The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Loyalist "Manstealing" Peaks and the Rise of Colonel Tye by Michael Adelberg In 1780, Loyalist raiding parties began “manstealing” Monmouth County’s patriots, including 16 militia officers. Captured Americans were confined in dismal prisons and prison ships. - May 1780 - As noted in a prior article, " manstealing " in Monmouth County started in early 1780 when small parties of Loyalist raiders, outside the control of the British Army, began kidnapping Monmouth County local leaders. While militia officers were not the only men captured, Loyalist parties often targeted militia officers. Through the spring and summer of 1780, man-stealings, at minimum, resulted in the capture of ten militia officers—Lt. Colonel John Smock, Maj. Hendrick Van Brunt (taken a second time), Captains James Green, Barnes Smock, Jacob Covenhoven, Thomas Wainwright, and Lieutenants Thomas Cook (taken a third time), Thomas Little (taken a second time), James Walling, and James Wall. The manstealings were so pervasive and feared that militia officers started resigning. On May 11, Thomas Wainwright, one of Shrewsbury Township’s captains, wrote Governor William Livingston: My living here is uncertain and I find it is not in my power any longer to make my commission, I am threatened of being taken and carried to New York and can't rest quietly in my bed, I should be glad [if] your Excellency would favor me, as it is difficult for me to be active [while] living on the lines. I am not only in danger of being taken off any night by the Tories, but am in so poor a state of health that I am not able to undergo the hardships of being a soldier. If your Excellency would please to excuse me from serving, I shall take kindly… Our fighting men are most of them killed or taken prisoner. I shall, if not excused from serving, be under the necessity of leaving my family and retiring into the country, for if I should be taken and put in prison under my present state of health, I should not live long, and I have served my country at every call, whenever we had any prospect of dealing with them I took it upon a hardship to be enlisted, as I am the only officer left on the lines. Wainwright’s resignation did not protect him; he was captured several weeks later. In hindsight, it is apparent that the primary driver of manstealing was the rise of irregular Loyalist raiding parties that adopted kidnapping as their default activity. But, in the moment, some Monmouth County leaders blamed prisoner exchanges , and officers who arranged them (such as Colonel Asher Holmes), as the cause of manstealing. Exemplifying this point of view, David Forman called exchanges “replete with evil.” He argued that “with every exchange made, we give encouragement to that British mode of manstealing, once gone into, will always enable them to hold a large ball of prisoners against us." In August, 1780, manstealing climaxed. Middletown’s most important Whig family, the Smocks, were particularly targeted. The New York Royal Gazette reported on August 23: “Yesterday were brought into this town a Colonel and Major Smock, of the Monmouth County militia, one of these was of the community of Associated Retaliators upon the Tories." The New Jersey Gazette reported on the same incident, "Hendrick Smock, Esquire, and Lieut. Col. John Smock of Monmouth County, were lately made prisoners by a party of the enemy from Sandy Hook and carried to New York." The third senior member of the Smock family, Captain Barnes Smock, was taken two months earlier. Colonel Tye: The Greatest Manstealer As discussed in another article, Colonel Tye, likely the former Shrewsbury slave, Titus, was the most successful Loyalist irregular in Monmouth County’s local war. In summer of 1780, he led a group of African-American Loyalist irregulars based on Sandy Hook called the Black Brigade. Tye was their honorific Colonel. They conducted a string of raids into Monmouth County that included at least sixteen captures. The raids are summarized in table 10 . In five documented raids over three months, Tye’s parties captured at least sixteen men. The captives included two men who served in the New Jersey Legislature (James Mott and Hendrick Smock), four militia officers (Lt. Col. John Smock, Capt. Barnes Smock, Lt. James Walling, Lt. James Wall) and Middletown’s Overseer of the Highways, Joseph Dorsett. Other Loyalist parties were concurrently taking captives, but no Loyalist irregular led as many raids or took as many prisoners as Tye. Tacit British Approval of Manstealing No surviving British document authorized manstealing. The British relationship with the Associated Loyalists (who conducted manstealing raids) was strained. The British relationship with Colonel Tye and his Black Brigade is undocumented and was likely never formalized. However, British officers saw the Loyalist raiding parties at Sandy Hook, and saw raiders selling their plunder in New York. British officers read the newspapers that reported the manstealing raids. There is no reason to believe the British restrained manstealing; they likely tacitly endorsed it. Indeed, there is scattered evidence that the British countenanced manstealing. A September 10, 1781, order from the British Commander in Chief, Henry Clinton, to Lt. Thomas Okerson of the New Jersey Volunteers (formerly of Tinton Falls) appears to authorize the kidnapping of a Continental leader: You are to proceed to Pennsylvania with the men under your Command and there carry into execution the plan proposed, after which you will return to this place by the most convenient route. Should there be a necessity for you to detail your men, you will give them direction [illegible words] you shall think they can stay with them till you return. Clinton also apparently approved of a plan to send James Moody, also a junior officer in the New Jersey Volunteers , into New Jersey to kidnap Governor Livingston. Moody and a few thirty men landed in a disaffected neighborhood near the southern tip of Monmouth County. But Moody’s party was discovered, a few of his men were arrested, and the plot fell apart. While British commanders kept a distance from manstealing and left this dirty work for others, the best evidence suggests that they winked at the practice. Tye was shot in the wrist during his late August raid and died shortly thereafter . Manstealing continued after Tye’s death, but tapered off in quantity. Monmouth County’s militia and state troops became steadier and a number of Loyalist raids—including the so-called Negro Hill Massacre —went badly for the Loyalists later in the war. Yet, even as the number of kidnappings ebbed, the practice stoked resentments in Monmouth County and pushed the county’s Whigs toward vigilante retaliation . Related Historic Site : Prison Ship Martyr Monument Sources : William S. Stryker, Official Register of the Officers and Men of New Jersey in the Revolutionary War (Trenton: Naar, Day & Naar, 1872); Thomas Wainwright to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 11, May 11, 1780; William Livingston to Joseph Reed, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, p 433; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 68, July 12, 1780; New York Royal Gazette excerpted in William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 137; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Henry Clinton to Thomas Okerson, University of Michigan, William L. Clements Library, Sir Henry Clinton Papers, Volume 174, item 11; Richard Peters to William Livingston, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, p 327; Information on the captured Monmouth Countians is in Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, unpublished at the Monmouth County Historical Association Library. 