "Our militia turn out finely, but we can only skirmish and run." A British senior officer, Stephen Kemble, dismissed the militia skirmishes as “a few popping shots from the rebel parties." Monmouth Militia on the Day of the Battle of Monmouth Monmouth militiamen experienced June 28—the day of the Battle of Monmouth—in different ways. The men attached to Morgan (including roughly 400 Monmouth militia) were separated from other Continental units. They spent the day at Richmond Mill waiting for orders to engage; men recalled hearing cannon-fire in the distance. William Cheeseman’s recollection is typical: [He] marched with the Riflemen [Morgan’s regiment] within a few miles of Monmouth Court House -- Morgan was not engaged in the battle and consequently the militia attached to his corps did not partake in the battle, altho' they were on the grounds, ready and willing. Several local leaders were either formally or informally attached to Continental units and a few advised senior generals including Charles Lee and Washington, who commanded Continental forces during the first and second parts of the battle respectively. Captain John Schenck, for example, noted that "he acted as a guide to the American Horse commanded by Col. Moylan" [Stephen Moylan].” The actions of Monmouth County’s leaders at the Battle of Monmouth is detailed in another article. Some militia joined Joshua Huddy’s company of State Troops in a brave but doomed attack on the British baggage train as it headed for Middletown. This is the subject of another article. Still, other Monmouth militia were apparently acting in small groups on their own. William Lloyd recalled that during the battle he collected discarded weapons and "gave them to the [Continental] soldiers as they stood in rank" for which "one of the officers gave me his canteen of grog to take a drink, it was the most delicious taste I ever drank." Other men recalled skirmishing with small bodies of British soldiers. James Bowne recalled that he was in “a smart scrimmage [skirmish]” in which “they lost two men - they retreated across a pass, there the British horse met & fallen on them." Benjamin Van Schoick recalled: He was not in the main Battle, but that he was in a skirmish with the British on the same day as they were retreating, on there left flank. Col Henrickson [Daniel Hendrickson] commanded according to the best of his recollection – In the skirmish the British sustained some loss. Other militiamen participated in irregular activities. Moses Mount’s widow, Catherine Mount, recalled that her husband “with one John Emmons, took two prisoners on that day, who were plundering and delivered them to our people." Abner Page (under Captain Kenneth Hankinson of Freehold) recalled: I was not engaged in the battle myself, Captain Hankinson having sent me to secure a very fine horse who stood in the neighborhood directly in the route. I secured the property and immediately joined the Army. One Middletown militia company sat out the battle. John Truax recalled that "having been cut off by the British before they could join the Army. To avoid being taken the deponent & his companions were compelled to hide in a swamp close by the British, where they continued two days without provision.” All three Monmouth militia regiments were in motion as the British Army arrived at Freehold. The First Regiment (under Holmes) likely mobilized all of its ten companies (at least 400 men). It is conservatively estimated that the Second and Third Regiments mobilized at least 200 and 100 men respectively. So, at least 700 Monmouth men were assembled on the day of the Battle of Monmouth. While this turn-out was incomplete, it demonstrates a remarkable turnaround from a year earlier when David Forman was only able to turn out half that number. Related Historic Site : Monmouth Battlefield State Park Sources : Return of Captain Thomas Chadwick, Monmouth County Historical Association, J. Amory Haskell Collection, folder 10, Document J; Bernard Uhlendorf, Confidential Letter and Journals, 1776-1784, of Adjutant General Major Bauermeister of the Hessian Forces (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957) p 166; Dennis Ryan, New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Chronology (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1974) p 53; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - James Perrine; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Zachariah Hawkins of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#22623931; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Jared Stillwell of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 18359845; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, James Wall of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 20365758; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Daniel Hendrickson of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23340856 ; John C. Dann, The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts of the War for Independence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) pp 123; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Jonthan Hildreth of NY, www.fold3.com/image/#22779401 ; Philemon Dickinson to NJ Militia Colonels, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 75, item 78, vol. 9, #165; Samuel Forman to Nathaniel Scudder, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 93, item 78, vol. 9, #161-2; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Auditor's Accounts, Revolutionary War, Book B, Abstracts of Pay Rolls (compiled by Garry Wheeler Stone); the account of the fires observed from Sandy Hook are in New York Royal Gazette, June 30, 1778; Henry Laurens, The Papers of Henry Laurens, vol. 13, ed. David R. Chesnutt (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992), vol. 13, p 501; John U. Rees, “Reach Coryels ferry. Encamp on the Pennsylvania side.”1 The March from Valley Forge to Monmouth Courthouse, 18 to 28 June 1778", unpublished manuscript, p38.; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) appendix 71; Thomas Massie Pension excerpt, The Battle Cry: Newsletter of the Friends of Monmouth Battlefield, v7, n2, March 2001; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Cheeseman; Stephen Kemble, The Kemble Papers (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2009) vol. 1, pp. 153-4; Philemon Dickinson to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, pp. 546–547; George Washington to John Neilson, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 12, pp. 123-4; John Neilson to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, pp. 557–558; Philemon Dickinson to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, June 27, 1778; Bruce Burgoyne, Defeat, Disaster and Dedication: The Diaries of a Hessian Officer (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p31-2; Munn, David, Battles and Skirmishes of the American Revolution in New Jersey, (Trenton: Bureau of Geology and Topography, New Jersey Geological Survey, 1976) p 47,139; Daniel Morgan to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, p. 564; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Joseph Van Note of Ohio, S.769 [Benjamin Van Schoick]; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - James Bowne; Don Higginbotham, Daniel Morgan: Revolutionary Rifleman (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), p 90; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Schenck; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Moses Mount; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Truax; Pension Application of -- Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of Andrew Phares of New York, National