The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The Capture of the Brigantine, Britannia by Michael Adelberg On December 29, 1779, Middletown-men captured the stranded British ship, Britannia. They rowed the cargo of the vessel to shore. The men profited handsomely from the capture. Image credit: The Middletown Militia Secures their Prize © Steve Schreiber, 2023 Commissioned by Monmouth Timeline Inc. - December 1779 - As noted in prior articles, starting in 1779, New York-bound British/Loyalist ships with valuable cargo were vulnerable to capture from New England privateers because of the weakened British naval presence at Sandy Hook. Further, local militia officers opportunistically took vulnerable British/Loyalist vessels that grounded off the Monmouth shore. So, perhaps it was only a matter of time before local militia officers would have the opportunity to take a valuable vessel near the British base at Sandy Hook. The Capture of the Britannia The Britannia was a Loyalist privateer captained by Jonathan Stout and recently arrived from a Caribbean port with a cargo of that included coffee and sugar, high value products in short supply in New Jersey. The brigantine carried 16 cannon and 4 swivel guns. According to a number of secondary accounts, the Britannia was anchored inside of Sandy Hook when, on December 28, 1779, it broke loose from its moorings. The ship grounded in shallow water near present-day Keansburg. Ice around the guard ship at Sandy Hook prevented the British from helping the distressed ship; Britannia was quickly frozen in place and soon made helpless. On December 29, the Britannia was spotted by a company of state troops (militia on long term assignment) and Middletown Militia, both reporting to Colonel Asher Holmes. They captured the ship without a fight. The cargo and munitions of the ship were rowed to shore. The ice soon thawed enough for Holmes to the Britannia taken 20 miles east to Cheesequake Creek, where the prize would be less susceptible to British recapture. The capture of the Britannia was important enough for Colonel Lewis Nicola, at Egg Harbor, to notify the Continental Congress on January 12, 1780. He reported: A dismasted twenty gun brig called the Britannia on shore at the west bank [of Sandy Hook]. The Jersey people have got the guns and stores out of the former; it is not possible for any vessel or boat to go from New York Harbor to the relief of the vessels on shore. The Britannia was taken by a company of State Troops drawn mostly from Middletown Township. The company was officered by Captain Samuel Carhart, Lieutenant John Schenck, Ensign Peter Vanderhoff, Sergeant Jacob Allen, Corporal Burrowes Norris, Drummer Samuel Smith, and 27 privates. Additional Middletown militia under Lieutenant Barnes Smock were present (nephew of the captain of the same name). Some accounts credit Colonel Holmes with leading the capture, but, based on primary sources, it is unlikely that Holmes was there at the moment of capture. A half-dozen Monmouth militiamen mention the capture of the Britannia in their post-war veterans’ pension applications. Three participated in the capture: Cornelius Smock recalled that the Britannia “went ashore in a snowstorm at Conkaskunk, and her commander surrendered her to his brother, Lt. Barnes J. Smock, who then commanded said company." Adam Striker recalled that he "was present at the capture of the Britannia , a British brig which was driven ashore near Point Comfort... the ship capitulated." Cornelius Vanderhoff recalled being stationed "at Conkaskunk Cove" when the ship was taken. After the Capture Three other militiamen (or their widows) recalled activities after the capture. Sergeant James Wall recalled that he “was appointed one of an escort to conduct a party of British marines, taken from the British brig Britannia , that was enclosed in the ice near the Monmouth shore, to Elizabethtown, but that on my way there, my horse slipt [sic] on the ice & fell, fracturing my leg in his fall.” Derrick Sutphin's widow, Altche Sutphin, recalled that "part of her rigging & contents were kept at his house for safekeeping." Philip Freneau, who would become known as the “Poet of the American Revolution ,” recalled receiving “$800 in Continental money as his share of the British Brig Britannia – of which $120 was shortly after paid for a pair of shoes." On January 13, 1780, the New Jersey Gazette advertised the capture of the Britannia with a cargo and supplies at the home of Garret Schenk of Middletown. The cargo of beef, pork, coffee, sugar, powder, lead, muskets, and swords, and the hull of the Britannia would be offered for sale. The following week the Gazette advertised that the sale would occur on January 27 at Garret Schenck’s house in Middletown. It said: “to be sold the cargo and also the hull of the brig Britannia, now laying near Cheesequake Creek." Interestingly, the Britannia 's 16 cannon and 4 swivels would be sold at Burlington on January 31. This suggests that it was too dangerous to keep and sell these war materials on the Monmouth shore, where they could be retaken by Loyalist raiders. Indeed, Loyalists in New York were re-organizing into new groups like the Associated Loyalists and the Black Brigade precisely so that they could be nimble in raising parties for raiding opportunities. Subsequent advertisements in the New Jersey Gazette suggest that the Admiralty Court might not have condemned the Britannia before these advertised sales. A January 24 advertisement wrote of a coming Admiralty Court at Gilbert Barton’s tavern in Allentown, under Judge John Imlay, to consider claims on the vessel from Colonel Holmes and Samuel Dennis, a Shrewsbury militia captain. It is possible that Dennis was contesting rights to the prize. On March 15, the New Jersey Gazette advertised a sale on March 27 at the house of Cornelius Van Dorn in Middletown for “the sails, rigging, and small arms of the Brig Britannia… lately captured by Col. [Asher] Holmes and others." Samuel Dennis advertised the sale—suggesting that the admiralty court awarded the prize to Holmes, but that Holmes then deputized (and paid) Dennis to dispose of the vessel’s remaining items. While the vessel was condemned to Holmes, he divided the prize money with his men. On March 5, 1780, the proceeds were divided. Colonel Holmes received 11 ¼ shares of the prize. Other officers received between 3-9 shares based on rank. The enlisted men received 2/3 of one share. It appears that a share was valued at roughly £300, a huge amount of money for a small farmer (a good horse cost roughly £20, a daily wage to a laborer was about £1). It is unknown how the proceeds of the final March 27 sale were divided among the men. The New Jersey Legislature later paid Sergeant Wall an additional £10 S2 for "going to Elizabethtown with the prisoners taken on board the brig, Britannia and so forth." The Britannia was one of perhaps a dozen prizes taken by local militia and state troops. It was clearly among the more valuable and better documented of those captures. The capture shows how state troops drawn from Monmouth County and local militia operated seamlessly, in contrast to the clear delineation between Continental troops and militia. The complicated post-capture documentation includes several sales and admiralty court notices; this demonstrates that cash windfalls generated interests and intrigues that tested New Jersey’s nascent institutions. While the division of the Britannia was apparently amicable, other prizes were the subject of prolonged litigation and contested for years. Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Maureen Foster, The Capture of the British Privateer Britannia by the Middletown Militia, ( https://monmouthtimeline.org/timeline/capture-of-britannia/ ); Return of State Troops, National Archives, Revolutionary War Rolls, New Jersey, folder 58, #125; Information on the capture of the brig Britannia in Robert Van Benthuysen, "Philip Freneau: The War Years", Monmouth County Historical Association Newsletter, Spring 1978, n. 3, p1; Capture of the Brig Britannia in National Archives, Collection 881, R 593; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Adam Stricker; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Derrick Sutphin; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, pp. 136-7; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, James Wall of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 20365301; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Cornelius Vanderhoff; National Archives, Philip Freneau, W.23069, State of New Jersey, Monmouth County; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Derrick Sutphin; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Cornelius Smock; Receipt, National Archives, Collection 881, R 593; Lewis Nicola to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 187, item 169, #191; Lewis Nicola to Congress, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I63, Letters from General & Other Officers, p 188; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, pp. 136-7.; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 4, p 147; 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 > Sandy Hook Becomes Haven for Loyalists by Michael Adelberg Major Robert Bayard was the East India Tea Company’s agent in New York City. He was one of the first New York City Loyalists to join the British at Sandy Hook. - May 1776 - With the British Navy in possession of Sandy Hook, on the northeast tip of Monmouth County, it is not surprising that this British base became a magnet for active Loyalists and those disaffected from the Continental movement. Even before the Declaration of Independence, Sandy Hook was becoming a haven for New York and New Jersey Loyalists. The earliest documentation of local Loyalists heading to Sandy Hook is a May 7 letter to the New York Committee of Safety from Joseph Blanchard, a merchant from New York City. Blanchard was summoned by the Committee “under an accusation of carrying on a communication with some of the seamen on board the ships lying near Sandy-Hook.” Blanchard admitted to going on board the British ship, Asia , but claimed it was only to settle debts with a New York Loyalist already on board that ship. He swore that he exchanged no intelligence with the Loyalist or Royal Governor William Tryon, who was also at Sandy Hook: Not one word of news, or anything about politicks, was ever hinted either from him to me, or me to him, in any letter that passed between us. As to the Governour, I never wrote him one word, nor ever received any kind of message from him of any kind whatsoever. Interestingly, Blanchard sought to offer military intelligence on the British forces at Sandy Hook to “the Jersey officers” under Lord Stirling that he saw when leaving the Hook. “I knew the contents, and went several times to my Lord's on purpose to deliver him the letter, but could not see him.” In essence, Blanchard’s testimony suggests that he went to the British navy and offered no intelligence, then he attempted to pass intelligence to Continental officers, but they would not see him. This strains the credibility of Blanchard’s testimony. He would become a Loyalist. While Joseph Blanchard may have been the first Loyalist lured to Sandy Hook, Moses Kirkland was the most extraordinary case. Kirkland was a South Carolinian who was “confined in the said jail by order of the Honorable Congress, for practices inimical to this country.” Kirkland escaped and headed for Sandy Hook. A May 15 Virginia Gazette report on Kirkland noted: “he crossed over Delaware at Cooper's ferry last night” and was heading for the British squadron, now at Sandy Hook. A number of newspapers from Virginia to New York printed advertisements that described Kirkland’s appearance and offered rewards for his capture. The New York’s Constitutional Gazette , for example, offered the headline: “Stop a Tory, One Hundred Dollars Reward.” The report suggested that Kirkland had escaped confinement in South Carolina and Philadelphia, and concluded that "he will either endeavor to get on board one of the men of war in the [Hudson] river or at Sandy Hook." It is probable that women were among the New York Loyalists visiting the British ships at Sandy Hook. On June 2, the New York Provincial Congress heard testimony that a Ms. Hill and Mrs. Hatch were in “correspondence” with Governor Tryon’s ship at Sandy Hook. They appointed a committee to examine the two women and anyone else necessary to determine if the women were secretly visiting the British or passing written intelligence. After conducting several interviews, the Committee informed the Provincial Congress that they were “of the opinion that the suspicions against those persons [Hill and Hatch] are not well-founded." The trickle of Loyalists soon increased. On June 19, three of New York’s leading Loyalists--Oliver DeLancey, Charles Apthorpe, and Major Robert Bayard-- left New York City in a canoe and paddled down to Sandy Hook to seek protection on British naval vessels. According to DeLancey, the escape was to avoid a summons to appear before the New York Provincial Congress on the 20th. In a few weeks, the influx of Loyalists from Monmouth County would dwarf the trickle of Loyalists from New York; other New York Loyalists would seek refuge among Monmouth County’s disaffected in Shrewsbury township. Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Peter Force, American Archives, (Force and Clarke: Washington, DC, 1837) Series 4, vol. 5, p1230; Virginia Gazette, May 17, 1776; Constitutional Gazette (New York), May 15, 1776; Peter Force, American Archives, (Force and Clarke: Washington, DC, 1837) Series 4, vol. 6, P1359 and 1363; Bruce Bliven, Under the Guns, New York 1775-1776 (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) p 320; Sabine, W.H.W., Suppressed History of General Nathaniel Woodhull (NewYork: Colburn& Tegg,1954) p 167.. 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 > Nathaniel Scudder's Service in the Continental Congress by Michael Adelberg Dr. Nathaniel of Scudder was the only Monmouth Countian to serve in the Continental Congress. He advocated for a strong national government and feuded with Thomas Paine and others. - November 1777 - While David Forman was Monmouth County’s leading military figure in 1777, Dr. Nathaniel Scudder was its leading political figure. Prior to the Declaration of Independence, he served as a delegate in the New Jersey Provincial Congress and Chair of the Monmouth County Committee . He became the Colonel of Monmouth County’s First Militia Regiment after Colonel George Taylor defected to the British in November 1776, but he was generally inactive in the militia after commanding at the disastrous Battle of the Navesink . (He briefly re-joined the militia for the campaign to shadow the British withdrawal from New Jersey, June 1777.) In March, he joined the New Jersey Council of Safety . Nathaniel Scudder Selected to the Continental Congress Scudder’s time on the Council of Safety deepened his friendships in the New Jersey Assembly. On November 20, the Assembly selected him (along with John Witherspoon, John Elmer, Elias Boudinot and Abraham Clark) to represent New Jersey in the Continental Congress from December 1, 1777 – December 1, 1778. New Jersey’s new delegates arrived in York, Pennsylvania (meeting there because Philadelphia was held by the British) on December 11. They presented credentials, and were admitted to the Continental Congress. It was a short session; Scudder and other delegates were home by Christmas. Congress next convened on January 28, 1778, but lacked a quorum on that day. Scudder’s colleague in Congress, John Witherspoon, wrote, "pray let Dr. Scudder come here without delay." Scudder arrived on February 9. By New Jersey law, an officeholder forced to spend time out of state could not be a militia officer. Scudder was in violation; he officially resigned his militia commission on March 28, 1778. In Congress, the first issue in which Scudder was prominent was a resolution to the states recommending a military draft . The resolve passed Congress on February 16, with Congress urging states to "fill up" their Army quotas "by a draft of the militia or any other way that shall be effectual." The New Jersey Legislature passed a law on April 3 to implement a draft but also petitioned the Continental Congress to lower the quota of Army regiments from four regiments to two. Even in Congress, Scudder remained focused on events at home. On April 9, he wrote Governor William Livingston about the need to confiscate Loyalist estates to prevent people from turning Loyalist: I enclose you a copy of a petition from several of the principal inhabitants of the Counties below [Monmouth and Burlington], by which you will see the deplorable situation of that part of the State… The Tory race, who have increased under our nurture, that is to say our lenient measures, are now triumphant & much more dangerous than the British troops. Alas, my dear sir, instead of rearing our heads as heretofore like the stout oak, we flag like the parcel of bull rushes. We want spirit & activity -- four sessions to complete an Act for Confiscating Tory property! Scudder attended Congress from February into May. During a stretch of April, he was the only New Jersey delegate to Congress in York, prompting Governor Livingston to request that the Assembly reprimand the other delegates. However, as the British prepared to quit Philadelphia and retreat across New Jersey, Scudder was given permission to leave Congress and tend to his family at Freehold. Leave was granted on May 23, but he left on May 27. Scudder left York with papers to be distributed along the expected British line of march. The papers, printed in English and German, encouraged British and Loyalist desertions by granting land and militia exemptions to anyone who switched sides. Scudder’s papers may have had an impact on British desertions which were prodigious during the march across New Jersey. Major von Wilmowsky wrote on June 26 that his regiment had lost 236 men to desertions because the enemy "printed slips of paper that were secretly distributed among the men by the rebels." Scudder made it back to Freehold just ahead of the British Army. He was briefly with the militia, but remained a physician. Scudder was called away to deliver a baby. According to an antiquarian source, he watched the Battle of Monmouth from the window of a house outside of Freehold. Shortly after the battle, he wrote his friend, Assembly Speaker John Hart, about the "great plunder and devastation has been committed among my friends this quarter, but through the distinguishing goodness of providence, my family & property escaped." By late summer, Scudder was back in Congress (now meeting in Philadelphia). He supported a stronger national government. For example, Scudder was a strong proponent of the Articles of Confederation. Though the Articles are today regarded as the weak predecessor of the United States Constitution, they created the first framework for a federal United States government. Their adoption was a big step toward nationalizing the otherwise independent states. In 1779, Scudder became one of the first delegates in Congress to speak of the need to put western lands under the stewardship of the federal government in order to head off interstate clashes. Scudder also sponsored a resolution in August 1779 to encourage free trade between the states: “it was resolved, that it be earnestly recommended to the several states to take off every restriction on the inland trade between the said states.” Nathaniel Scudder’s Second Year in Congress On November 6, Hart informed Scudder that the Assembly had selected him to serve another year in the Continental Congress. The Assembly also selected Scudder’s protégé, Dr. Thomas Henderson of Freehold, for Congress, but Henderson declined to serve. Nonetheless, the decision to select someone so closely associated with Scudder is a strong indication of Scudder’s high regard in the Assembly. In November, Scudder joined a select committee, with Gouverneur Morris and William Whipple, to investigate and reorganize the Quartermaster Department of the Continental Army. The Committee sent letters to the governors of several states inquiring about where stores could be collected for the Army. The Committee sought to create a pre-collected set of stores for the Army but it also drifted into side issues. For example, it drafted a Congressional resolution to encourage states to "prohibit, for the time being, the distilling of whiskey and other spirits”—which Congress read but ignored. He also served on Congress’s mustering and medical committees. As was common with political leaders of this era, Scudder engaged in personal feuds. One of his opponents was John Cooper, a senior New Jersey legislator from Gloucester County who Scudder accused of being a closet Tory. In December 1778, Scudder attacked him in a letter to Livingston: Cooper, according to custom, has used his little arts to retard every necessary measure, & enjoys satisfaction (if his crooked soul can delight in anything) of having his nays on record as monumental to the cause of Toryism in America, but by the very broadest hints from many of this Council has by one of them been called a Tory to his face. Scudder also led the effort in Congress to censure Thomas Paine. The famous author of Common Sense was given a patronage position in the Continental government. Despite this, Paine was a vocal critic of the Continental Congress and Scudder, among other delegates, was not amused. He introduced the following resolution: Resolved, that Mr. Thomas Paine for his imprudence ought immediately to be dismissed from his office of secretary to the Committee for Foreign Affairs, and the said Committee are directed to dismiss him accordingly, and to take such further steps relative to his misapplication of public papers as they shall deem necessary. Scudder also was a critic of General Charles Lee, George Washington’s second-in-command, who was court martialed after the Battle of Monmouth for leading an ineffectual attack on the British Army. In 1779, Lee came to Congress to clear his name and received rough questioning from Scudder. Lee later identified the "two of the most notorious idiots" in Congress, John Penn of North Carolina and Scudder. He described Scudder as “a gossiping pragmatical Presbyterian doctor or apothecary.” Of the two, Lee wrote with sarcasm, “both of which worthies I have given a downing slap on the face in a letter." Nathaniel Scudder Leaves Congress By fall 1779, Scudder was signaling that his time in Congress was nearing an end. On October 4, he wrote Henry Laurens, President of the Congress, from Freehold: "I intended when I left town to have returned by tomorrow's Stage, but the ill State of Mrs. Scudder's [Isabel Scudder] health, and the circumstances of my family forbid; nor can I determine precisely when I shall be down.” On October 26, he wrote John Stevens, also a delegate, that serving in Congress “has added so much to the reduction of the small remains of my estate, to the distress and uneasiness of my family, to the injury of my children's education, that another year of attendance would be ruinous." He hoped that "our places might not be filled by ambitious, designing men, or by others with like fortune with myself." Governor Livingston wrote Scudder on October 19 about his decision to leave Congress: “The delegates chose [for Congress] are Mr. Fell and Dr. Henderson. I am told the only reason why you was not re-elected was that you had declined to serve another year.” Livingston also encouraged Scudder to be vocal in the coming Monmouth County election: You have done your share, but