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 London Trading Case of Elisha Walton v William Laird by Michael Adelberg - October 1781 - By late 1781, disaffected Monmouth Countians had become skilled at trading illegally with the British. As discussed in prior articles, so-called “London Traders ” served as middlemen between disaffected Monmouth Countians and British assets at Sandy Hook and New York. The trade commonly consisted of an exchange of finished goods and specie from New York in exchange for food and lumber from New Jersey. London Traders insulated disaffected farmers from direct contact with the enemy, making it more difficult to prosecute farmers fueling the illegal trade. The London Trade was so pervasive and profitable that disaffected Monmouth Countians gained wealth at a faster rate than the county at large during the Revolutionary War (demonstrated by the author’s prior research). Despite the ostracism, property confiscations, and legal punishments associated with trading with the enemy, the hard cash paid by the British was exponentially more valuable than Continental money. An array of Whigs (people who supported Revolution) took steps to curb the illegal trade—privateers intercepted trading vessels; military parties impounded the goods of farmers living in disaffected neighborhoods; vigilante Whigs harassed and robbed disaffected families. But none of these efforts impacted the illegal trade very much. Based on surviving documentation, it appears that Elisha Walton, a major in the militia and sometime legislator, had a particular passion for interdicting illegal trade. In spring 1779, Walton’s men took a wagon of expensive and rare silks from John Holmes and Solomon Ketchum, setting up the landmark litigation of Holmes v Walton in which the seizure of the silks was invalidated because the Holmes and Ketchum were denied their constitutional right to a full jury trial. Undeterred, Walton was called upon by the New Jersey Legislature in November 1780 to call up 100 militia in order to impound the livestock of disaffected shore residents. Walton would take action against illegal trading again in September 1781. The Case of Walton v Laird According to depositions taken on September 24, in early September, William Laird went to the house of Benjamin Covenhoven where an uncomfortable conversation between three men occurred. John Alward testified that Laird told him he was “bringing out some traders in Shrewsbury." Alward cautioned Laird, "if they be with you it will be bad for you.” But Laird told him that “Benjamin Covenhoven said he wanted some hard money and did not know how to get it.” Alward recalled that Laird told Covenhoven: If you can or will sell oxen or cattle to me, I will take them to Joseph Thomson and then they will be in the Pines... The deponent understood that they was cattle to bring Joseph Thomson for the purpose of putting them in the way of getting to the enemy. Alward also remembered Laird’s anger at Covenhoven for speaking about the traders out loud: “Mr. Laird attacked him pretty rashly about his bringing out the traders." Peter Wikoff, a former Continental Army officer who distinguished himself at the Battle of Monmouth , testified a few days later that cattle intended for the Continental Commissary (John Lloyd) were driven away by Laird for Joseph Thomson instead: Joseph Thomson came to said deponent and bought of this deponent, 5 fat cattle… for John Lloyd, and expected that the abovesaid John Lloyd would be at his house when he came home and that two of the cattle would kill'd that day, and this deponent further saith that William Laird helped the said Thomson drive the cattle away. Lloyd never received the cattle because it went to Thomson. Elisha Walton led a posse that captured the cattle and arrested Thomson, Laird, and David Cook (assisting Laird in driving the cattle to Thomson). The case of Elisha Walton v William Laird and David Cook was heard at Freehold on October 5, 1781. Depositions, including the ones excerpted above, were presented by Freehold Township Magistrate Denice Denice. Court papers document that Laird would not cooperate: "he did not intend to have anything to do in the case & would make no defense." Joseph Thomson, the London Trader who received the cattle, implausibly testified that "he knew nothing of the cattle in question, he does not know how they came to his pasture and had nothing to do with them.” Thomson also said, “He never agreed with Mr. Laird for them [the cattle], Mr. Laird never sold to him.” On cross-examination, Thomson acknowledged that “Mr. Laird told him that he might expect them, and that he [Laird] came to his house very late at night." Thomson inferred that he was receiving cattle for the Army. But John Lloyd testified that "he never gave Joseph Thomson authority to purchase cattle for him.” Other men corroborated details on behalf of the prosecution. James Harbert testified about Cook’s role in the plot: "David Cook asked the defendant whether he drawn any oxen for Mr. Thomson, the defendant answered that he had not, he was then told [by Cook] that Major [Elisha] Walton had seized them and said 'If Thomson will not own them, I will.’” William Johnston testified that "the general character of Mr. Thomson is that of one who carries on commercial intercourse with the enemy." The Freehold jury condemned the oxen to Walton as a valid seizure. William Laird appealed the verdict to the New Jersey Supreme Court based on two arguments: First, because "it does not appear from the evidence of said Justice that any evidence was given to a jury that William Laird or any person acting on his behalf attempted to carry or convey said oxen within the enemy's lines." By working through Thomson, Laird asserted plausible deniability about the intention to trade with the British. Second, "because the capricious conversation of a certain Joseph Thomson were admitted to be given as evidence." Thomson, as a convicted London Trader, was presumably known as a man of bad character whose testimony should have been disregarded by the court and not used against Laird. In the Supreme Court trial, Joseph Thomson, James Harbert, and David Cook testified. Burlington County attorney Bowes Reed represented Laird; William Wilcocks represented Walton. Interestingly, Wilcocks represented John Holmes against Walton in Holmes v Walton in 1779-1780. But in 1781, Wilcocks co-founded the Monmouth County Whig Society —an association devoted to preserving the value of paper currency and combating the London Trade. So, Walton was now a logical client. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision is not known. The case of Walton v Laird serves as an excellent lens for understanding the dozens of cases like it related to the London Trade—but lacking documentation. Fortunately, because Walton v Laird was escalated to the Supreme Court, the court papers and depositions related to the original trial in Freehold have survived. London trading, and attempts to corral the disaffected farmers who participated in it, would remain a problem through the end of the war. Related Historic Site : Allen House Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Cases, microfilm reel 24707, Laird v. Walton; Michael Adelberg, “Destitute of Almost Everything to Support Life: The Acquisition and Loss of Wealth in Revolutionary Monmouth County” in The American Revolution in New Jersey (Rutgers University Press: 2015). 