Archives, p4; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Joseph Sutphin; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Abner Page of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 25889537; John Beatty, report, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, July 2, 1778; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Walton of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 20445857.Sources : Return of Captain Thomas Chadwick, Monmouth County Historical Association, J. Amory Haskell Collection, folder 10, Document J; Bernard Uhlendorf, Confidential Letter and Journals, 1776-1784, of Adjutant General Major Bauermeister of the Hessian Forces (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957) p 166; Dennis Ryan, New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Chronology (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1974) p 53; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - James Perrine; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Zachariah Hawkins of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#22623931; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Jared Stillwell of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 18359845; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, James Wall of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 20365758; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Daniel Hendrickson of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23340856 ; John C. Dann, The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts of the War for Independence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) pp 123; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Jonthan Hildreth of NY, www.fold3.com/image/#22779401 ; Philemon Dickinson to NJ Militia Colonels, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 75, item 78, vol. 9, #165; Samuel Forman to Nathaniel Scudder, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 93, item 78, vol. 9, #161-2; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Auditor's Accounts, Revolutionary War, Book B, Abstracts of Pay Rolls (compiled by Garry Wheeler Stone); Henry Laurens, The Papers of Henry Laurens, vol. 13, ed. David R. Chesnutt (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992), vol. 13, p 501; John U. Rees, “Reach Coryels ferry. Encamp on the Pennsylvania side.”1 The March from Valley Forge to Monmouth Courthouse, 18 to 28 June 1778", unpublished manuscript, p38.; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) appendix 71; Thomas Massie Pension excerpt, The Battle Cry: Newsletter of the Friends of Monmouth Battlefield, v7, n2, March 2001; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Cheeseman; Stephen Kemble, The Kemble Papers (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2009) vol. 1, pp. 153-4; Philemon Dickinson to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, pp. 546–547; George Washington to John Neilson, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 12, pp. 123-4; John Neilson to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, pp. 557–558; Philemon Dickinson to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, June 27, 1778; Bruce Burgoyne, Defeat, Disaster and Dedication: The Diaries of a Hessian Officer (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p31-2; Munn, David, Battles and Skirmishes of the American Revolution in New Jersey, (Trenton: Bureau of Geology and Topography, New Jersey Geological Survey, 1976) p 47,139; Daniel Morgan to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, p. 564; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Joseph Van Note of Ohio, S.769 [Benjamin Van Schoick]; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - James Bowne; Don Higginbotham, Daniel Morgan: Revolutionary Rifleman (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), p 90; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Schenck; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Moses Mount; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Truax; Pension Application of -- Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of Andrew Phares of New York, National Archives, p4; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Joseph Sutphin; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Abner Page of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 25889537; John Beatty, report, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, July 2, 1778; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Walton of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 20445857. Previous Next

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

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Greatest Privateer of the Jersey Shore by Michael Adelberg Philadelphia’s Fair American was the most prolific privateer vessel to sail the Jersey Shore during the Revolutionary War. Captained mostly by Stephen Decatur, it took at least sixteen prizes. - June 1780 - Prior articles discussed the rise of privateering on the Jersey shore starting in 1778. Yelverton Taylor and a number of small vessel captains from Philadelphia based themselves at Little Egg Harbor (called Egg Harbour) and took dozens of smaller British and Loyalist ships coming to and from New York. In 1779, New England privateers began “cruising the lanes” outside of Sandy Hook. They engaged and took dozens of larger British ships. The greatest prize taken off the Jersey shore may have been the Triton , a British troop transport that separated from other ships in its flotilla during a storm and lost a mast. The wounded ship was taken by Taylor and a second privateer. On October 1, 1779, they brought the Triton into Egg Harbour with 214 German soldiers as prisoners. After this event, Captain Taylor retired. The captain of the second privateer, Rhode Island-born Stephen Decatur, emerged as an even greater privateer captain. Decatur’s first documented prize was brought into Egg Harbour on November 11, 1779. Zuriel Waterman, a surgeon on board the privateer Providence , reported from Clamtown (near the southern tip of Monmouth County) that the privateer Comet under Captain Decatur had captured a prize vessel and brought it into Egg Harbour with cargo of "naval stores." With prize money from this capture and a share of the Triton , Decatur was apparently able to move to a larger ship, the 16-cannon, 125-man Fair American . He prepared for greater activities. Decatur soon teamed with the Massachusetts privateer, Jack , (captain Nathan Brown) and the Pennsylvania privateer, Argo, to capture Swallow . The 4-gun merchant vessel was on its way from Madera to New York with cargo of foods and gunpowder. Decatur then took a second vessel off Jersey shore. He escorted his prizes to Cape May to prevent their re-capture. Stephen Decatur’s Greatest Jersey Shore Prize The Pennsylvania Evening Post reported on June 3, 1780, Decatur’s actions on May 29. Decatur was “standing in here [Philadelphia] with our prize, brig Nymph , formerly the privateer Neptune of Philadelphia” when he came upon a second vessel. The report continued: We perceived two small sail standing in for Sandy Hook, which we gave chase to and came up to very fast; at eight o'clock the smallest sail bore away, and we stood after a small river schooner, which we soon took; she proved to be a prize loaded with indian corn, taken by a whale boat of thirty or forty feet long, open decked, called Lewistown Revenge, commanded by Hall, mounting one blunderbuss in her bow, one swivel in her head, and sixteen muskets and thirteen men; we then gave her chase, and took her about ten o'clock. He has a proper commission, and has been on our coast since