there is still much to do... I hope you will exert yourself in Monmouth against the next election, that we may have all Whigs. The Legislative body suffers more detriment from three or four Tories than it can reap advantages from twenty Whigs. On November 8, Scudder replied that he had expressed a desire to spend more time at home, but never explicitly said he would not serve another year in Congress. A week later, Scudder wrote Laurens: I am now, my dear friend, returning to private life, this being my last week in Congress, but believe me I have no idea of shrinking from any further share in this important contest - no sir - I will continue to exert myself on all occasions... if necessary by again taking up the sword, and even enlist in the ranks of over those whom I lately held high command... I know you pity me for the unequal sacrifices I have made - I thank you for it, but I know that I have done nothing more than any honest man ought to have done. Scudder returned to Freehold amid rumors that he might return to Congress. In 1780, he reminded Laurens that his medical practice suffered during his absence and his wife was "altogether deranged by my absence." On October 10, 1781, Abraham Clark, a New Jersey delegate in Congress, listed the qualified men who said they would not serve in Congress: “If I am rightly informed… Dr. Scudder, Mr. Boudinot, Dr. Henderson and Colo. Frelinghuysen will decline if chosen." Five days later, Scudder joined David Forman in arms in a clash with a Loyalist raiding party. Scudder was shot in the face and died hours later. He was the only delegate of the Continental Congress to die in combat. Related Historic Site : Independence Hall (Philadelphia) Sources : National Archives, Collection 332, reel 6, #429-39; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 9, p 1017; Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 8, pp. 671-2 note 6; John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v3, p339; Lender, Mark, “The Conscripted Line: The Draft in Revolutionary New Jersey,” New Jersey History, vol. 103 (1985), pp. 28-37; Nathaniel Scudder to William Livingston, Massachusetts Historical Society, William Livingston Papers; William Livingston to Nathaniel Scudder, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, pp. 284-5; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, April 14, 1778, p 110; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 11, p 529 and vol 14, p 814; Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 9, pp. 21. 49; Willhelm Wilmostky to William Knyhausen, Copy: David Library, Battle of Monmouth Collection, #106; Hamilton Cochran, Scudders of the American Revolution (Peterborough, N.H.: Scudder Association, 1976), pp. 97-8; Nathaniel Scudder to John Hart, Selections from the Correspondence of the Executive of New Jersey, From 1776 to 1786 (Newark, NJ: Newark Daily Advertiser, 1848) pp. 119-23; Scudder’s appointment noted in Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 3, p 40; John Hart to Nathaniel Scudder, Library of Congress, Peter Force Collection, Series 7C, box 31, folder 2, 68:223; Journals of the Continental Congress, American Memory, Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html ; Colonial and State Records of North Carolina, v13, p272, http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr13-0324 ; Minutes of the Council of Delaware State, 1776-1792 (Dover: James Kirk: 1896) p 339-40; Nathaniel Scudder to William Livingston in Hamilton Cochran, Scudders of the American Revolution,. (Peterborough, N.H.: Scudder Association, 1976), pp. 98-9; Journals of the Continental Congress, American Memory, Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html ; Journals of the Continental Congress, American Memory, Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html ; Thomas Bradford to Nathaniel Scudder, Pennsylvania Historical Society, Bradford MSS: British Army Prisoners, vol. 2, p 11; Donald W. Whisenhunt, ed., Delegate from New Jersey: The Journal of John Fell (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1973) pp. 16, 29, 79, 130, 141; Lee, Charles, The Lee Papers. 4 vols. (New York: New York Historical Society, 1871-1874) vol. 3, pp. 317-21; Charles Lee, Memoirs of the Life of Gen. Charles Lee (London: JS Jordan, 1792) p 54; Journals of the Continental Congress, American Memory, Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html ; Nathaniel Scudder to Henry Laurens, Letters to Delegates of Congress, vol. 14, p22-3 ( www.ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html ); Nathaniel Scudder to John Stevens in Hamilton Cochran, Scudders of the American Revolution,. (Peterborough, N.H.: Scudder Association, 1976), pp. 98-9; Nathaniel Scudder to John Stevens, Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 14, pp. 127-9; William Livingston to Nathaniel Scudder, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 225, 281 note; Nathaniel Scudder to Henry Laurens, Pennsylvania Historical Society, Charles Jenkins Collection, ALS: Nathaniel Scudder; John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 17, pp. 134, 217; Nathaniel Scudder to Henry Laurens, New York State Library, Special Collections, MS 953; Nathaniel Scudder to Henry Laurens, Pennsylvania Historical Society, Gratz Collection, case 1, box 21, Nathaniel Scudder; Abraham Clark to John Caldwell, Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 18, p 110. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > George Taylor and Nathaniel Scudder Report the Arrival of the British Army by Michael Adelberg A massive British fleet passed Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Harbor on June 30, 1776. Monmouth County’s George Taylor and Nathaniel reported the event. - June 1776 - At the end of June 1776, a massive British fleet began arriving at Sandy Hook, the peninsula at the entrance of New York that was taken by the British navy two months earlier. This massive British fleet numbered 120 sails on June 29. It carried 25,000 soldiers—the largest European army ever sent to the Americas. Long before the fleet’s arrival, Monmouth Countians worried that they could not protect Middletown and Shrewsbury townships, oppositive of Sandy Hook. In April, for example, Joseph Throckmorton, the Shrewsbury Township Magistrate, wrote the New Jersey Provincial Congress about his county’s weakness. He worried that if the British found New York “strongly fortified and garrison'd” they would naturally turn their attention to the “defenceless country” opposite Sandy Hook with “the necessary refreshments and supplies they may so easily obtain.” Throckmorton assessed the Monmouth County militia facing Sandy Hook, particularly in light of recent recruiting by David Forman to enlist “Flying Camp ” to augment George Washington’s Army: As to our strength to defend ourselves, it is much weaken'd by ‘listing of men for the Continental service, and this last supply of men and arms, if not soon recall'd or other ways supplied, may render us incapable of defending ourselves from becoming an easy prey to any invaders, which at this time very much dispirits the inhabitants of this County to be left In so defenceless a condition. Throckmorton furthered worried that “the sending of fifty Jersey muskets to supply part of Col. [William] Maxwell's Battalion and the late draft has took a considerable part of our best Arms.” In June, the Monmouth County militia camped opposite Sandy Hook on the Navesink Highlands. Commanded by Colonel George Taylor, they were the first rebelling Americans to see the British fleet, and it was their responsibility to report on the critical event. James Bowne, serving under Taylor, recalled: The company consisted of about sixty privates - besides the officers - they were quartered at a house on the Bay shore near the upper part of the Highlands where they could see from their quarters the enemy shipping and had a fair view of Sandy Hook, where the enemy lay. On June 29, Colonel George Taylor of Middletown reported the first of the British fleet was arriving. The New Jersey Provincial Congress recorded receiving notice from Taylor that "45 sail is now in sight & 19 sail are at the Hook, & a party of men already landed at the Light House & some light horse." At the same time, Taylor assessed his own vulnerable position. He pessimistically predicted: "The party of men and Light Horse [at Sandy Hook], I have no doubt, will pay us a visit as soon as convenient for them. Our guard is very weak , and not sufficient to make any stand." Taylor’s assessment is corroborated by militiaman George Smock, who recalled that the British landing put “strict terror in the hearts of all." Indeed, on Sandy Hook, the British were receiving reports on the weakness of local defenses. James McFarlane, a Loyalist who enlisted in the British Army a few days after the fleet arrived, reported that “there was nobody on the other side of the Island [Sandy Hook] but a parcell of Jersey rascals.” McFarlane told that the British that “500 [British troops] would drive them all.” John Covenhoven of Freehold, a delegate in the Provincial Congress serving as the body’s Vice President, immediately forwarded Taylor’s report to the Continental Congress. Covenhoven noted steps taken to supply Taylor’s militia and then appealed for help: We have taken steps to move forward a considerable number of arms & ammunition, lead & powder... We rely on your care and protection from every part of the Continent, and doubt not that the most vigorous steps have been taken for our general safety. On July 1, the majority of the British fleet passed Sandy Hook and entered lower New York Harbor. At this critical moment, Nathaniel Scudder, a Committeeman and Lt. Colonel of the Monmouth militia, rode through the night to deliver word to the New Jersey Provincial Congress. During the night he heard booms that he mistook for cannon-fire from the British ships of war (probably thunder). He arrived at the Provincial Congress on July 2 mistakenly believing that the invasion of New York was already underway. Understanding the exceptional vulnerability of Monmouth County, Scudder called for the Monmouth militia to be exempted from duty outside its boundaries. The men should "not be prevailed upon to march to New York and leave their wives and children to fall prey to the enemy, if they should be repulsed at New York, or to be murdered by the Tories in their absence.” John Covenhoven immediately passed Scudder’s report to the Continental Congress along with his own letter: We have this moment undoubted information, by Lieutenant Colonel Scudder, from Monmouth County, that about four o' clock yesterday afternoon, he observed nearly the whole of the enemy' s fleet in motion, and at half past six in the afternoon, saw about one hundred and thirty sail in the channel from the Hook to New York ...that he left Middleton at eleven o' clock last evening; and at about four this morning, being at the high land between Upper and Lower Freehold, heard a very heavy firing of cannon. Covenhoven also reported on events in his home county: We also received, by Colonel Scudder, a letter from Colonel [George] Taylor, of Monmouth, dated yesterday, informing us of that County being so exposed to the enemy without, and the Tories among themselves, that he apprehends the Militia will not be prevailed on to march to New York, and leave their wives and children to fall either a prey to the enemy, if they should be repulsed at New York, or be murdered by the Tories in their absence, who are embodying themselves, and a considerable number already encamped at the Cedar Swamps. Covenhoven concluded by asking the Continental Congress to "send forward all the assistance in your power." However, the greatest threats to the Continental cause in Monmouth County would not come from the British Army, but from Monmouth County’s own Loyalists. Some of these men were already in insurrection against the new government while others were forming into companies that would soon join the British Army at Sandy Hook. Related Historic Sites : Independence Hall (Philadelphia) Sources : Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p137; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - James Bowne; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 6, pp. 1133-4; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 82, item 68, #155, 159; John O'Connor, "Nathaniel Scudder's Midnight Ride," New Jersey Historical Commission Newsletter, vol. 6, n. 3, November 1975, p 2 & 7; Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v1: p 1-2; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - George Smock; Journal of H.M.S. Chatham , Captain John Raynor, June 29, 1776, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Admiralty 51/192. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; "The Examination of James MacFarlan a Soldier belonging to the 55th Regiment, July 5, 1776, Washington Papers, LC. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; Joseph Throckmorton at Shrewsbury to Azariah Dunham, April 4, 1776, Lloyd W. Smith Collection, MNHP. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/. 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's Presbyterians Lose Two Ministers in a Week, Then Gain One by Michael Adelberg Reverend John Woodhull came to Monmouth County in late 1777 as the county’s sole Presbyterian Minister. He replaced two ministers, William Tennent and Charles McKnight. - May 1777 - Historians of the American Revolution have noted that, among all Protestant denominations, Presbyterians lined up the most solidly behind the Revolution. In the Revolutionary Era, Monmouth County had Presbyterian meeting houses at Penelopan (present day Manalapan), Mt. Pleasant (west of Middletown), Allentown, and Good Luck (north of Toms River). The Penelopan and Mt. Pleasant meetings were ministered by William Tennent and Chales McKnight respectively. The smaller Allentown meeting shared a minister, George Faitoute, with meetings in Burlington and Nottingham (in Burlington County). The Good Luck meeting did not have a minister. The strong pro-Revolutionary tilt of Presbyterians was not lost on Loyalists. During Upper Freehold’s Loyalist insurrection , William Imlay was “publicly damned… [as] an 'old Presbyterian', saying he was the cause of all the bloodshed.” The British Army, no doubt, guided by local Loyalists, singled out the Allentown meeting house to use as its stable when it occupied Allentown in the days prior to the Battle of the Monmouth. The Death of Monmouth County’s Presbyterian Ministers By 1777, a clique of ascending Presbyterian county leaders—David Forman, Nathaniel Scudder, Thomas Henderson, etc.—faithfully attended the Tennent Church in Penelopan (now Manalapan). That church, more than any other, would be the focal point of local political power for the rest of the war. William Tennent was the minister of the Tennent Church. He was the son of Gilbert Tennent, the famous Great Awakening preacher. As the elder minister of the zealously Whig congregation, Tennent was among the county’s most important residents as the Revolution started. But Tennent’s health was failing. The Minutes of the New York and Philadelphia Presbytery would soon record: "The Rev. Mr. William Tennent departed this life March 8, 1777." Tennent had been declining for some time, and was reportedly unconscious for a week before expiring. Within days of Tennent’s death, Loyalist raiders burned the Presbyterian meeting house at Mt. Pleasant. They captured Reverend Charles McKnight. In a week, the county lost both of its Presbyterian ministers. McKnight had made himself a target for Loyalists with his strongly anti-British sermons. William Sands testified that in October 1776 McKnight was one of three Revolutionary leaders targeted for capture by Samuel Wright’s Loyalist association. He was “to be conveyed to Staten Island, where they [the Loyalists] were to receive forty dollars each for each prisoner taken.” When captured in March, he was put on a prison ship with common prisoners and not permitted the “ parole ” status granted to other gentleman prisoners. McKnight was fatally ill by December 1777, when he was released home. The New York and Philadelphia Presbytery would note "that the Rev. Mr. Charles McKnight departed this life January last.” John Woodhull Arrives in Monmouth County Monmouth County would be without a Presbyterian minister from March 1777 until the end of that year. At that time, Reverend John Woodhull, a native of Pennsylvania and Continental Army veteran, arrived as the new minister of the Tennent Church. It might not be a coincidence that the middle months of 1777—between Tennent’s death and Woodhull’s arrival—was the same period of time in which General David Forman’s conduct lurched toward lawless. Forman lacked an ethical check from a professional minister. While Woodhull arrived too late to check David Forman’s excesses, he would soon prove an energetic and patriotic minister. He became the local loan officer for the Continental government, helping to raise money for the troops. In 1779, the Tennent Church offered communion to 82 people including fifteen slaves and two free African Americans. Reverend Woodhull led instruction at the Mattisonia School at Freehold, Monmouth County’s first school. Woodhull’s rising standing is demonstrated by him being sent a divinity student, Joseph Clark of Elizabethtown, in 1781. Clark fondly recalled his time studying under Woodhull: The principal part of his theological instructions he received from that venerable father of the church, and distinguished teacher of divinity, the Reverend Doctor John Woodhull... with whom Mr. Clark resided some time, prosecuting his preparatory studies for the ministry and improving himself by assisting his Reverend preceptor in the instruction of the highly respectable grammar school which he [Woodhull] had established and was superintending at the place of his residence. Woodhull was recognized by the New York and Freehold Presbytery as an “elder” in 1782. He was only thirty-one years old. However, it should be noted that the other Monmouth Countian bestowed that title in 1782 was Kenneth Hankinson, a militia officer associated with several scandals; he would soon lead the vigilante group, the Retaliators . The willingness of Presbyterian leaders to look past unethical conduct, if it was pro-Revolution, was evident in Revolutionary New Jersey. As for Joseph Clark, he became Reverend Joseph Clark at the end of 1783. He recorded that he "took charge as the Presbyterian congregation at Allentown.” This congregation, expanded by new members fleeing inland to escape Loyalist raiders, was finally large and wealthy enough to support its own minister. It is unclear when the Mt. Pleasant congregation received a minister again, but it was not during the war. If a minister had been assigned to the congregation during the war, he likely would have suffered the same fate as Reverend McKnight. Related Historic Sites: Old Tennent Church Sources : William Imlay, Deposition, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War Documents, #29; Records of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1788) p477; Benson Lossing, The Pictorial Field-book of the Revolution (New York: Harper Brothers, 1860) vol. 2, p 368; 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; Records of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1788) p480; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Council of Safety, Deposition of William Sands; Monmouth County Historical Association, Collections Alphabetical, John Woodhull Pape; Symmes, History of Old Tennent Church (Cranbury, NJ: George Burroughs, 1904) p 183-4; Records of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1788) p487, 492; Memoirs of the Reverend Robert Finley… with Brief Sketches of Some of His Contemporaries (New Brunswick: Terhune & Letson, 1819) p214; Diary of Joseph Clark in Proceedings of the NJ Historical Society, 1853-55, vol. 7, pp 93. 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 County Whig Society by Michael Adelberg The Continental and New Jersey governments issued paper money during the Revolution that quickly lost its value. Monmouth County’s Whig Society tried to preserve the value of these currencies. - May 1781 - By May 1781, the local war in and around Monmouth County spiraled toward greater brutality. On both sides, paralegal organizations (the Association for Retaliation and the Associated Loyalists ) loaded prisoners in irons in response to real and perceived abuses by the other; irregular gangs and raiding parties “man-stole ” unarmed citizens and plundered their homes. After five years of war and sacrifice, thousands of Monmouth Countians embraced extra-legal, eye-for-an-eye retaliation as a military strategy. But not all Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) supported the move in this direction. Historian Richard McCormick discussed the rise of Whig Societies in Monmouth, Somerset and Middlesex Counties, starting in May 1781. He noted that Whig societies devoted themselves to protecting the value of State and Continental money, promoting free trade, and halting illegal trade with the British. While the Retaliators promised eye-for-an-retaliation with or without the legislature’s authorization , Whigs societies pledged to conduct themselves in accordance with the law. The Monmouth County Whig Society The first meeting of the Monmouth County Whig Society was held on May 10, 1781, at Freehold. It was reported in the New Jersey Gazette . The Whig Society resolved, "That we will use our utmost endeavors to support the credit of the paper currency of this State and to execute the law strictly against every person who shall, to our knowledge, attempt to depreciate." The resolves were signed by John Covenhoven, the Whig Society’s President. Covenhoven was a venerable political leader in Monmouth County. Captured at home at the start of the Loyalist insurrections in 1776, Covenhoven signed a British Loyalty oath to earn his release. He laid low after that; the Whig Society returned him to leadership. Two days later, three petitions to the New Jersey legislature went forward from Monmouth County. The first petition, signed by 34 men mostly from Freehold Township, stated the “estates of numbers of us are wrecked, either by means of external violence or internal policy.” The petitioners then called for economic reforms against New Jersey’s price controls: When we meet ruin in the line of our duty, by complying with the laws of our said Country, we stand amazed! The staple of this State (grain and stock) ought to be encouraged. A State can never flourish when its staple commodity languishes. Limitations of prices and embargoes may answer good purposes upon special emergencies, but if they are frequent or of long duration, they become pernicious, as they usually operate as taxes on industry & discourage the raising of the articles they are designed to make cheap. The petitioners then addressed a proposal in the legislature to pull money out of circulation (in an effort to slow inflation, as the state’s price control laws had failed). The petitioners were concerned, as taking money out of the economy “appears calculated to ruin the credit thereof… they humbly recommend that more severe penalties be inflicted [for currency depreciation], rather than the tender be taken off.” The petitioners then called for free trade (except with the British): Your Memorialists would further recommend that the supplies to the Army , such as the Country may produce, may be raised in kind to feed the troops and money to pay them & every restraint upon trade [be] taken off, & it be free to all the world, excepting Great Britain. Two other petitions