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 > Pine Robbers Menace Dover and Stafford Townships by Michael Adelberg This map of Little Egg Harbor shows Osborn Island at the southern tip of Monmouth County, where 70 Loyalists camped at the end of 1781. The Loyalists worried shore leaders at Toms River. - December 1781 - In Monmouth County’s southern townships of Dover and Stafford (present-day Ocean County), the majority of inhabitants were ambivalent or opposed to the Revolution. The residents of the Little Egg Harbor, just south of Monmouth County, may have been even more disaffected. Lured to the profitable London Trade , disaffection flourished in these townships (disaffected men held several local offices ). In October 1778, snipers harassed Kasimir Pulaski’s Continentals as they marched north (after being decimated at Osburn Island ). In December 1780, Lt. Joshua Studson was killed in a boat near Toms River while intercepting a London Trading vessel. Pine Robber activity, centered in Shrewsbury Township in 1778-1779, and then moved south into Dover and Stafford Townships under new and resourceful leaders—William Giberson (originally from Upper Freehold ), William Davenport (likely from Gloucester County ), and, most notoriously, John Bacon (possibly from Arneytown on the border of Upper Freehold and Burlington County). Another Pine Robber leader, Joseph Mulliner, operated in Little Egg Harbor Township, just south of Monmouth County (see appendix for summary of Mulliner’s outlaw career). The Growing Pine Robber Threat The Pine Robber threat in southern Monmouth County and Little Egg Harbor Township (just south of Monmouth County) built through the second half of the Revolution. Job Clayton of the Monmouth Militia recalled in his postwar pension application that the Pine Robbers were "concealed through the extensive pines of the lower part of the county, and sprung out of them, plundered and robbed and murdered the inhabitants." Mary Throckmorton, wife of the militiaman, Job Throckmorton recalled her husband providing intelligence to the militia to inform an attack on a Pine Robber gang: The enemy had been to Burlington County and stole a number of horses & secured them in William Parker's Cedar Swamp, six miles off, the enemy had got information from their Tory friends that we was laying in wait for them… retook said horse and the thieves attending them. The attack, however, only aroused the Pine Robbers. Afterward, the Throckmorton family left the shore and relocated to Englishtown for its safety. An August 1780 newspaper report from Philadelphia reported the robbery of four houses just over the county line in Burlington County: John Black Jr., Clayton Newbold, William Newbold, and Caleb Shreve. The report continued, "Colonel William Shreve, with a number of inhabitants immediately set off in pursuit of the villains and overtook them at Borden's Run on the verge of the Pines.” The report continued, "one of the robbers, it is said, is taken to Monmouth Gaol." From this, it can be inferred that the captive either was from Monmouth County or was taken by Monmouth militia. Abraham Osborn, living in present-day Howell, also recorded after the war that "he was robbed by the Tories of his horses, cattle and furniture" in 1780. In March 1781, James Allen was robbed by a Pine Robber gang that included Nathan Lyon and Joseph Wood. Allen compiled a "memorandum of articles plundered from the house of James Allen" in 1784. His itemized losses demonstrate that Pine Robbers, while politically motivated, were also common thieves: cloth coat (£5 S10), one pair of buckles and breaches (£1 S10), musket, cartridge box & bayonet (£3 S10), pair of shoes (S7), pair of silver buckles (£1 S17), gold ring (£1 S4), 3 silver teaspoons (S15), 3 oz. of unwrought silver (£1 S5), one boat (£7 S2), 2nd boat (£6), pair of stockings (S6), 3 cambric stocks (S6), 2 shirts (S7 each), 2 handkerchiefs (S10), one Morocco Leather pocket book (S15), one razor (S7). Allen’s follow up note about Lyon demonstrates the familiarity that often existed between Pine Robbers and their victims: He [Lyon] lived about 1 3/4 miles from James Allen, when he was robb'd; that the robbers came to the house in the night -- that Nathaniel Lyon was with them -- he knew him afterwards and recognized that it was the same -- he was Lyon with a pair of breaches of Allen's -- that a few days afterward, he saw one Joseph Wood (as people say his name is), one of the men that was there that night with Lyon. Privateers also interacted and occasionally clashed with Pine Robbers, as when a party of Cape May militia captured a London Trading vessel at Shark River, lost it to a party of Pine Robbers at the mouth of Little Egg Harbor, and then retook it on Osborn Island. From June 1780 into 1782, a 30-man guard of state troops was posted at Toms River, the lone village in the shore townships that solidly supported the Revolution. Yet, this guard was too small to exert influence beyond the village. In May 1781, Colonel Samuel Forman, commanding the undersized militia of Dover and Stafford townships, wrote Governor William Livingston: The refugees [Loyalists], joined by a number of residents from Burlington County have drove Ensign [David] Imlay & some militia from the boundary of Little Egg Harbor to Hankins; our men have killed one & wounded two mortally. A reinforcement is demanded of me; I have ordered thirty five mounted [men] to their assistance for twelve days. Forman requested 150 Burlington County militia join him in a campaign against the Pine Robber gang that chased off the militia. He was angry that the leaders of Burlington County allowed disaffection and London Trading to fester on the shore: “The complaint lodged with me is bitter against the County of Burlington... the illicit trade is so much esteemed that their lives are endangered for it." The Loyalist attack may have been prompted by Imlay’s killing of the Pine Robber, Richard Bird. Bird was reportedly found in a cottage and was shot through a window without being given a chance to surrender. Zachariah Hankins, formerly disaffected, now serving under Imlay, would later report that Imlay’s posse "surprised and took a gang of Tories under the notorious Richard Bird, near Toms River, when Bird fell. It was always believed that Captain Imlay himself killed Bird." Pine Robber Gang Fights Off Militia and Threatens Toms River Six months later, Forman was still complaining about the disaffected living around Little Egg Harbor. On November 7, he wrote Governor Livingston about "the lower part of Monmouth” and “more particularly Burlington.” He further wrote: “The refugees come and go unmolested & repeatedly [are] joined by the inhabitants in their mischiefs under the cover of night." Forman discussed his inability to muster the disaffected into the militia, "My adjutant was beaten exceedingly last Monday night on the presumption that he had been to review that part of the regiment the preceding day; his son was also beaten shamefully on that same day." Forman called for a 40-man party to march against the disaffected neighborhood and arrest the assaulters. They would then remain as a guard. It did not happen. As Forman was lobbying the Governor, the Whigs of Dover and Stafford petitioned the state legislature. A November 1781 Stafford Township petition read: We do suffer on several accounts for want of militia or Continental guard to protect them from the ravages & devastations of the Refugees which they are committing every day by taking and treating in an inhumane and savage manner, & on the other hand they are censured by their own people for harboring and secreting them & holding a correspondence with those creatures. A Dover Township petition in December discussed: Several armed boats with a number of men are fortifying on Osburn's Island near Egg Harbor meeting house, with a view as we