the 13th of March, during which time he has taken twenty-eight prizes, loaded with different products for the Philadelphia market, and the boat which has so much annoyed the trade with our bay and river this spring. Decatur had taken Lewistown Revenge , the daring and famous Loyalist privateer that had been lionized in Loyalist newspapers. While the claim that Lewistown Revenge had taken 28 prizes is certainly exaggerated, Decatur’s capture of the most famous Loyalist privateer cannot be minimized. The New Jersey Gazette happily reprinted the news on June 14. Decatur’s Other Prizes According to the online database, American Independence at Sea , the Fair American , in concert with one or two other vessels, took a dozen vessels in the summer of 1780 alone. This makes Decatur the most successful privateer of the Jersey shore during the Revolutionary War. See table 11 for Decatur's 1780 successes. Throughout August, Decatur teamed with captain Roger Keane , commanding the 16-gun Philadelphia privateer, Holker . For most of his captures, teamed with a third vessel as well. As described by historian Donld Shomette, Decatur’s greatest loss was inflicted by the Continental Navy. On August 31, Fair American , General Greene, and Holker sailed for Philadelphia. While entering the Delaware River, the privateers were stopped by two Continental vessels--Trumball and Deane--and boarded. Continental press gangs took 59 sailors off the privateers. Maritime historian Donald Shomette notes that there was a shortage of American sailors by the middle years of the war, privateer captains were forced to rely on "untrained landsmen" to man their ships. Decatur did not put to sea again until October—probably because he needed to recruit and train new sailors. When he sailed again, he headed for South Carolina, perhaps to avoid additional run-ins with Continental ships. Off Charleston, Decatur took a British vessel carrying specie—the L175,000 cargo was his most valuable prize of the war. After this capture Decatur, now a rich man, apparently retired. Fair American , with a Captain Eldrigdge at the helm, took to sea again in 1781. It was involved in four more captures. On October 17, 1781, the Pennsylvania Evening Post reported: The privateer Fair American under Capt. Eldridge has brought four prizes from the same fleet into Philadelphia... All were part of a British fleet that was scattered in a storm from its navy escorts before entering Sandy Hook. Cargoes of foodstuffs, porter, dry goods, etc… the loss of which goods will be greatly felt by the enemy. This would be the last successful voyage for the Fair American . On January 16, 1782, the New Jersey Gazette printed a January 2 report from a Loyalist newspaper. The report noted that the British ship, Garland , had taken the “famous privateer” Fair American in the Delaware Bay. The report noted that the elusive Fair American "for the past two years, always escaping our cruisers by the swiftness of her sailing." Stephen Decatur would not take to sea again during the Revolutionary War, but he would continue on as one of the great heroes in American maritime history. He was a United States Navy captain who took a number of prizes during the naval war between the United States and France during the Washington administration. His son, also named Stephen Decatur, would become a national hero for his daring marine attacks during the American war against the Barbary Pirates during the Jefferson Administration. Related Historic Site : National Museum of the U.S. Navy Sources : Zuriel Waterman, Rhode Islanders Record the Revolution: the Journals of William Humphrey and Zuriel Waterman (Providence: Rhode Island Publications Society, 1984) pp. 77; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015); Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Pennsylvania Evening Post, June 3, 1780; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/F/Fair%20American%20Pennsylvania%20Brig%20%5bDecatur%20Jakways%20Eldridge%5d.html ; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Monmouth County Prepares for Return of French Fleet by Michael Adelberg In October 1779, British Adm. Marriot Arbuthnot prepared Sandy Hook for attack by the French fleet. Concurrently, pilots were rushed to Monmouth County to guide the French—who never came. - October 1779 - In July 1778, a large French fleet anchored off Shrewsbury Inlet (connecting the Shrewsbury River to the ocean at modern-day Sea Bright). It had the firepower to destroy the British fleet at Sandy Hook but its largest ships, when loaded, sat too deep in the water to enter the Sand Hook channel. Compounding this problem, the fleet—particularly when it first anchored—was not well supported by the Continental or New Jersey government. It took a week to establish a steady flow of provisions and send reputable pilots. Those pilots counseled that the largest French ships sat too deep into the water to cross over to Sandy Hook. So, the French weighed anchor and left for Rhode Island. They eventually headed for the West Indies. In summer 1779, word arrived that the French fleet had left the West Indies and was heading northward. Neither the British nor Continental armies knew the location of the French fleet. In New York, the German Officer Heinrich von Feilitsch wrote: "Rumor is that a French fleet is expected here… it is assumed he [Admiral Charles Henri D'Estaing] will come again to Sandy Hook. Certainly, no one knows the truth." Ships stayed in port. Brooklyn Loyalist, R.W. Parker wrote: "The damned French fleet has disconcerted everything, I did expect to have cheated winter by getting southward, but I now apprehend I shall have to continue here." On September 13, George Washington ordered Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee back into Monmouth County : "I desire that you will, with the remainder of your corps, [go] to the County of Monmouth and take a position as near the coast as you can, without making yourself liable to a surprise." His primary job was to locate the expected French Fleet and establish communications. Gathering Pilots for the French Fleet By early October, efforts were underway to get the best Sandy Hook pilots into Monmouth County. Washington wrote New Jersey Governor, William Livingston, on October 4: It is essential that some good pilots should be ready to go on Board the French fleet the moment it appears perfectly acquainted with the entrance into New York harbor. Wm. Van Drill who resides in your State I am informed is one of the best that can be had. I shall be much obliged to your Excellency immediately to engage Mr. Van Drill to go down to Monmouth and join Major Lee at English Town… If there are any others on whose skill and fidelity we can depend within your Excellency's reach, I request they may be also sent. That same day, Nathaniel Scudder of Freehold, serving in the Continental Congress, wrote Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress. Scudder discussed his absence from Congress and the expected arrival of French fleet, "We expect the appearance of the Count [D’Estaing] at Sandy Hook every hour... Pilots are providing for him as soon as possible -- two of them lodged with me last night, and are gone down this morning." The identity of these pilots is unknown. Alexander Hamilton wrote about other pilots on the 6th: "Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Redfield are engaged to go on Board the French fleet as pilots. The former is well acquainted with the passage of the Hook and the latter with the navigation of the North River.” The pilots were Wiliam Dobbs, the resident pilot at Sandy Hook before the war, and William Redfield of Connecticut. Geroge Washington wrote of