went to the New Jersey Assembly from Monmouth County on May 12. One carried 84 signatures. As with the prior petition, the petitioners called for free trade: “that every restraint on trade may be taken off, and it be freely to all of the world, save Great Britain and her dependencies - by this measure, supplies may be raised speedily & with greater ease & equity to individuals." Unlike the prior petition, these petitioners were unconcerned with the state’s currency, but very concerned with legalizing eye-for-an-eye retaliation. They requested: “permission to practice retaliation to have recourse to retaliating on the disaffected amongst us, from which we have experienced the happiest effects." Several prominent Retaliations—David Forman, Kenneth Hankinson, Thomas Henderson, Elisha Walton, Samuel Forman—signed this petition. What likely occurred is that the Whig Society, meeting on May 10, authored the petition on free trade and currency deprecation. Potential signers, however, may have been ambivalent about currency depreciation (if they owed debts, inflation may have been in their self-interest). So, these men authored their own petitions and included a provision about eye-for-an-eye retaliation—which the Whig Society did not support. The last May 12 petition was signed by 25 petitioners, mostly from Upper Freehold. The petitioners worried over the "present & alarming state of affairs... the estates of a number of us are wrecked by means of external violence & internal policy." They also called for free trade within New Jersey, “that every restraint on trade be taken off” and they also called legalizing retaliation, though their language was more circumspect than in the petitioners from Freehold: Your memorialists beg leave to set forth the depredations committed against us by the refugees from amongst the enemy, while we inform your honours that our incredible distress has compelled, altho’ with great reluctance, to have recourse to retaliating on the disaffected among us, from which we have experienced the happiest effect, we would therefore pray your honours pass an act for all past retaliation, and that you would disenfranchise those amongst us [who are] notoriously disaffected. The New Jersey Assembly recorded reading and considering the three petitions on May 21 and June 4. The Whig Society, likely comprised of wealthier Whigs and creditors only looked to curb runaway inflation. The concerns of the Whig Society with runaway inflation was underscored by a May 13 letter from Capt. Beckwith, a Philadelphia privateer at Shrewsbury. He wrote that "old Continental dollars are now at 8 or 900 to one, the new state money at five or 6 to one and bad credit even at that; no person can make any considerable purchase in town or country with paper at all." A few days later, on June 6, Hendrick Vorhees complained to Colonel Asher Holmes about David Forman, leading the Association for Retaliation , refusing to accept Continental money. Vorhees wrote: Agreeable to your orders, I went to General Forman's… to pay him for the ozenbergs, which he refused to take, and says he will not take a farthing of it [Continental money] unless he is allowed depreciation, therefore I should be glad to know what I am to do in the matter. The Whig Society continued meeting. Its next public meeting was advertised on September 5, to occur on September 12, in Freehold. The advertisement was signed by William Wilcocks, the Whig Society’s Secretary. Wilcocks was an attorney who had served as a judge advocate in the Continental Army before moving to Freehold. He became famous for his successful litigation in Holmes v. Walton , in which he successfully defended a Monmouth Countian who had almost certainly illegally acquired silks, but was denied a full jury trial. The Whig Society’s Platform On July 17, 1782, the Whig Society met again at a public meeting chaired by Covenhoven. It passed a number of resolves which fleshed out its platform. These were published in the New Jersey Gazette two weeks later. The Society noted that British peace overtures had increased the temptation to trade with them. Illegal trade with the British might "weaken the Union" and cause a "drainage of specie .” Therefore, the Society pledged: We will...exert ourselves to have the laws of this State for preventing illicit trade and intercourse with the enemy carried into full effect...use our utmost endeavors to detect and bring legal punishment to all persons that have or may hereafter be concerned in holding a trade or intercourse with the enemy...publish in the New Jersey Gazette the name of every person within this county that shall be detected in violating the said law, in order that they may be publicly known and treated with such a degree of contempt as their crimes deserve...encourage the collection of all taxes that now are or hereafter may be levied by law. The Society then resolved that its members would engage in “endevouring to carry into the full effect the laws of this State for the preventing of illicit trade and intercourse with the enemy, and for the collection of taxes.” Further, the Society devoted itself to advertise those who engaged in illegal trade so that these individuals would be shunned, as was done with violators of the Continental Association prior to the war: We will use our utmost endeavours to detect and bring legal punishment to all persons that have or may hereafter be concerned in holding a trade or intercourse with the enemy; that we will, from and after this time, publish in the New Jersey Gazette the name of every person within this county that shall be detected in violating the said law, in order that they may be publickly known and treated with such a degree of contempt as their crimes deserve. The Society also pledged that it would “encourage the collection of all taxes that now are or hereafter may be levied by law for the purpose of supporting the present war.” Into the 1780s, tax collection was a dicey proposition in disaffected parts of Monmouth County. The full resolutions of the Whig Society of Monmouth County are in the appendix of this article. No membership list exists for the Whig Society. While their political rivals in the Retaliators gathered 436 signatures, it is probable that the Whig Society never numbered more than a few dozen—but the membership skewed toward the county’s wealthier and better-connected. It is probable that the Whig Society never sought members from middling and poorer people. In 1782, other associations sprung up across that county—each of which came into existence as a check against illegal trade without resorting to extra-legal retaliation. While the Whig Society, of itself, might not have commanded the affection of very many Monmouth Countians, these other associations would enlist hundreds more Whigs who sought to express their patriotism while upholding the law. Related Historic Site : National Museum of American History (Washington, DC) Appendix: The Resolutions of the Whig Society of Monmouth County, July 1782 Whereas the court of Great Britain, after having in vain attempted to subjugate the American states force of arms, have at length been obliged to acknowledge the impracticability of the measure, but still not willing to relinquish all attempts for the purpose, have changed their system of politicks, and are now endevouring the seduce the inhabitants of these states into a compliance with them; in measures that if not prevented will be very prejudicial to the Union, by publickly countenancing a trade with us, from which every evil is to be apprehended; but one that particularly more affects us is the danger of draining specie out of the country and thereby rendering it impracticable for the inhabitants to pay their taxes; therefore: Resolved, that it is the duty of every friend to the independence of America, at all times, to exert himself to counteract the efforts of the enemy; but more particularly so at a time when our political salvation (under God) depends on, and must be procured by our exertions. Resolved, that at this critical situation of publick affairs, there is no way in which exertion can be better applied, nor any measure that can be adopted more necessary than supporting and endevouring to carry into the full effect the laws of this State for the preventing of illicit trade and intercourse with the enemy, and for the collection of taxes. Resolved, that we will, as far as our power and influence will extend, exert ourselves to have the laws of this State for preventing illicit trade and intercourse with the enemy carried into full effect; and that we will use our utmost endeavours to detect and bring legal punishment to all persons that have or may hereafter be concerned in holding a trade or intercourse with the enemy; that we will, from and after this time, publish in the New Jersey Gazette the name of every person within this county that shall be detected in violating the said law, in order that they may be publickly known and treated with such a degree of contempt as their crimes deserve. Resolved, that we will, as far as our influence will extend, encourage the collection of all taxes that now are or hereafter may be levied by law for the purpose of supporting the present war. Freehold, County of Monmouth, July 17, 1782 –John Covenhoven, President"Resolution of the Whig Society of Monmouth County Whereas the court of Great Britain, after having in vain attempted to subjugate the American states force of arms, have at length been obliged to acknowledge the impracticability of the measure, but still not willing to relinquish all attempts for the purpose, have changed their system of politicks, and are now endevouring the seduce the inhabitants of these states into a compliance with them; in measures that if not prevented will be very prejudicial to the Union, by publickly countenancing a trade with us, from which every evil is to be apprehended; but one that particularly more affects us is the danger of draining specie out of the country and thereby rendering it impracticable for the inhabitants to pay their taxes; therefore: Resolved, that it is the duty of every friend to the independence of America, at all times, to exert himself to counteract the efforts of the enemy; but more particularly so at a time when our political salvation (under God) depends on, and must be procured by our exertions. Resolved, that at this critical situation of publick affairs, there is no way in which exertion can be better applied, nor any measure that can be adopted more necessary than supporting and endevouring to carry into the full effect the laws of this State for the preventing of illicit trade and intercourse with the enemy, and for the collection of taxes. Resolved, that we will, as far as our power and influence will extend, exert ourselves to have the laws of this State for preventing illicit trade and intercourse with the enemy carried into full effect; and that we will use our utmost endeavours to detect and bring legal punishment to all persons that have or may hereafter be concerned in holding a trade or intercourse with the enemy; that we will, from and after this time, publish in the New Jersey Gazette the name of every person within this county that shall be detected in violating the said law, in order that they may be publickly known and treated with such a degree of contempt as their crimes deserve. Resolved, that we will, as far as our influence will extend, encourage the collection of all taxes that now are or hereafter may be levied by law for the purpose of supporting the present war. Freehold, County of Monmouth, July 17, 1782 –John Covenhoven, President Sources : Richard P. McCormick, Experiment in Independence: New Jersey in the Critical Period 1781-1789 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1950), pp. 11, 164; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Larry Gerlach, New