conceive to receive deserters from the American Army… also that a quantity of provisions is conveyed from that place to New York. - now we petitioners beg a guard to be stationed, to prevent such unlawful proceedings. At the bottom of this petition is an extraordinary unsigned statement about government inaction: I am extremely sorry so little attention is paid to the petitions of the inhabitants of this county by the legislature vizt. the legislature became immune of all human feeling for this suffering county - every year since the commencement of the war, we have paid dearly for the inattention of the legislature -- it is a most notorious faith & yet unaltered - does not this legislature know, for instance, their men in service [State Troops] expires, do they not know the difficulty & length of time it takes to recruit a number of men? March the legislature down to the lines, that they might see & feel a little of what these inhabitants have - it May be said where is the militia? - the militia is worn out. Captain Andrew Brown of Dover Township also wrote Livingston regarding “the precarious situation of the well affected inhabitants of this place.” He wrote of large Pine Robber gang at Little Egg Harbor: The refugees are this time more numerous in this quarter than has been known since the start of the war. I am well informed that they are fortifying at Little Egg Harbor where they have made a stand for a considerable time. The militia gunboat Flying Fish "was attacked by a superior force and narrowly escaped capture.” Brown continued: They have a number of boats down there now and we having nothing to oppose them but this one, whose force is not equal to them. I would wish and pray that something may be done to drive them from the shore by land or water, and that a guard may be continued at this place. Livingston wrote George Washington about the situation on the lower Monmouth shore on January 2, 1782. The Pine Robbers, he said, “have several armed boats, with a number of men, are fortifying Osborn's Island near Egg Harbor.” They “receive deserters from the American Army & for the greater convenience of conveying provisions to New York, which already go from that neighborhood in immense quantities.” Livingston was blunt about the inadequacy of the local militia: That part of the State is so disaffected or intimidated that the Refugees have reigned in it. Guards of our militia are, whether for want of pay or other cause, procured with the greatest difficulty, and when obtained are, for want of discipline & unfitness of their officers, not infrequently corrupted after being stationed on the lines by the alluring profits of illegal trade. Livingston requested a Continental guard "to prevent the well affected in those parts from deserting their habitations ... thereby extending the Enemy's lines." Livingston did not mention that Continental detachments in Monmouth County had mutinied in 1779 and traded with the enemy in 1780. A week later, three letters were sent to Governor Livingston by Brown (again), Major John Cook—the highest ranking lower shore office—and Abiel Aiken—the Dover Township magistrate. Each described the threat to Toms River. Cook wrote that “we were under arms all nite on information that about thirty refugees being on horse within 7 miles." Brown offered similar information; Aiken was more descriptive. "Our number here is small, the [State Troop] guard that was here was discharged and the militia is very slack coming to our assistance, which is very discouraging." Cook described the Pine Robber’s moated base on Osborn Island: “The main entrance is by causeway… and a bridge of 12 feet.” They had no cannon on land, but their armed boats had cannon. Cook noted that there were no regular soldiers at the base, but there was 50 to 80 armed men. Their base was formidable: “Their boats are armed: the one with a six pounder, swivels, etc., the other with 2 small carriage guns, swivels, etc. By good intelligence another large armed boat went thro' the bay last Sunday to join them.” Brown noted additional challenges with attacking Osburn’s Island: Whenever they are attacked or are apprehensive, they fly to their boats and proceed to the beach to the house of one Tucker, where the principal rendezvous is, and where we cannot come at them by water... as for the inhabitants in the neighborhood, they are no better than the refugees, as they do countenance and trade with them. Brown sized up the enemy: There [sic] numbers are forty to one hundred at times, and they have not less than five arm'd boats, some of which carry from a three to six pounder swivels and small arms, which are frequently plying from thence to New York to protect their trading boats. Aiken estimated that the Pine Robbers have 70 men and 5 boats which "are constantly plying up and down the bay and supporting illicit trade." He wrote that the Pine Robbers are based at Clam Town (modern-day Tuckerton), opposite Osburn’s Island, and their biggest boat has "one six pounder in the bow and three swivels on the sides." Cook and Brown wrote that the Loyalists were led by William Davenport (of Gloucester County) and Samuel Ridgeway (from one of Stafford Township’s leading families). Cook also complained that some of the Loyalists were criminals who were “pardoned by your Excellency and broke gaol , etc." Brown wanted to attack the Pine Robber base: “If we don't visit them, they will visit us.” However, he lacked the men to make an attack: “our number being small, the enlist'd men's being out and the militia very slack coming in." This is a reference to State Troop terms expiring at the end of the year. On January 11, Governor Livingston considered the three letters and forwarded them to Lord Stirling [William Alexander], commanding the New Jersey Line. The letters were carried by Elisha Lawrence, the former militia Lt. Colonel over the Dover and Stafford militias. Livingston wrote that Lawrence had “recently been on the spot with the command of a party of our militia to dislodge the Enemy. He is a member of our Council & the greatest confidence may be reposed of him." Lawrence and Stirling apparently discussed a campaign against the Loyalist base. Re-Assessing the Pine Robbert Threat However, George Washington quashed the campaign on January 13, writing Livingston that the Pine Robber threat was exaggerated. Washington had received contrary information from Colonel David Forman: Had I found the report to be well-grounded, I should have concerted my measures to dislodge them. From the best information I have been able to obtain, particularly from General Forman who is now in town, no lodgment was ever made on Osborn's Island or any other place. Washington acknowledged that the lower shore was a center for London Trading and bluntly expressed frustration with the persistent problem: A constant intercourse is carried on by water between the refugees and inhabitants, but no force which I could spare would prevent it, as they would, if kept out of one inlet, use another for their purposes. It is in vain to think the pernicious and growing traffic will ever be stopped until the States pass laws making the penalty death... We are, I believe, the only nation who suffer their people to carry on commerce with their Enemy in times of war. Livingston was likely caught off-guard by Washington canceling the campaign based on intelligence from Forman (who might have been assumed to support a campaign against Pine Robbers). The Governor likely consulted with Monmouth County leaders before responding to Washington on January 26: Relative to the affair of Egg harbour: As the facts upon farther enquiry appeared to be very different from the information I had at