them on the same day in a letter to Congress: Two pilots—Capn Dobbs & a Mr Redfield set out a few hours ago for Philadelphia—and I should hope from the measures I have taken—that there will be others immediately with you—or on the Coast of Monmouth, ready to embark on board the Count’s Squadron. At least one prominent pilot was not available. The Loyalist New York Gazette wrote on October 13 about William Fundrum, "a very skillful pilot of our harbor" who had returned to New York. In July 1778 he was "forced aboard the French fleet" and counseled the French against sailing their large warships into the Sandy Hook channel, "he absolutely refused the undertaking as hazardous and impracticable." British Prepare Sandy Hook for Attack Rumors and falsehoods about the French fleet spread rapidly. In New York City, German officer, Johann Prechtel, wrote that "seventeen French warships arrived off Sandy Hook, they then turned back to sea." Colonel Isaac Angell in northern New York wrote on October 7, "We rec'd an account that Count D'Estaing was at Sandy Hook, and had taken all the British shipping and men." On October 9, Colonel David Forman, at Manalapan, predicted that the climactic battle for New York City would soon begin: Reports say the Count is determined for New York -- should that be the case, I have determined with myself once more to have the pleasure to visit with my military friends and share with the fatigue of the attack of New York. At Sandy Hook , as they had in July 1778, the British prepared for the French attack. Admiral Marriot Arbuthnot, commanding at Sandy Hook, wrote General Henry Clinton on October 4 about the need to strengthen defenses: I must entreat your Excellency to strengthen the former batteries [at the Hook] with many more guns than heretofore because my situation is very different from Lord Howe's [in July 1778], both from the weakness of my command and the strength of the enemy; nor will it be possible to make a strong impression without the assistance of a very strong shore battery. Clinton responded affirmatively the next day, "I think Sandy Hook worthy of my own protection.” The enhanced defenses at Sandy Hook were observed by scouting parties on the Navesink Highlands. National Scudder wrote, "They now have a number of men at Sandy Hook, erecting a fort & batteries with heavy cannon." Captain John Walton wrote, "the enemy at Sandy Hook are fortifying there, I believe they expect trouble soon & hopefully they will not be disappointed." Those same scouting parties reported on positions being taken by British warships to concentrate fire on Sandy Hook’s channel. One of those reported was printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette: "Ships lying at the Hook: Russell 74 guns, Capt. Drake; Europe 64 guns, Capt. Edwards; Reasonable 64 guns, Capt. Collier; Renown 50 guns, Roebuck 44 guns" and also "a chain of ships consisting of eleven sail, were to be sunk in the channel" to impede entrance into the harbor. Samuel Culper, Jr., a Continental spy in New York also wrote about the sinking of hulks off Sandy Hook: "The transports which I intimated are taking water and ballast was for the use of the ships at Sandy Hook. The pilots say that it is now very difficult to bring a vessel in, owing to the hulks which were lately sunken there." A week later, Culper reported on four additional hulks being sunk in the channel to block the French entrance. On October 20, George Washington wrote: We are making every preparation in our power for an extensive and perfect co-operation with the fleet (if it comes) while the enemy, whose expectation of it keeps pace with ours, are equally vigorous in preparing for defence. He also wrote of the defenses at Sandy Hook: They have already sunk eight, and have 12 more large Ships to sink in the Channel within the light House… they work incessantly; and will, it is to be feared, render the entrance into the harbor extremely difficult, if not impracticable. Major Lee at Freehold also reported on British defenses at Sandy Hook: The enemy’s strength at the hook consists in two 64, the Europa & Russell—the Raisonable, Renown Roebuck & Romulus. Besides these they have a few frigates & some armed Schooners. They have sunk ten hulks in the outer channel & have more ready to be sunk, some of those sunk have got afloat & reached shore. Not knowing where and when the French would arrive, Continental officers were sent to greet them at Cape May and Little Egg Harbor. Washington ordered Alexander Hamilton to the Navesink Highlands on October 25. On October 26, however, Hamilton was at Great Egg Harbor with General Louis Du Portail, where he wrote that he “established a regular communication with Major Lee [Henry Lee] and with the city [Philadelphia]. If the fleet should appear off the Delaware we can be there in twelve hours after its first appearance, and if at the Hook [Sandy Hook] in less than four days." While Hamilton did not make it to Monmouth County, there were presumably pilots at the Navesink Highlands by October 25. The Continental Congress sent an additional pilot, Captain Patrick Dennis, to Monmouth County on October 29. This occurred even as the British, according to a letter from Lee, began dismantling their defenses at Sandy Hook. "The heavy cannon placed in the batteries at the Hook, to secure the channel, was taken off." By the middle of November, doubts were being raised about the French fleet’s expected arrival. Interestingly, one of those reports came from the prominent Loyalist, William Smith, in New York. On November 16, he expressed doubt that the French would come to New York based on intelligence provided by "people from Shrewsbury." D’Estaing’s fleet did not return to Sandy Hook—Continental and British efforts on both sides of Sandy Hook were in vain. Instead, D’Estaing unsuccessfully besieged the British base at Savannah, Georgia. In spring 1780, new intelligence was received about the French fleet’s expected arrival on the Jersey shore and a new set of preparations were made. Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Marine Committee to Henry Lee, National Archives, Collection 332, reel 6, #230; Heinrich von Feilitsch quoted in Bruce Burgoyne, Diaries of Two Ansbach Jaegers (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p56; Heinrich von Feilitsch quoted in Bruce Burgoyne, A Hessian Officer's Diary of the American Revolution (NY: Heritage Books, 1994) p37; George Washington to Henry Lee, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 16, pp. 279, 367; R.W. Parker to Seth Norton, Naussau County Museum, Seth Norton Papers, L82.2.48; George Washington to William Livingston, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw160418)); George Washington to Henri D’Estaing In George Clinton, Public Papers of George Clinton, First Governor of New York, 1777-1795 (Albany: Hugh Hastings, 1904) vol. 1, pp 292-3; Nathaniel Scudder to Henry Laurens, Letters to Delegates of Congress, vol. 14, p22-3 ( www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html ); Alexander Hamilton to Congress, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 2, 1779–1781, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 198–199; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 22, 1 August–21 October 1779, ed. Benjamin L. Huggins. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013, pp. 642–643; George Washington to Congress, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw160434)) ; Isaac Angell, Diary of Isaac Angell (Providence, RI: Preston & Rounds, 1899) p77; David Forman to Nathanael Greene, University of Michigan, Clements Library, Nathanael Greene Papers, box 5, doc 23; Marriott Arbuthnot to Henry Clinton, B. F. Stevens, ed., Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives Relating to America, 1773–1783, [25 vols., London, 1889–1898], vol. 10, #1007, 1009; John Walton to Congress, Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 104, item 78, vol. 24, #187, 189; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 15, p 1166; Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post; Morton Pennypacker, General Washington's spies on Long Island and in New York (New York: Long Island Historical Society, 1939) pp. 63, 258-9; George Washington to Marquis de Lafayette, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw160520)) ; Henry Lee to Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 2, 1779–1781, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 208–209; George Washington to Henry Lee, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 62, October 25, 1779; Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961) vol. 2, pp. 213-5; George Washington to Lord Stirling, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw170041)) ; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw170041)) ; Pennsylvania Gazette, November 3, 1779 (CD-ROM at the David Library, #27637); Marine Committee of Congress to Henry Lee, Charles Paulin, Out-Letters of the Marine Committee and Board of Admiralty (New York: Navy History Society, 1914) vol. 2, pp. 124-5; William Smith, Historical Memoirs of William Smith: From 26 August 1778 to 12 November 1783 (New York: Arno, 1971) p 184. Previous Next

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > British Counter-Attack American Privateers Off Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg British frigates were uncommon at Sandy Hook later in the war, but a few frigates were based at Sandy Hook in spring 1780. They took several American privateers during a temporary offensive. - April 1780 - Prior articles have discussed the rise of privateering along the Jersey shore starting in 1778. American attacks on British shipping climaxed in 1779 and 1780 when New England privateers , often in small packs, hovered outside of Sandy Hook and took dozens of British ships. In spring 1780, New York-based Loyalist privateers scored some victories against small New Jersey ships and boats. Further, the British navy, though spread too thin to chase off the privateers, also scored victories against a few larger privateers. HMS Galatea and Vulture Attack Privateers In spring 1780, British frigates based at Sandy Hook, came outside the Hook to engage American privateers. In May 1780, the Connecticut Journal reported an April 13 incident off Manasquan: A few days ago, the privateer brig Rattlesnake, from Boston, on a cruize, was drove ashore on Squan beach by a British frigate from New York. As soon as she struck, and the guns were thrown overboard, 33 of the hands determined to make their escape by swimming but unfortunately, three were drowned. In the interim, the brig, by the swelling of the tide and the wind setting on shore, drifted inside the bar, by which means the remainder of the crew, except one, got on shore before the enemy reached the vessel. On taking possession, they [the British] plundered and set fire to her. The New York Royal Gazette , on April 19, reported on three incidents close to Sandy Hook: Last Saturday, a rebel brig privateer of 8 guns and 52 men was driven ashore about a half a mile from the Light House at Sandy Hook by his Majesty's ship Galatea; the crew are now prisoners and the vessel will probably be saved. The report continued with two other actions, one being the Rattlesnake (discussed above) and the other being the ship, Blacksnake , “the same day was driven ashore on Deal Beach, 12 miles off the Hook, another rebel privateer brig, by his Majesty's ship Vulture .” It was noted that these two privateers “sailed in company with two [other] privateers." The report concluded by noting one additional action. A rebel privateer was driven ashore near Sandy Hook by the Galatea . The crew, consisting of six officers and forty-five men, fitted [sic?] their vessel and attempted escape into the country; but being observed by the officer commanding at the Light House, a detachment was immediately sent in pursuit under Lt. [Samuel] Leonard, by whose address and gallant behavior the whole were made prisoners. Leonard was an officer in the New Jersey Volunteers , a Loyalist corps of the British Army that camped on Sandy Hook to defend the lighthouse and peninsula. Word of the beached privateers spread quickly and reached William Marriner, the daring privateer of the Raritan Bay. Marriner loaded a crew into a whaleboat and rowed outside Sandy Hook and down the shore to the stranded Blacksnake , which he reached on April 20. Within sight of the Vulture , Marriner’s men moored themselves to the privateer and quietly climbed on board. They floated the vessel and sailed off. That evening, at 5:00, they came upon the Loyalist privateer Morning Star , under Captain Robert Campbell, with four swivel guns and 33 men. Marriner made for the ship and grappled onto it. After an “obstinate” fight, Marriner’s men took the Loyalist vessel and brought both vessels into Little Egg Harbor. The fifty-two prisoners taken from the two vessels were taken overland to prison in Philadelphia, and New Jersey’s admiralty courts would condemn both prizes to Marriner. The Attack on the Arterial The best-documented action off New Jersey in spring 1780 was the near-capture of the British ship, Arterial, carrying the Army’s mail. The Connecticut Gazette and Boston’s Independent Ledger reported on the May 23 incident: Yesterday, returned into port [New London] from a cruize, the Hancock, Experiment and Young Beaver privateers. Last Tuesday, the above privateers, in company with the Holker of Philadelphia, fell in the Arterial, a packet commanded by Charles Newman, mounting 20 guns, at which time, the ship being near the east point of Sandy Hook, run ashore, by which they [the privateers] carried off the mail. The prize would soon have been got off, but the fleet coming out of the Hook the next morning, the privateers were obliged to flee, taking out a few articles. The Virginia Gazette published a June 17 report from New Jersey that adds some additional details on the incident: We learn that four privateers, three of them belonging to New London, on Wednesday last, drove a copper-bottomed ship ashore on Long Island beach six miles from Sandy Hook; she mounted 22 nine pounders and by some papers found on board proves to be the London packet, from Falmouth. The report stated that Arterial had a 55-man crew. While the privateers had to give up the prize when British frigates sailed toward them, the privateers “escaped with the mail.” Christopher Prince, a Connecticut privateer sailor, confirmed the reports. He wrote in his autobiography: "sailed in Hancock , which, along with Experiment, Young Beaver , and Holker , chased Arterial , a twenty gun packet, on shore near Sandy Hook on May 23." The Cruise of the HMS Eagle There may only be a single British naval source that documents the spring 1780 crackdown on privateers along the Jersey shore. Captain Henry Duncan of the HMS Eagle recorded his sail down the Jersey shore, starting from Sandy Hook on May 27. He recorded that "I was sent along the Jersey shore to endeavor to pick up two privateers said to be on the coast." He spotted the vessels the next day: In the morning, I saw a sloop & a schooner & gave chase; drove them both close to the beach; they then separated, the sloop [carrying 12 cannon], by far the larger, went before the wind to the northward; chased her but she kept close to shore. When I found she would not quit, we