Jersey in the American Revolution 1763-1783 A Documentary History (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1975) pp. 395-6; Hendrick Vorhees to Asher Holmes, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 5, folder 9; New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 14, #65; New Jersey State Archives, Dept of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #11037; Captain Beckwith quoted in John Austin Stevens, Magazine of American History, 1884, vol 11, p69; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, May 22 and June 4, 1781, p 8-32; 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 > Holmes v. Walton as a Constitutional Watershed by Michael Adelberg David Brearly presided over the New Jersey Supreme Court as it moved to be the U.S. first court to hold a law unconstitutional. He delayed the ruling to allow the Legislature to amend the law. - May 1779 - As noted in the prior article , in May 1779, Major Elisha Walton ordered the seizure of a large quantity of silk belonging to John Holmes and Solomon Ketchum. The silk was almost certainly illegally purchased from Loyalists who acted as middlemen between British-held New York and Monmouth County farmers. Over the course of the war, militia parties or privateers seized the goods of dozens of Monmouth Countians who participated in the so-called “London Trade . ” One seizure of grain , in January 1779, deepened the split between the county’s competing factions of Revolutionary leaders. However, it was Walton’s seizure of the silks of Holmes and Walton that would permanently impact American constitutional history. The case of Holmes v. Walton was first decided in 1780, and then reheard through 1783. The 1780 decision was the first known application of judicial review, through which a court determines a law unconstitutional and voids it. In the case of Holmes v Walton, the New Jersey Supreme Court would strike down an October 1778 law that authorized judges or township magistrates to validate the seizure of illegally traded goods with only the affirmation of a six-man mini-jury. Further, the law did not create a way to appeal the magistrate’s ruling. Judge John Anderson of Freehold, with a six-man jury, upheld Walton’s seizure of Holmes’ and Ketchum’s goods. Lacking an appeal in the local courts, Holmes hired an attorney, William Wilcocks (formerly a judge advocate in the Continental Army) and requested a hearing before the New Jersey Supreme Court. Wilcocks never claimed that Holmes was innocent, but instead focused on violations of Holmes’ right to a fair trial. Broadly-speaking, Wilcocks advanced three arguments: Jury Tampering : Wilcocks argued that Walton prejudiced the six-man jury, stating that "Elisha Walton did, at his own expense, and without the consent of said John and Solomon, treat with strong liquor the jury sworn to try this case, after they were unpaneled, but before they gave their verdict in the case." This argument was not persuasive to the Supreme Court. Though it might astound modern readers, attempting to curry favor with jurors and voters with liquor was accepted in the raucous democracy practiced in the 1700s. Weak Evidence : Wilcocks argued for reversal "because there was not any evidence offered at the trial which proved that such wares & merchandize came from the enemy.” He argued that hearsay evidence was used to decide the case, rather than documentary evidence such as British marks on the silks or receipts demonstrating purchases made in New York. These arguments did not persuade the Supreme Court; 18th century cases were frequently decided on hearsay evidence. The Right to a Fair Trial : The strongest of Wilcocks’ arguments concerned Holmes’ right to a jury trial. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (co-written by John Covenhoven of Freehold) included this statement: “The inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as part of the law of this colony without repeal forever.” Wilcocks argued that the right to a fair trial "could not be warranted by a jury of the six" (when twelve was the long-established number for a jury). Further, Holmes did not have a path for appeal other than the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by hearing Holmes’ case, implicitly agreed with Holmes’ plea for an appeal. Wilcocks concluded that seizure of Holmes’ silks “was contrary to the Constitution, law and practices of the land." Well before the decision was issued, it was apparently understood that Wilcocks’ arguments were persuasive. In December, Governor William Livingston wrote Nathaniel Scudder, Monmouth County’s most prominent political leader, that: The cause between Walton and Holmes is of the greatest moment and I hope none of the judges have given their opinion, I should be sorry that the supposed event of the controversy should give the Tories any cause of triumph; but the judges, you know, are bound to determine the law in whosoever favor that may appear to be, let the consequences be what they may. Holmes v. Walton was decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court on September 7, 1780—almost a year after it was first argued. With Chief Justice David Brearly of Upper Freehold presiding, it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Holmes and Ketcham. The ruling argued that the New Jersey Constitution and English common law required a twelve-man jury and that legal decisions were subject to appeal. The legislature exceeded its constitutional authority by interfering with these rights. The court also ruled that the "said plaintiffs be restored of all things." The New Jersey legislature implicitly agreed with the ruling by passing a new law that required the magistrate or judge to convene a jury of twelve, when requested, to decide on the legality of the seizure. Legal historian, Philip Hamburger, who wrote the defining legal work on Holmes v Walton, argued that the Supreme Court delayed its decision in order to give the legislature time to revise its unconstitutional law: “There was real danger that a judicial reversal would become a political and military reversal and although the judges would alter their decision, they were willing to defer their decision until the government prepared itself for the judgment.” Additional Legal Moves Prior to the Supreme Court issuing its decision, Walton moved to rehear the seizure of silks in a court of law. In July 1780, the Monmouth County Court of Common Pleas heard a complaint from Elisha Walton. His attorney claimed that the Supreme Court "reversed the judgment given by John Anderson, Esq." (the official decision would not be issued until September) and asked the court to "correct errors in the record and process" by rehearing and upholding the seizure. Walton argued that the court had not found Holmes and Ketchum innocent, but only took issue with the process by which they were tried. A proper trial could correct the matter. The Monmouth Court of Common Pleas did not immediately hear the case. It was not until July 1781 (nine months after the Supreme Court decision), that the county court moved to re-hear the case. A full jury was empaneled and several witnesses were called: Andrew Bowne, Elias Covenhoven, William Hilsey, John James, Daniel Ketchum, Thomas Henderson, and Phoebe Ketchum. The result of this trial is not documented, but the decision likely was against Walton. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed it would hear an appeal in late 1781. In May 1782, the New Jersey Supreme Court re-heard Holmes v Walton, but this time the decision of the Court of Common Pleas was on trial. John Craig, Monmouth County's Commissioner of Bails and Affidavits, forwarded several papers to the Supreme Court, including: 1. Andrew Bowne's testimony in favor of Walton, claiming that he heard from Holmes that the wagon carrying the silks was on its way to Daniel Ketchum's house (to elude capture by the militia) when it was seized; 2. Depositions from Moses Mount, Daniel Herbert, William Thomson, and Aaron Davis that, at the July 1781 retrial in Freehold, one of the witnesses, Widow Holmes, "should have said something about the wagon & goods going to Daniel Ketchum's but it being objected against as illegal, as hearsay" by Wilcocks, the important testimony never offered; 3. Statements from William Morison and Jonathan Forman complaining that William Wilcocks’ frequent objections and numerous invoking of "bills of exception" prevented a full disclosure of evidence; 4. A statement from Andrew Bowne that his previous testimony was cut short by Wilcock's frequent objections and bills of exception, obstructing the proceeding. The Supreme Court apparently did not issue a decision in 1782, because it heard from seven witnesses a year later in May 1783. At this time: 1. Andrew Bowne testified that "in May 1779, lived at Middletown near the lines" when he carried the silks to Holmes & Ketchum. "He had never of John Holmes purchasing the goods from Boston" as Holmes claimed and "Holmes was not a merchant"; 2. John James testified, he "lived at Daniel Ketchum's” and witnessed Ketchum loading the silks onto a wagon and taking the back road in an apparent attempt to avoid capture; 3. Elias Covenhoven testified in support of Holmes, stating that Holmes never indicated "the goods were carried from N. York"; 4. Phoebe Ketchum testified that she "rode in the wagon with her brother [Daniel]” and recalled Solomon Ketchum and Obadiah Bowne driving the wagon "along the back road" to escape seizure. When stopped, they lied about the contents in the wagon; 5. Thomas Henderson testified that he examined the goods and "they appeared to be such as are usually imported from Great Britain... and the quantity was greater than ever this deponent had seen in any country store." He further stated that the £20,000 valuation of the silks was "extraordinary" because "goods of this were exceedingly scarce." And he stated that Ketchum picked a road that "went unused" though he was "well acquainted with both roads"; 6. Daniel Ketchum testified that he was moving the goods to a house in Freehold because of "an alarm at Middletown" and that the goods were purchased "honestly and righteously"; 7. William Hilsey testified that the goods "appeared imported and were of the first quality." It is not known if the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Monmouth Court of Common Pleas. Beyond New Jersey, Holmes v. Walton, according to legal historian Hamburger, is the “earliest precedent for judicial review” in the United States. It created a blueprint for judicial review by which a court can determine a law unconstitutional. A generation later, in Marbury v. Madison, the United States Supreme Court asserted judicial review as its power. It is remarkable that a London trading incident in Monmouth County played such an important role in U.S. constitutional history. Related Historic Site : The Supreme Court of the United States (Washington, DC) Sources : Philip Hamburger, Law and Judicial Duty (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2008) p 407-20; Supreme Court Records, New Jersey State Archives, #18354; William Livingston to Nathaniel Scudder, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 279-80, 281 note; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, May 13 and May 20, 1780, p 187-195; Monmouth County Common Pleas Minutes, July 1780, Monmouth County Archives; Austin Scott, "Holmes v. Walton: The New Jersey Precedent", American Historical Review, 1899, vol. 4, pp 7-8; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, December 8, 1780, p 52; Supreme Court Records, New Jersey State Archives, #44928. 