first received, it could not be expected that your Excellency should pursue such measures as I had hoped. Livingston acknowledged “your Excellency’s good intentions & am glad to find that the enemy have not yet dared to venture on so bold an attempt, ’tho’ they do infinite mischief in that part of the country.” Livingston concurred with Washington’s assessment regarding leniency toward London Traders: “I heartily concur with you in sentiment that it ought to be made capital [a capital offense].” Was the Pine Robber gang and base on Osburn Island exaggerated? Certainly, there are examples of enemy strength being exaggerated in unrelated reports. David Forman clearly thought his Monmouth County colleagues were overselling the threat to Toms River and he convinced Washington and Livingston accordingly. It can only be speculated why Forman undermined other county leaders, but it is worth noting that Aiken was a known opponent of the Retaliators (the vigilante group led by Forman). So, Forman may have sought the opportunity to quash an action that a rival desperately wanted. The Pine Robber gangs of Davenport and Bacon operated in Stafford Township in 1782. Davenport’s mixed-race gang was estimated to be 80 men—when it was surprised and routed at Forked River in June 1782. Based on this later report, the size of Davenport’s gang probably was not exaggerated by Cook, Brown and Aiken, though the threat against Toms River may have been. The local leaders were clearly on edge after the village’s state troop guard went home. Davenport’s gang never came to Toms River, but the residents of Toms River could not have not known this in January 1782. Toms River was indeed targeted by Loyalists—even after a new State Troop guard under Captain Joshua Huddy arrived there at the end of January. The village was razed in March 1782 by Associated Loyalists from New York, guided by local men such as William Dillon with ties to the Pine Robber gangs. Related Historic Site : Little Egg Harbor Friends Meeting Appendix: The Pine Robber, Joseph Mulliner Historian David Fowler has extensively researched Joseph Mulliner. He writes that Mulliner was likely from a poor Quaker family, probably from Little Egg Harbor Township in Burlington County. He was likely a London trader and may have interacted with other Pine Robber leaders like William Davenport and John Bacon. In late 1780, Mulliner was indicted for beating a man, and he became an outlaw after that. Fowler suggests that Mulliner’s gang consisted of about ten hard core members and he had access to dozens of associated London traders and disaffected. In 1781, Muller committed an arson and robbery on the homes of John Watson and the widow Bates of Burlington County. Mulliner’s documented activities were in Burlington County, not Monmouth. Secondary sources suggest that Mulliner carried a privateer’s commission from the British government. Mulliner was captured by Monmouth County militia and first jailed in Freehold in July 1781. The New Jersey Gazette reported him as “motivated by the devil” and further stated: This fellow has become a terror of the country. He made a practice of burning houses, robbing and plundering all who fell in his way... when he came to trial, it appeared that the whole country, both Whigs and Tories, were his enemies. Mulliner was transferred to Burlington County for trial. He was convicted of horse stealing and sentenced to be hanged on August 8. Mulliner’s hanging, on August 16, reportedly drew a hundred spectators. Interestingly, New Jersey Legislative Council (Upper House of the legislature) recommended him for a pardon in September, not knowing he was already dead. Sources : National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Job Clayton; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Job Throckmorton; Kenneth Scott, Rivington's New York Newspaper: Excerpts from a Loyalist Press, 1773-1783 (New York: New York Historical Society, 1973) p 232; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Abraham Osborn; Robbery Evidence, Princeton University, Special Collections, CO 315, box 5, folder: Monmouth Pleas; Samuel Forman to William Livingston, in Carl Prince, ed., Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, p 326; Dover and Stafford Township Petition in Carl Prince, ed., Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 328, 356 note; Monmouth County Petition, Massachusetts Historical Society, Monmouth County, NJ, Petition; Andrew Brown to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 356, 358 note; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 212; Edwin Salter, Old Tims in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 40; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - David Imlay; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Gregory of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 21671340; William Livingston to George Washington, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, p 35; John Cook to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, p 358; Andrew Brown to William Livingston in Richard J. Koke, "War, Profits, and Privateers Along the Jersey Coast," New York Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 41, 1957, p 3; Abiel Aiken’s letter is in Richard J. Koke, "War, Profits, and Privateers Along the Jersey Coast," New York Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 41, 1957, p 313; William Livingston to Lord Stirling, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 359, 361, 372; George Washington to William Livingston, John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 23, pp. 444-5; To George Washington from William Livingston, 26 January 1782,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-07738, ver. 2013-09-28; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 215-225. 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 > Thomas Crowell and Regulating Loyalist Passage into New Jersey by Michael Adelberg Following the detention of Monmouth Loyalist Thomas Crowell for violating his passport while in New Jersey, George Washington ordered Gen. William Maxwell to limit Loyalist access to New Jersey. - October 1778 - Before the war, Thomas Crowell was a comfortable merchant who captained his own sloop. He lived at Middletown Point, but spent considerable time at both New Brunswick and New York. He was an early Loyalist who served briefly as a captain in the New Jersey Volunteers . His was among the first Loyalist estates inquisitioned and rented out in Monmouth County. Like many Loyalists who went behind British lines , Crowell maintained familial and business contacts in New Jersey. His attempt to come back into New Jersey in fall 1778 is an excellent example of the difficulties faced by state and Continental authorities when regulating the passage of Loyalists across enemy lines. At that time, New Jersey law was fairly permissive regarding who could authorize a New Jerseyan to travel to New York or receive a Loyalist from New York. According to the state’s first law on the subject, local magistrates or militia colonels could give out “passes” or “flags” to New York and receive people traveling from British lines. There were no limits on where returning Loyalists, if authorized by their passport, could go. This would complicate Thomas Crowell’s return trip to New Jersey. Thomas Crowell Returns to New Jersey On September 21, 1778, Governor William Livingston wrote George Washington. He noted that Crowell had come to New Brunswick under a flag of truce from British Admiral James Gambier “for the sole purpose of his carrying to Brunswick Lewis Costigen & his family.” On landing, Crowell “obtained leave” from Colonel John Neilson of New