drove her on shore; the people [privateer sailors] dropped from the bowsprit into the water and got to shore; the sea broke all over her & I suppose she will not get off again. One of our boats stood in close for her, [but] was fired at by the people on shore; called her off. Surviving documents do not reveal whether the British counter-attacks on American privateers in spring 1780 were part of a deliberate strategy to retake the waters outside of Sandy Hook or were merely the byproduct of a temporary increase in British naval strength. In either event, the spike in British activity proved temporary and American privateers again were attacking British shipping with impunity by the end of the summer. Related Historic Site : Connecticut River Museum Sources : Connecticut Journal, May 4, 1780; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, p 308; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/B/Black%20Snake%20Rhode%20Island%20Schooner%20%5bCarr%20Pierce%20French%5d.html; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 70; Henry Duncan, The Naval Miscellany: The Journals of Henry Duncan, vol. 1 (London: Navy Records Society, 1909) p 192. 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 British Army's Unpleasant Stay at Allentown, June 24-26, 1778 by Michael Adelberg This British map shows the crossroad and cluster of houses that made up Allentown. Leaving town, the British marched east to Freehold rather than northeast toward Cranbury as most expected. - June 1778 - On June 15, the British Army in Philadelphia started ferrying men across the Delaware River into New Jersey. It took four days to complete this action. As the British Army began moving east across New Jersey, it was slowed by thousands of non-combatant Loyalists and camp-followers, and a huge baggage train. The Army stretched out twelve miles on New Jersey’s poor roads. The weather was unusually hot. The New Jersey militia was expecting the enemy’s march. On May 27, General Philemon Dickenson, heading the militia, advertised that, "The militia of this State are to be particularly attentive to signals--as a movement of the enemy is expected soon." New Jersey militia, including Monmouth Countians under Colonel Asher Holmes, made the British miserable. They felled trees across roads, fouled wells, and skirmished with the British throughout their march. The British Army Enters Monmouth County Harried and overheated, the advance column of the British Army reached Allentown on June 24. There, they found the bridge over Crosswicks Creek broken up (note: some sources claim the broken bridge was across Doctor’s Creek). The British officer, Andrew Bell, wrote: "The rebels had been there in the morning and tore up the bridge, which retarded us a short time.” A German officer named Hauser noted that “rebuilding the bridge kept us three hours." The rebuilding of the bridge impressed at least one Allentown resident, Elizabeth Waln, wife of disaffected mill owner, Richard Waln, who lived near town. She wrote: I never saw the like. The soldiers cut down big trees, trimmed them and brought each tree on porters (short trees passed under). There was a large row of soldiers on each side of a tree; they carried it along as if it weighed nothing, and some went back for another. There were so many men that as far as one tree was brought, another was close behind it, and so the bridge went up... The body marched on, and not the least annoyance was allowed. Col. John Simcoe wrote of the militia forming on the other side of the bridge, "Colonel Simcoe fired two or three cannon shot, which drove the small party from thence, and passed over without the exchange of a musket.” Bell further noted, “The Light Horse and infantry pursued them for four miles, but could not come up with any number." British officer, Thomas Sullivan, described this first skirmish at Allentown: "Fell in with Col. Morgan's [Daniel Morgan] riflemen and a body of militia… a smart firing ensued and the enemy, at length, retreated into the woods without any material loss on either side.” A second British force reached nearby Imlaystown on June 24, but not without incident. Adjutant General Carl Bauermeister wrote, "General Leslie had attempted to force the nearest road the previous evening, but had been compelled to desist because they were occupied by too strong a force. The enemy withdrew, however, during the night." Entry into the village the next day was delayed because the bridge into town "was completely demolished, which delayed his march into Imlaystown… for four and a half hours." A second German officer, Jacob Piel, mostly corroborated this account: “We had to cross a bridge which the enemy had broken up, the repairs to the bridge delayed us three hours." Lt. John Von Krafft, noted on the arrival of his company at Waln's Mill south of Allentown: We were soon again impeded in our march, the rebels having hewn and cast large trees in our way to prevent our baggage train from moving rapidly. Such tricks were often played on us by the rebels and sometimes they showed themselves in considerable numbers on the hillsides. But they never had the courage to attack us. The evening of June 24, the British Army camped in Allentown and nearby. John Peebles, a British officer, observed that “few or none of men inhabitants are at home & many houses deserted entirely.” Officers attempted to keep the Army in good order. Major John Andre wrote that "attention was paid to enforcing the orders respecting plunder, and also the Battalion horses and followers of the Army not mixing in the line of march." Lt. Colonel Alerud Clarke recorded receiving orders that "the women [campfollowers] are to march with the baggage" to lessen fraternizing and plundering. Despite the attempts to keep the Army in good order, there was bad behavior. Robert Montgomery, a militia officer, was robbed. Per an "inventory of property destroyed June 1778," he lost $249 worth of property. British soldiers reportedly "put a rope around the neck" of a family slave who would not reveal where the family hid its silver, but then let him go. In addition, three cannon balls were fired into Montgomery’s house during the June 25 skirmish. John Andrews, a supporter of the Revolution, wrote a memorandum shortly after the British left town: This day the British troops passed by with the Army, and the rear of the Army encamped at Lawrence Taylor's [tavern] and extended their three lines northern of my house, and plundered all after that part of the day, that they took from me, horses, cattle and hogs, destroyed all my grain and flax, took all of my meat and a number of things to the amount of £278. Another antiquarian account noted that the British used the Allentown Presbyterian meeting house as a stable for their horses, and damaged the building substantially. It was never repaired. John Peebles suggested widespread misbehavior by British soldiers. He wrote on the evening of the 24th that “a good deal of plundering [is] going on." On June 26, as Continental soldiers passed through Allentown, Joseph Plumb Martin of Massachusetts recorded: We had ample opportunity to see the devastation they made in their route; cattle killed & lying about in the pastures; some just in the position they were when they were shot down, others with a small spot of skin taken off their hind quarters and mess of steak taken out; household furniture hacked to pieces; wells filled up and mechanic's and farmer's tools destroyed. Better conduct was expected from British officers. Mrs. Waln recalled a British officer dining at her house: "He ate heartily and at the close of the meal, a large pile of bones by his plate... while the family refrained from eating." A