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 Countians Capture British Ship by Michael Adelberg Contemporary photo of a beach at Barnegat. The British sloop likely grounded off of an uninhabited beach similar to this one. - October 1775 - Throughout 1775, a steady stream of British supply vessels sailed the Atlantic Seaboard with provisions for the British Army. The Monmouth shore, with its proximity to New York City and prevailing winds, became a common place for British ships to make landfall. These ships, made less agile by heavy cargoes and punished from storms, frequently grounded along the unmarked Monmouth shoreline and in its narrow inlets. It was one of these groundings that created the first opportunity for the Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) of Monmouth County to take their first clear action against the British military. On October 5, 1775, the HMS Viper , made landfall near Barnegat during “a gale of wind.” Warships were frequently accompanied by smaller vessels called “tenders” that ferried goods between the ship and shore. The Viper and its tender beached off Barnegat. The Viper ’s crew threw materials overboard in order to raise the ship and escape the shallows; its tender was not so fortunate. The Viper sailed away, along with most of the tender’s crew. Word of the stranded tender reached Freehold on October 7 and the Monmouth County Committee quickly ordered the militia to capture the tender and salvage the materials thrown overboard. Presumably the next day, a militia party co-led by James Allen of Dover and Asher Taylor of Shrewsbury townships arrived at Barnegat and captured the tender and its three remaining sailors. The New Jersey Provincial Congress recorded the capture on October 11: “A small vessel, supposed to be a tender of a Man of War, was taken near Barnegat with three persons on board… and said persons secured in some safe place in the County of Monmouth." On the 13th, the captured British sailors were deposed by Dr. Nathaniel Scudder of the Monmouth County Committee. Richard Symonds, the senior sailor, testified that the tender was blown off course. He "discovered land, entered Cranberry Inlet being unable to continue at sea on acct of the smallness of the vessel & badness of the weather." Symonds reported that the tender was boarded by Taylor and Allen, who, "finding he belonged to a man of war, insisted upon detaining him & his companions... demanded delivery of their arms, with which they complied and since remained in custody." Five days later, the New Jersey Provincial Congress read a report on the incident and resolved: That it be recommended to that Committee to publish an Advertisement in the Newspapers, describing the Sloop, so that the owner may know where to apply; and that the Men and Arms, found on board the said Sloop, be taken proper care of by that Committee, until this Congress shall give further order. The New Jersey Provincial Congress agreed to receive the three prisoners on January 2, 1776. But Monmouth County Committee Chair, John Burrowes, reported bad news on January 11: “The two lads have gone off, & Mr. Simmonds appears in a very uneasy situation.” Burrowes agreed to transfer Symonds and he is recorded as confined in Philadelphia (with a number of other captured British sailors from other ships) in a Continental Congress document compiled on February 21, 1776. The fate of the two junior sailors is not known. On February 1, the Monmouth Committee of Observation advertised the sale of the beached tender in the New York Journal . The sale would occur on May 1. The ship was described as a 30-foot sloop, tender to the frigate Viper. The Committee gave the rightful owner the option to recover it: "If the original owner shall apply, prove property and pay charges, any day before the first of May next, he may have her again in her present condition.” Absent that, the vessel would be sold. It can be safely assumed that the Monmouth County Committee knew full well that the British Navy would not demean itself by applying to a rebel County Committee (which it did not recognize) for the return of its vessel. With the capture and sale of the tender and detention of its crew, Monmouth County Whigs were now active participants in the still-undeclared Revolutionary War. Bolder captures would soon occur. Interestingly, the two men who led the capture, James Allen and Asher Taylor, would both turn Loyalist during the Loyalist insurrections that occurred a year later. Monmouth Countians would continue to prey on vulnerable British shipping for the next seven years, including captures in December 1775 and January 1776 . Related Historical Sites : New Jersey Maritime Museum Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Coll., State Library Manuscript Coll., #74, 76-77; Dennis Ryan, New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Chronology (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1974) p 24; Peter Force, American Archives, (Force and Clarke: Washington, DC, 1837) Series 4, vol. 3, P1287; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009) pp. 204-6; John Almon, The Rembrancer or Impartial Repository of Public Events, Part I (John Almon: London, 1776), p 339; "Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html ), v3: p 1221, 1227.); Christopher Marshall, The Diary of Christopher Marshall (Amazon Digital Services, 2014) p 48; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 3, pp. 577, 753; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I58, Papers of John Hancock, p 424. 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 Navy Takes Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg The HMS Phoenix was among the first British warships to land on the western bank of Sandy Hook. The British Navy took Sandy Hook without a fight in April 1776. - April 1776 - April 1776 was a tense time in New York City. American independence was not yet declared, yet Continental soldiers were flowing into the city and building defenses in preparation for a British attack. Meanwhile vestiges of the Royal Government continued in the city and a handful of British naval vessels sat in the harbor. The vulnerable position of the British ships was punctuated on April 7 when a small party of British was attacked while drawing fresh water on Staten Island. This resulted in the capture of one of the British boats and its crew. After this incident, Rear Admiral Molyneux Shudlham, commanding the British squadron in New York, determined it was necessary to move his ships to a less vulnerable location with fresh water. Sandy Hook was easily defended from New York, had fresh water nearby, and was a strategic location from which ocean-bound shipping could be either guarded or menaced. On April 7, Captain Thomas Parker of the Phoenix anchored off Sandy Hook and his sailors disembarked on the undefended peninsula. Within days, the British were garrisoning Sandy Hook as the Phoenix stood guard from the Raritan Bay side. A 12-man sentry was stationed at the bottom of the Hook to guard the freshwater well. The British also burned the pilot’s house near the lighthouse in order to deny cover to would-be attackers. Lighthouse keeper, Adam Dobbs, was restricted in his activities and ordered to stay on the Hook. He was likely viewed with suspicion because his brother, William Dobbs, had previously refused to assist a British tea-ship and had recently joined the Continental Army. On April 16, the remaining British ships at New York sailed for Sandy Hook with the remainder of New York’s Royal Government, including Governor William Tryon. Tryon reported that the British navy officers, on reaching Sandy Hook, “found it expedient for his Majesty's Service to burn down the Pilot-House, at the Hook.” He would also permit Dobbs to leave the Hook for New York if a boat was sent for him. He wrote to New York’s mayor that “all possible care has been taken to Mr. Dobbs and his property, that if you will send a sloop to the Hook, it will be suffered to bring up to New York, Mr. Dobbs, his servants and effects." Dobbs was promptly retrieved and deposed before the New York Provincial Congress. After hearing from him, the Provincial Congress determined that Dobbs had information of value for the recently-arrived George Washington. It transcribed Dobbs’ testimony and: “Ordered, That Captain William Dobbs wait on his Excellency General Washington, with the said copy of a Letter." William Dobbs had enlisted in the Continental Army; he was the brother of Adam Dobbs, and the former pilot at Sandy Hook. Three days later, Tryon reported to George Germain, the British Foreign Secretary: I have now got down with my Ship under the guns of the Phoenix man of war, which is anchored within the Bay off Sandy Hook. This was necessary in order to replenish the Ship's water which was considerably expended. As I judged the possession of the Light House might prevent the Seamen from insults when watering at the well near the Light House, I have ordered a Sergeant and 12 men, from Cap' Campbell's new raised Company, for a night guard. Captain Parker assuring me that in case of extremity he could cover their retreat by the cannon of his Ships. The Pilot's house adjoining to the Light house is burnt down to prevent its being made a lurking place to the enemy, three or four hundred of which appeared yesterday near the Isthmus of the Peninsula where the Light house stands. The last sentence of Tryon’s report, in which he mentions 300-400 of the “enemy” at the bottom of the Hook must have been a reference to the still-organizing Monmouth militia . Companies of Middletown militia under Colonel George Taylor were stationed opposite the British, but they were less numerous than Tryon reported and in no condition to threaten the British. A British Colonel, Templehoffe, was on Sandy Hook during this time period. He discussed the importance of "being in possession of the light house upon Sandy Hook, which guards the right hand side of the harbour's mouth.” He further stated, “The entrance into the harbour is completely commanded by the light-house." His assessment about the importance of Sandy Hook was shared by Continental officers who would soon seek to dislodge the British. Related Historical Sites : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Bruce Bliven, Under the Guns, New York 1775-1776 (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) p 236-7; Colin Lindsay, Extracts of Colonel Templehoffe's History of the Seven Years War (London: T. Cadel, 1793), v2, p484; David Syrett, The Royal Navy in American Waters, 1775-1783 (Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press, 1989), p 16; Harlow McMillen, “Red, Green, and a Little Blue: The Story of Staten Island in the American Revolution, Part 8,” Staten Island History, 1st ser., vol. 32 (1977): Part 3, p 25-6; Pennsylvania Ledger, May 4, 1776; The Library Company, Pennsylvania Ledger, vol. 1, Jan. 1775-Nov. 1776; Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York (Albany: John R. Broadhead, 1857), vol. 8, p677; New-York Gazette, Monday, May 6, 1776. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; Peter Force, American Archives, v5:955, 1470; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 1, pp. 92-3; Genealogical webpage on William Dobbs: https://familypedia.fandom.com/wiki/William_Henry_Dobbs_(1716-1781) . 