Brunswick to bring Costigen to the town and “to visit his old acquaintances upon plighting his word and honour not to carry off any provisions to New York.” Crowell behaved himself while in New Brunswick, but not on his way back. Livingston wrote: One of our militia officers having received information that he [Crowell] had bargained for some flour along shore, and supposing that he would receive it on board soon after he left the City, detached four men, who lay in the reeds to watch his motions. The militia fired on Crowell in an attempt to stop him from receiving the goods, but Crowell picked up the goods anyway. The militia boarded a boat and caught up with Crowell’s sloop. Livingston wrote: They found on board nine barrels of flour, three firkins of butter and some other articles. It appears from some of his papers which he threw overboard tied to a stone, and which the ebbing of the tide left dry, that he had brought a quantity of sugar to barter for those articles. The captors brought his vessel back to Brunswick, and claim both her and her cargo. Livingston ordered Crowell detained at New Brunswick. But Crowell’s status of traveling under a flag of truce raised difficult legal questions regarding him and his vessel because he was permitted to land at New Brunswick. Livingston wrote: What he has done, would by our Law have incurred a forfeiture of both vessel & cargo had the like been done by any of our own Subjects. How far his Flagg is a protection of his Vessel so as to exempt her from that confiscation which another Vessel the property of a citizen, would be liable to, in similar circumstances, is not so clear as I could wish it. Washington did not respond quickly, suggesting that he consulted with the Continental Congress or attorneys associated with it. On October 5, he finally wrote back: The conduct of Crowel appears to me to have forfeited the protection he derived from the flag and to justify in point of right the detention of his person and the confiscation of the Vessel and her effects. The obligation of a flag is reciprocal. On the one hand it ought to be inviolable, when conducted agreeable to the rules of War and honor; and on the other, any fraud or deceit committed under its sanction is doubly criminal, and the laws and practice of nations will authorize inflicting a punishment proportioned to the crime. Crowell’s vessel was impounded. It was condemned in admiralty court as a legitimate prize of war on December 1. Crowell was sent back to New York. He was hired as the Port Warden of the City of New York, a patronage position that may have been given to him as compensation for his lost vessel. Later in the war, Crowell would become a leader of the Associated Loyalists, a vigilante group in New York, and would conduct ad hoc prisoner exchanges outside of the official Continental-British exchange process. Tightening Rules on Loyalist Passage After Crowell’s vessel was taken, Washington wrote General William Maxwell, to position him as gatekeeper for Loyalists seeking entry into New York: Mr. Crowell's recent violation of the usages and laws of flags render it necessary to adopt some measures that may prevent similar proceedings in the future. For this, you will immediately fix upon a certain number of places for the reception of flag-boats, and advise the commanding Officer on Staten Island of the places, and that no flag boats will be received anywhere else without a special permission. But should the Governor think it expedient, in particular instances, to nominate any other place, at any time, you will comply with his intentions. On December 16, a peeved Maxwell wrote General Washington about the British frivolously issuing passes to Monmouth County Loyalists: I have inclosed you a Letter from General [David] Jones to Genl [Courtland] Skinner with Genl Leslie’s [Alexander Leslie] pass to Vanmater [Daniel Van Mater]; all which I think very extraordinary. I ordered this Vanmater back immediately and His Lordship [Lord Stirling] had ordered the others home before, but the inclosed shows that they had been appointed to come here long before His Lordship knew anything of the Matter & I have good reason to think that they are collecting their friends from different parts and providing passes for them on their arrival here, and refusing all others. An enclosed pass supports Maxwell’s theory. Two Monmouth County Loyalists, Edmund Bembridge and John Van Mater were permitted “to come to Staten Island to meet Mr Daniel Vanmater & Mr Henry Vanmater. Or, in case Lord Stirling refuses them leave, Mr Danl & Henry Vanmater have my permission to pass to Elizabeth Town." Governor Livingston was concerned passes were enabling illegal trade with the enemy. He wrote Washington December 21 with a proposal to curb illegal trade between Monmouth County and New York by limiting the number of "flag vessels" to only the first day of the month. In addition to Loyalists traveling as directed by their passports, there were Loyalists who exceeded the direction on their passports. On January 20, 1779, the New Jersey Gazette reported that two weeks earlier: A certain Joseph Cassel of Philadelphia was apprehended on his way to the enemy in New York via Shrewsbury without a proper passport… he had a number of letters with him from Tories in Philadelphia to their friends in New York, from which it appears that constant correspondence is kept up and traffic carried on between the refugees in New York and the disaffected in this state and Pennsylvania, by way of Shrewsbury. This was not the only passport from New York to Shrewsbury used improperly. In May 1779, the New Jersey Legislative Council (the Upper House of the Legislature) considered the case of Abel Thomas and James Thomas. The Thomas brothers were devout Quakers who had come from Long Island to Shrewsbury with a passport, and then traveled to Manasquan, Barnegat, and Egg Harbor. Apparently, they were only permitted to travel to Shrewsbury. It was common practice for Quakers to maintain their community by sending members to visit several meetings in another region. The Legislative Council accepted an apology and suspended any punishments on the Thomas brothers because they had no "designs injurious to the liberties of America." The Thomas brothers completed their visits and returned to New York. Suspect use of passports to and from Monmouth County forced the New Jersey Government to act. On May 18, 1779, Governor Livingston wrote Elias Boudinot, the Commissary of Prisoners, to tell him about new restrictions on Loyalists coming into New Jersey, and New Jerseyans going to New York: No persons to go into the Enemy's lines from this State, or to come into it from thence but by way of Elizabethtown; You will be pleased to give the strictest orders to the persons navigating the boats with provisions for our prisoners from Shrewsbury and other parts of this State. Livingston also warned Boudinot not to tolerate backsliding from Shrewsbury leaders issuing passes. “If you detect them disobeying this order, it is expected you will immediately supersede him [them]." The New Jersey Legislature would pass three more laws further limiting who could issue passports and receive travelers from New York. At war’s end, only General Washington or Governor Livingston (including their immediate staff) could issue a passport for going to enemy lines. Further, Elizabethtown was named the only legal port of entry for people coming to New York. The British similarly cracked down on New Jersey Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) coming into New York (see appendix). On August 14, 1779, the Loyalist New York Gazette published an order from General James Pattison declaring