twelve-year-old girl later recalled a British officer walking into her family’s house: “We all fell in to help the officers, giving them the entire table [of food]." But at the house of Elisha Lawrence (not the Loyalist and a Lt. Colonel in the militia) nearby, officers were refused food: They endeavored to evade this request, and made things as unpleasant as possible. The officer made no attempt to protect that house; and the consequence was [that] it was rifled of all valuables, and the famous Lawrence's fast mare was taken for an officer's horse. Historian John Fabiano wrote that when the British Army came through Allentown, Major John Andre carried a letter of introduction from John Lawrence (who led the first Loyalist insurrection two years earlier). Andre asked Dr. James Newell to care for his sick brother, which was done. When the British left town, Andre left Newell with the spoon (bearing the family crest) he used to feed his brother medicine. This could be used by Newell as a sign of loyalty to any future British parties. Desertion was a problem for the British Army all through the march. By some estimates more than one thousand men deserted during the miserable march across New Jersey and historian Don Hagist has documented 70 desertions during the British Army’s time in Monmouth County. As the Army left Allentown on June 25, Thomas Sullivan, a British soldier, recalled speaking with a corporal commanding a twelve-man guard who "acquainted me of their being inclined to quit the service, which I encouraged by informing them of my intention to do the same." Sullivan deserted during the march on June 25. After doing so, he recalled getting advice from a local: At some distance, I saw an old man who cautioned us against a set of people called Tories, or properly speaking, enemies of their Country. He also informed me of the route to take to escape danger... After a tedious and troublesome march, through woods and marshes, arrived at 4 o'clock within two miles of Allentown, where we met Colo. Morgan's riflemen. Sullivan surrendered to Morgan, who sent him to Philadelphia. He arrived there on June 28—the day of the Battle of Monmouth. British Army Departs Allentown John Andre noted a second skirmish with the New Jersey militia as the British left Allentown on June 25. He wrote: "a body of the enemy soon showed themselves, and passing thro' the village advanced a little toward the Jaegers [German soldiers], but were dispersed by a shot or two from their three pounders." A German captain Heindrich also described this second skirmish at Allentown: “The Jaegers in the rear guard were harassed severely by the enemy who pressed us vigorously” before they were dispersed. The New Jersey militia made the march from Allentown difficult. General Henry Clinton wrote of the rebels "filling up the wells and breaking down and destroying the bridges and causeways before us." Francis Downman wrote that "the rebels cut the ropes of the wells and filled them with rubbish.” Andre wrote: “As we approached Freehold, water was very scarce, the rebels had added to this by stopping up the wells." Bauermeister wrote of the militia blocking passage to Cranbury with "a thousand-yard wide strip of the finest woods cut down in order to barricade all the roads." Simcoe wrote of being heckled when his men temporarily took a wrong turn “by the error of the guides at a crossroads." Militiamen shouted, "You are Wrong! You are all Wrong!" But Simcoe would have a measure of poetic justice after “a rebel patrol from the Cranberry Road, come close to the front of the Rangers, mistaking them for their own people.” The next day, Simcoe’s green-coated cavalrymen were again mistaken for Continentals, and deceived a local “committeeman” into providing detailed intelligence on Continental troops movements. Skirmishing continued on the march to Freehold. German Officer Heinrich von Feilitsch wrote: “the rebels soon appeared but a Jaeger killed an [rebel] officer. Shortly thereafter they engaged us closely but after a guard reinforced us, they had to retreat." John Peebles wrote of the continued need to “exchange a shot sometimes” with militia parties on the march to Freehold. As for the locals, Simcoe noted that his Loyalists were mistaken for Continental soldiers by locals who “gave the best accounts of the movements of the rebel army" and offered his men water. In contrast, locals avoided Redcoats. Peebles wrote: “A great many people left their houses & drove away their cattle.” By any measure, the British stay at Allentown was unpleasant. They skirmished when entering and leaving town. While some locals were hospitable, most were not—many left town and took their livestock with them. The march from Allentown to Freehold was even worse. The soldiers lacked water and the weather was unseasonably hot. Rumors, no doubt, swirled about rebel forces swelling on their northern flank and rear. Skirmishing and desertions continued. It is easily surmised that the British Army was in a foul mood when it reached Freehold—and Freehold would suffer for it. Related Historical Site : Historic Walnford Appendix: Continental Army and Militia Oppose the British in Allentown Opposing the British on June 24 and June 25 were a regiment of Virginia Continentals under Colonel Daniel Morgan (guided by Monmouth militia under Colonel Asher Holmes) and roughly one thousand New Jersey militia from several counties under General Philemon Dickinson. They did not have the strength to face the British, but they were successful in making the British miserable on their march. On the 24th, George Washington ordered Morgan, You are… to get upon the enemy's right flank and give them as much annoyance as possible in that quarter. Among the militia annexed to you, Gen. Dickinson will take care that there are persons [Col. Asher Holmes] perfectly acquainted with the country and roads, so as to prevent every danger and delay which might arise from want of intelligent guides. The same day, Dickinson wrote Washington of Morgan’s “march in the afternoon for Allentown” to harass the British rear. “I shall order about the three hundred militia who are collected there to join him." A mounted party of Upper Freehold militia under Colonel Samuel Forman was nearby; he informed Dickinson of British movement to Imlaystown but wrongly predicted that the British Army would head toward Hightstown (rather than Freehold). Also on the 24th, Washington wrote General William Heath that "every obstruction is thrown in their way which our circumstances will admit." Washington’s Secretary, James McHenry estimated that the small clashes at Allentown and elsewhere cost the British "thirty or forty in the different skirmishes with our militia and flying parties." Major Thomas Massie of Morgan's Regiment later suggested that the efforts to impede the British near Allentown “stopped them a day and some prisoners were taken." On June 25, Morgan’s Continentals skirmished with the British as they left Allentown for Freehold. The Continentals entered the town at 11 a.m. He wrote Washington: I fell in with their rear. We exchanged a few shot, no harm come. They drew up on one side of the creek and down the other, I sent some parties to skirmish with them and they immediately made off… I am afraid I shant [sic] be able to do them much damage. They encamp in a body so compact that it is impossible to get any advantage. Dickinson’s New Jersey militia entered Allentown soon after Morgan. He wrote Washington that "several deserters coming in - I imagine desertion will be great." At this point, the British line of march (whether through Middlesex County to Amboy or through Monmouth County to Sandy Hook) was unknown. Seeing the