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 > Disaffection in the Monmouth Militia by Michael Adelberg Charles Pettit was one of New Jersey’s leading statesmen. He spent much of the war at Little Egg Harbor, just south of Monmouth County. He often wrote about affairs along the Jersey shore. - February 1777 - As discussed in prior articles, the Monmouth County militia was rendered largely dysfunctional by disaffection in its ranks and among its leaders (including the defection of its most senior leader, Colonel George Taylor of Middletown). When Loyalists rose up in late 1776, it was regiments of soldiers (David Forman’s Flying Camp in November and Francis Gurney’s Pennsylvania regiment in January) who took the fight to the Loyalists. The county militia was notably absent from both campaigns. Disaffection in the Monmouth County Militia With the Pennsylvanians leaving the county on February 5 and Forman’s Additional Regiment stymied by slow recruiting, Monmouth County’s Whig leaders scrambled to re-assemble the county militia in early February 1777. But observers were skeptical of the value of a militia company that was largely disaffected. Thomas Savadge, the administrator of the Pennsylvania Salt Works at Toms River, offered an opinion that was echoed by others: The militia in this part of the county is by no means calculated for the defense thereof; for more than half of them are Tories and the rest but little better. I am of the opinion that if this part of the county is to be defended it must be by Continental troops who know their duty, or militia of another State. A similar opinion of the shore township militias was offered by Charles Pettit, a New Jersey legislator and quartermaster for the state of New Jersey: “I fear but little is to be expected, a baneful influence has spread among the people.” Nonetheless, the 1st Regiment of the Monmouth County Militia (from Freehold and Middletown townships) assembled around February 1 and marched 140 men forward to the Navesink Highlands where they set up camp opposite the British base at Sandy Hook. They were promptly routed by British regulars at the Battle of Navesink . It appears that the 2nd and 3rd militia regiments remained largely non-mustered. On February 21, Samuel Forman, Colonel of the 2nd Regiment, and Daniel Hendrickson, Colonel of the 3rd Regiment, with 19 other Monmouth militia officers, petitioned the New Jersey Legislature. They noted past troubles in the county: “the inhabitants of this County, being cut off from all communication with Continental forces & surrounded by those of the Enemy, were compelled to lay down arms and accept a protection after being disarmed.” The officers stated that earlier in the month “a considerable number of them, upon the first call of their officers, turned out & have been on duty since.” The officers, then, frankly assessed the weakness of the Monmouth militia: It is deplorably true that a large proportion both of the publick & private arms were taken away by the Tories, in consequence of which not more than half of our militiamen are to any effect until they shall be supplied with arms from abroad. –That a very considerable portion of the inhabitants, themselves, are notoriously disaffected, and stand ready not only to give the enemy, from every part of the coast, all possible intelligence, and also join them in arms, upon the very probability of success. – That parties of the enemy are daily watching for opportunities for making descents & carrying off all such they know to be well-affected. –That one of the largest guards of militia here… has lately been surprised and the greatest part of them either killed or carried off into captivity, which has exceedingly depressed the spirits of their friends. The officers ended the petition with two requests: First, “this Country can never be protected unless a very considerable body of troops be introduced into it.” Second, they requested the appointment of David Forman as a General of the New Jersey militia with authority over the militias of neighboring counties: “No person whose knowledge of or attachment to the Country is as great as Coll. David Forman, and therefore pray he may have the appointment of a Brigadier.” At roughly the same time, the officers appealed for troops to help General Israel Putnam, who led the Continental Army in central New Jersey. On February 26, Putnam turned down the request and wrote George Washington about the decision: “Frequent Applications have been made to me from Monmouth for Reinforcements and I have not a Man to spare them.” However, Putnam was sympathetic to sending men at some point in the future because of the disaffection of the Monmouth militia: I am credibly informed many of those lately taken, engaged in our Service with a View to assist the Enemy by behaving ill—and that a constant Correspondence has been carried on between some of them and [Elisha] Lawrence of the New Jersey Volunteers]. A March 14 petition from several senior militia officers (including Samuel Forman, Elisha Lawrence (cousin of the Loyalist of the same name), Asher Holmes, Aucke Wikoff, and Thomas Henderson) also spoke of disaffection in the Monmouth militia: As our affairs now stand, the disaffection is so general and great that even amongst the guards assembled there are some that have declared that they would not fire an alarm gun should they be on duty and see the enemy approach. In short, we are fully convinced that unless some very spirited and speedy measures are taken, we will fall to the enemy within our own bowels. This was not an unfounded concern. The county militia’s dragoon company—theoretically, an elite unit——suffered a string of captures and resignations among its officers (see appendix). The company lost its first three captains in 1777 and 1778 (see appendix). Along the shore, the residents of Toms River generally supported the Revolution. But the majority of residents in between the neighborhoods were disaffected . On May 18, the residents of Toms River petitioned the New Jersey legislature for a special guard to disrupt illegal trade with the enemy and protect the village: Finding our strength insufficient, beg leave to inform your honors that the enemies of the United States, as well as the more secret ones within, do carry on a clandestine trade contrary to the laws of the State... and the inhabitants of Toms River, in said town, have been frequently threatened to be plundered and their houses razed. The petitioners continued, “the militia is not very numerous and hard to collect on any occasion… therefore we beg that an act be passed for forming a volunteer company to consist of about thirty men, properly officered & provisioned." Petition signers included Toms River’s leading militia officers: Major John Cook, Captain Samuel Bigelow, and Lieutenant Joshua Studson. Charles Pettit, at Little Egg Harbor (just south of Monmouth County), made a similar request on June 19. Attempts to Improve the Monmouth County Militia At least in Upper Freehold, Colonel Samuel Forman started moving against the disaffected men inside his regiment in March. On March 15, he directed Captain John Walton to “take charge of” seven men for “refusing to bear arms” and bring them to Haddonfield to stand before the New Jersey Council of Safety. Walton was also directed to take six other men “to Philadelphia & deliver them to the proper authorities” though the charges against these men were not stated. On May 1, the Monmouth militia held a general muster in which all men were required to turn out. The muster roll for the 1st Regiment still exists and reveals that the militia was very much a work in progress: nearly 10% of the militia was listed as captured (primarily as a result of the defeat at the Battle of Navesink in February) and more than 20% of the militia was listed as absconded. The incomplete ranks were likely even larger in the 2nd and 3rd regiments which came from townships with higher rates of disaffection. By summer, more officers were enforcing militia turnout. On July 21, Captain John Covenhoven (not the political leader of the same name) was ordered to: Warn all men in your district to appear at Allentown on Tuesday morning at 8 o'clock, you're to admit no excuse, those that refuse, you're to bring by force of arms, you are likewise to collect what arms you can find in your district. Other militia captains in the same regiment likely received the same orders. But Colonel Samuel Forman was doubtful that a majority of militia, even with the tougher policy, would turn out. “If we can get only 50, I shall well be pleased." Two weeks later, on August 5, Colonel Daniel Hendrickson ordered the eight captains of the Shrewsbury regiment to "immediately advertise every delinquent that does not appear, and hear their excuses... every delinquent that does not have reasonable excuse, you are to return to be fined agreeable to the law; these orders order, I strictly enjoin to execute." Yet militia delinquency in Shrewsbury would not be significantly punished for another three years. Gradually, the Monmouth militia improved. David Forman successfully raised a party of militia to march fifty miles to the Sourland Hills in order to join the Continental Army when the British Army went in motion in June 1777. In September 1777, when the British Army menaced Philadelphia, a large contingent of Monmouth militia under Asher Holmes (now the Colonel of the 1st Regiment) marched into Pennsylvania to assist the Continental Army. The organization and spirit necessary to take such an action was finally evident in at least some of the Monmouth militia. Related Historic Site : Seabrook-Wilson House Appendix: The Monmouth County Militia’s Dragoon Company The Monmouth County militia included a dragoon (cavalry) company in early 1777. Following the defeat at the Battle of the Navesink. It was raised mostly from Middletown for the purpose of observing and rapidly alerting local militia companies of threats. Private Hendrick Hendrickson recalled their duty was "scouting the shores" and alerting other militia of enemy threats. To serve in the company, the men had to provide their own "dress, horse and accoutrements" according to Lewis Covenhoven, one of the company’s privates. An undated return of the company noted its officers were Captain Jacob Covenhoven, Lt. Barnes Smock (a second Barnes Smock served as a private), and Ensign John Forman (of Middletown Point). It had 25 privates, including Stephen Seabrook (who would soon be bayoneted inside his father’s home). Twelve men “did not attend” the muster during when the return was compiled. Covenhoven was the company’s third captain; the first captain, Benjamin Randolph, was captured before the return was compiled. The second captain was Jacob Remsen, who promptly resigned. Jacob Covenhoven, its third captain, was captured during a raid of Middletown Point in May 1778 (and reportedly remained in prison until 1781). Lt. Barnes Smock was then elected captain, and Prvt. Barnes Smock promoted to an officer. Captain Barnes Smock was captured by Black raiders in 1780. Sources : Thomas Savadge to Pennsylvania Council of Safety, Samuel Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1902) First Series, vol. 5, p 216; Israel Putnam to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 8, 6 January 1777 – 27 March 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998, p. 448; Asher Holmes, Militia Return, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 6, folder 7; Petition, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War Collection, Numbered Manuscripts #10336; Petition, National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23877637 ; Samuel Forman to John Walton, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #1062; Dover Township Petition, Monmouth County Historical Association, J. Amory Haskell Collection, folder 22, Document G; Charles Pettit to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War Documents, #40; Elisha Lawrence to John Covenhoven, National Archives, Misc. Numbered Records, 12: 4010; Daniel Hendrickson to Captains of Militia, Monmouth County Historical Association, J. Amory Haskell Collection, folder 10, Document E; Muster Roll, Capt Jacob Covenhoven's Company, undated, National Archives, Washington DC, RG 93, reel 64; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Barnes J. Smock; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Lewis Covenhoven; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of Hendrick Hendrickson of NJ, National Archives, p10-15. Previous Next

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > 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