that all small boats entering New York must have a pass, and that those boats must first visit "the commanding officer at an Out-Post" at one of six locations (one was Sandy Hook) for inspection and receipt of a British pass. Boats landing at New York City without a pass would be seized and forfeited. Whether in New Jersey or New York, whether Revolutionary or Loyalist, many people simply ignored the various laws and orders from the two governments (some travelers likely knew little about them). Illegal passage to and from New York from the Monmouth shoreline and Raritan Bay continued without an effective check for the entirety of the war. Related Historic Sites : Conference House (Staten Island) Appendix: Monmouth County Revolutionaries Legally Pass to New York The first Monmouth Countian to travel to New York under a properly issued flag of truce was militia Captain Andrew Brown. He went to New York in May 1778 with a cargo of flour for prisoners of war. On May 24, he wrote Elias Boudinot, the Commissary of Prisoners: "this will inform you of my return from Staten Island after an unsuccessful voyage." Brown was informed by a Captain Robertson that the British general overseeing prisoners "did not seem altogether pleased" by Brown's offer of a cargo of flour to feed American prisoners. Boudinot replied the next day, "You can now go home… I will send a bushel more--if you think it will be advantageous to store the flour and take the boat to Middletown." Captain John Combs of the New Jersey Line was the next Monmouth Countian documented as going to New York under a flag. On December 1, 1778, he wrote Lord Stirling (General William Alexander) of his trip to New York "for the purpose of delivering your Lordship's dispatches" to the British. Once he crossed enemy lines, Combs was detained by a Captain Ross in the sloop George , who stopped Combs. Combs wrote that "they [Stirling’s letters] were put under the care and protection of a British officer.” Combs gave Ross the letters and took a receipt from Ross which “is herewith enclosed." Ordinary citizens also had reason to go to New York and won the sympathy of local officials and Continental Army officers. One of those was Major Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, the famous Virginia officer, who was stationed in Monmouth County twice. In December 1779, Judge John Imlay wrote Governor Livingston about Lee issuing passports. On December 18, Livingston wrote back: I believe Maj Lee has been overseen when he was granting passports when he was stationed in Monmouth; but I have lately so fully explained to him the dangerous tendency of such a practice & his want of authority for that purpose, that I flatter myself he will for the future cause no further complaint on the subject. Livingston wrote Lee cautioning him against issuing passes to civilians. Just three days later, the New Jersey Assembly passed a law restricting travel to New York only to those who obtained a passport from Governor Livingston or General Washington. The bill passed by a 26-5 vote. In the next year, at least two Monmouth County officials wrote the governor for passports. Captain Samuel Dennis wrote the Governor in April 1780. He requested a pass for Elizabeth Ritter: To go to New York and pass back again, she has a desire to see her aged father and mother, being in residence there; she has no other way to expect to ever see them, she will promise to take nothing with her except her youngest child. Dennis vouched for Ritter’s good character and called her "a peaceable body." Four months later, Nathaniel Scudder requested a passport for Reverend William Ayers to pass to New York. Scudder claimed his mission would be "of great benefit and charity, and that it cannot be of any bad consequences." It is unknown if a passport was issued for either request. Granting passports remained a complicated topic through the end of the war. In 1782, Governor Livingston wrote to Thomas Henderson, John Covenhoven, Thomas Seabrook (Monmouth's delegates to the Assembly at the time) regarding issuing a passport to Major John Cook of Toms River to go to New York. The Governor lamented that too many passports were being issued by Continental officers: "those under the direction of the Continent go often.” He, nonetheless, denied the request for Cook’s passport for New York, “I cannot think it my duty to oblige Mr. Cook in a permission to bring over goods.” However, Livingston did authorize Cook’s family, which had gone to New York while Cook was a prisoner there, to return to New Jersey: “I have cheerfully given him a pass for his family, with all their apparel and hard money they may bring.” Washington was similarly critical of passports being issued by Monmouth County’s civil officers at war’s end. He wrote in May 1782: "I am told there is quite an open intercourse between the City of New York and the County of Monmouth, by means of prostituted Flags of Truce." Sources : The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 17, 15 September–31 October 1778, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008, pp. 72–74; George Washington to Wiliam Maxwell, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 17, 15 September–31 October 1778, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008, p. 268-9, 282; Ruth M. Keesey, "New Jersey Legislation Concerning Loyalists," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 79 (1961), pp. 82, 84; Elias Boudinot to Andrew Brown, Historical Society of Pennsylvania; Elias Boudinot Papers, Coll. #68, box 2, folder 16.20; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, pp. 342-3; John Combs to Lord Stirling, New York Historical Society, William Alexander Papers, vol. 1, p. 231; William Maxwell to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 18, 1 November 1778 – 14 January 1779, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008, pp. 426–427; William Livingston to George Washington, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 519-20; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Testimony of Lt. Col. A. Emmerick, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Audit Office, Class 13, volume 109, folio 296-7; William Livingston to Elias Boudinot, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, p 91; Ruth M. Keesey, "New Jersey Legislation Concerning Loyalists," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 79 (1961), pp. 86-7; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; William Livingston to John Imlay, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, p 271; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, December 21, 1779, p 93; New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 11, April 17, 1780; Nathaniel Scudder to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 12, July 17, 1780; William Livingston to Thomas Henderson, John Covenhoven, and Thomas Seabrook, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 367-8; George Washington to William Livingston, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw240250)) . Previous Next

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