British take the road to Freehold, Dickinson informed Washington: “Their rout is certainly thro’ Monmouth, tis generally thought they will embark at the Watering-place [on the Navesink Highlands].” Dickinson further noted plundering by the British, “they have collected a great number of Cattle." General William Maxwell’s New Jersey Continentals reached nearby Hightstown on the 25th. He wrote: I have a small party on the Enemys rear & two Capts. and a Major on their right and rear who says the Desertion that way is Emence [sic]. Major [Joseph] Bloomfield says their rear today marched in much disorder and left a number of their Cattle on the road. They must have put a number of Men in their waggons [from heatstroke] as the day was immencely [sic] hot. Historian Mark Lender, who wrote the essential book on the Battle of Monmouth, described an incident involving the home of Robert Montgomery (an officer in the militia). Henry Clinton had used this house, among the best in town, as his headquarters. When the British left the house, it was quickly occupied by militia who then proceed to take shots at the assembled British from the house. The British fired cannon into the house to disperse the snipers, damaging the home. Three Monmouth Countians wrote of their service around Allentown on June 24 and 25 in their postwar veterans pension applications. John Scott of the local Upper Freehold militia was likely with Samuel Forman. He wrote of being nearly captured: “He acted as an orderly sergeant, he thinks with seventeen men under his command, being detached from his company from Crosswicks to Allentown, then were obliged to surrender & escape with alacrity from a larger party of British troops.” Two militiamen were likely attached to Morgan’s regiment. They described marching on the flanks of the British Army. Matthias Handlin wrote, "The army to which this deponent was attached pursued… and camped north of the British while they lay at Montgomery's farm, about three quarters of a mile, on the farm of Job Cleavenger." Ellison Covert of Freehold wrote: “He marched to Allentown the day the British reached there, and about a half hour before the British reached there. He marched to Hightstown with his company - stayed there all night. Next day, he marched back to Allentown & stayed there all night." Sources : Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; American Philosophical Society, Thomas Sullivan, Journal of Operations in the American War, p 403; John Peebles, John Peebles' American War, p221-8; Bruce Burgoyne, Journal of the Hesse Cassel Jaeger Corps (New York: Heritage Books, 1987) p43-7; Bell, A. "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, p17; Bruce Burgoyne, Defeat, Disaster and Dedication: The Diaries of a Hessian Officer (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p31-2; John Simcoe, Simcoe's Military Journal (New York: Bartlett & Welford, 1844) pp. 30, 32; Don Higginbotham, Daniel Morgan: Revolutionary Rifleman (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), p 87; Henry Clinton to Alerud Clark, Monmouth County Historical Association, Articles File: "Relic of the Revolution"; Robert Paterson, Diary, Copy: Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - British Sources; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, June 24, 1778; James Graham, The Life of General Daniel Morgan (NY: Derby & Jackson, 1856), 204; John Fabiano, Allen's Town, New Jersey: Crossroads of the American Revolution, unpublished manuscript in the collection of the Allentown Historical Society, p 45; John C. Fitzpatrick, The George Washington Papers (Washington DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1932, v12, p93; Veteran's Pension Application of Thomas Massie of Virginia, U.S. National Archives, Washington, DC; [?] Hausser, Journal of Quartermaster Hausser of von Lossing's Regiment, New Jersey State Archives, Manuscripts Coll., Papers of William S. Stryker; John Fabiano, Allen's Town, New Jersey: Crossroads of the American Revolution, unpublished manuscript in the collection of the Allentown Historical Society, p 51-2, 54; Allentown Messenger, Nov. 16, 1905; Carl Bauermeister, Revolution in America (New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1957) p185; Anonymous British Officer, Journal, Copy: David Library, Battle of Monmouth Collection, #73; Henry Jackson to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, pp. 527–528; Bernard Uhlendorf, Confidential Letter and Journals, 1776-1784, of Adjutant General Major Bauermeister of the Hessian Forces (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957) p 184; John Von Krafft, Journal of John Charles Philip Von Krafft, 1776-1784 (New York: Privately Printed, 1888) pp. 45-6; American Philosophical Society, Thomas Sullivan, Journal of Operations in the American War, p407, 417; Samuel Lockwood, The British March to Monmouth, Beecher's Illustrated Magazine, vol. 6, n. 1, 1872, p24; Mary Murrin, ed., Conflict at Monmouth Court House: Proceedings of a Symposium Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Monmouth (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1978) p 13; Willcox, C. DeWitt, Major Andre's Journal, (Tarrytown, NY: William Abbatt, 1930) p 77-8; Joseph Plumb Martin, Private Yankee Doodle: Dangers and Sufferings of a Revolutionary Soldier (Eastern Acorn Press, 1962) p 123; Henry Clinton, The American Rebellion; Sir Henry Clinton's Narrative of His Campaigns, 1775-1782, with an Appendix of Original Documents (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1971) p 90; Francis Downman, The Services of Lieut. Colonel Francis Downman (London: Royal Artillery Institution, 1898) p64-72; Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961) vol. 1, pp. 503-4; Philemon Dickinson to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, June 25, 1778; Henry Knox to William Knox, Gilder Lehrman Institute, GLC2437.00712, www.gilderlehrman.org ; Edward J. Lowell, The Hessians and Other German Auxiliaries of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War (New York: Harper Brothers, 1884) p213; Correspondence File: Table of British Desertions compiled from Don Hagist, based on documents in PRO, WO 12; Col. Daniel Morgan to George Washington, 6/25/78, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress, Series Four; John Andrews "His Surveying Book, Likewise, Paintings" private collection. Copy: David Library, Battle of Monmouth Collection, #84; Thomas Sullivan, Journal, Copy: David Library, Battle of Monmouth Collection, #52; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, p. 537; William Maxwell to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, pp. 542–543; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Ellison Covert of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#12873752 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Matthias Handlin of Ohio, www.fold3.com/image/#23563620 ; Contained in: National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Scott of PA, www.fold3.com/image/# 16232608; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p 618; Samuel Lockwood, The British March to Monmouth, Beecher's Illustrated Magazine, vol. 6, n. 1, 1872, p25; John Simcoe, Simcoe's Military Journal (New York: Bartlett & Welford, 1844) pp. 32-3; John Anderson, The Battle Cry: Newsletter of the Friends of Monmouth Battlefield, v8, n3, May 2002; Bruce Burgoyne, Diaries of Two Ansbach Jaegers (NY: Heritage Books, 1997) p41-2; Mark Lender, Garry Wheeler Stone, Fatal Sunday (Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press, 2016) pp 139-156. 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 > 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