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Failed Prisoner Exchange Stokes Tensions between Whigs and Loyalists by Michael Adelberg The British Provost Jail housed prisoners captured by the Associated Loyalists. A failed prisoner exchange of Monmouth militiamen nearly ignited retaliatory mistreatment of prisoners of both sides. - January 1781 - In September 1778, Thomas Crowell, a Loyalist from Middletown now living in New York, traveled to New Brunswick under a British passport . During the trip, he illegally traded sugar for foodstuffs and was arrested for it. By April 1779, Crowell was back in New York. He recruited seventeen men and became a captain in the King’s Militia Volunteers, but this group dissipated. In October Crowell was appointed a warden of the Port of New York. In Middletown, his family was thrown off the family estate and reduced to poor relief. They left Middletown and came to New York as refugees. This may have radicalized Crowell; he joined the vigilante Associated Loyalists as a captain and would soon become a central figure in a failed prisoner exchange that nearly resulted in a murder. As noted prior articles , the Continental and British governments conducted prisoner exchanges based on a negotiated cartel. But these exchanges deprioritized captured New Jersey militia officers and officeholders who commonly waited many months for an exchange. In Monmouth County, Colonel Asher Holmes and others negotiated local prisoner exchanges with the Associated Loyalists beginning in 1780. However, these locally-negotiated exchanges were prone to dangerous complications. Thomas Crowell Seeks a Prisoner Exchange On December 30, 1780, William Franklin, Chairman of the Associated Loyalists "recommended the delivery of sundry prisoners taken by the Refugees [Loyalists], to Capt. Crowell, for the purpose of procuring the release or exchange" of Loyalists jailed in Monmouth County. Crowell landed in Monmouth County under a flag of truce but soon learned “of the execution of the Refugees” he had come to liberate. This is revealed in a January 3 letter from Asher Holmes (leading Monmouth County’s state troops ) to Crowell. Holmes wrote of the executions of John Farnham, Jonathan Burdge & Robert Paterson, “your letter came too late for they was executed before it came to hand (or had it been sooner it would not have answered any purpose).” Holmes further explained: As to an exchange of prisoners of war, I am as ready to go into it as any man, but such a person as one guilty of murder, horse stealing or robbery, & coming into our County without being under an officer or military command, must expect to suffer the penalty of the law of that place when such depredations are committed. Angered by the executions and news that other Loyalists were loaded in irons in the Monmouth County jail , Crowell loaded his prisoners—Hendrick Smock, Hendrick Johnston and James Tanner—in irons and revoked the parole of Lt. Colonel John Smock (Hendrick’s brother, recently paroled home via a locally-negotiated exchange). Holmes threatened counter-retaliation: As to the treatment you threaten Hendrick Smock, Hendrick Johnston and James Tanner with, we have those in our power who must expect the same, vizt Samuel Stevenson, Joseph Pew, Daniel Hullett, John White, Andrew King, and James Tucker. John Smock also wrote Crowell on January 3. He sought to avoid, or at least delay, having his parole revoked, and returning to prison in New York: I, this moment, rec'd yours, and what you write concerning my brother, Hendrick Smock, Hendrick Johnson and James Tanner, being put in the dungeon & in irons. I am exceedingly sorry to hear [that] the matter of which they are put in such confinement is & has been entirely out of my power to remedy, and also understand by the above that you are directed to call me in. Smock promised, “I shall immediately repair to New York” when properly ordered, but because Crowell’s order had not come through the Commissary of Prisoners, Smock questioned Crowell’s authority to revoke his parole. Smock promised to go to the Commissary of Prisoners to discuss, he patronized Crowell, “your indulgence to this request shall be very much obliged.” With Crowell’s proposed exchange failed and retaliation looming against prisoners on both sides, another Monmouth Countian in the Associated Loyalists, landed at Black Point. Clayton Tilton came to propose another exchange. He wrote Holmes: It is proposed to give Col John Smock, Hendrick Johnston & James Horner for Joseph Price, John White, Dan'l Hulletts, James Tucker, Andrew King, Samuel Stevens & Humphrey Wade; for the rank of Lt Col [John Smock]. They have a right to insist on 60 privates if exchanged agreeable to the cartel; which will be the case if Col Smock goes in. Tilton also threatened to revoke the parole of another officer, "We think Capt. David Anderson has not acted up to his parole, nevertheless if the above is complied with, shall agree with his proposals." Failed Exchange Escalates Tensions As Holmes and Smock negotiated with Crowell and Tilton, both sides were notifying their higher-ups. Crowell notified William Franklin, who forwarded Crowell’s letters to General Henry Clinton, the British Commander in Chief. Franklin wrote: We now beg leave to inform your Excellency that the proceedings thereon were this day laid before the Board by the President [Franklin] and the enclosed letter, notifying of the execution of the Refugees, delivered by the officer who has just returned from Monmouth with the flag of truce sent by Capt. Crowell to procure their release. Franklin deferred to Clinton on whether to further retaliate against the three Monmouth prisoners for the hanged Loyalists. As these prisoners were not taken by Associated Loyalists, he noted that the Associated Loyalists lacked jurisdiction to retaliate against these men: “The propriety of retaliation in the present instance must be, of course, submitted to your Excellency’s determination.” Meanwhile, the New Jersey Assembly considered the failed prisoner exchange and the mistreatment of Monmouth County prisoners: In consequence of the due execution of the laws of this State, upon certain persons in the County of Monmouth for willful murder and horse-stealing, a certain Thomas Crowell, styling himself a Captain of the King's Militia Volunteers, has procured Messrs Hendrick Smock, Hendrick Johnson and John Tanner, good citizens of said County, to be confined in irons in the lower dungeon of the Provost of New York; threatening that they shall receive the same fate as the criminals executed on the 3rd instant; and as the said Crowell has also ordered Lt Col Smock immediately to repair for New York, probably with a design to treating him in a similar way. Influenced by Monmouth County delegates Nathaniel Scudder, Thomas Henderson, and Thomas Seabrook (elected to the Assembly in a tainted election ) the Assembly then passed two resolutions promising retaliation for the mistreatment of the Monmouth prisoners: "This Legislature will, with the utmost effect, retaliate for all such ill-directed and unwarrantable severities... until their enemies shall confine themselves to military matters within the lines of regular military conduct"; "The Commissary of Prisoners be directed to cause three of the prisoners of war belonging to this State to be immediately ironed in the same manner." The Assembly also resolved to raise the affair with the Continental Government. The Legislative Council, the Upper House of the legislature, passed similar resolutions. Retaliation Is Averted The Board of the Associated Loyalists recorded receiving an offer to conduct an alternative prisoner exchange on January 15, 1781: Clayton Tilton, having received a letter from Col Asher Holmes and Major [Elisha] Walton of the New Jersey troops, offering to exchange some refugees, prisoners at Monmouth gaol, for some rebel prisoners taken by Refugees who were not associators. It was determined that William Franklin should write the British commander for permission to make the exchange; permission was needed because the prisoners in question were not taken by the Associated Loyalists and were, therefore, not the property of the Associated Loyalists to exchange. Three days later, the Associated Loyalists wrote Henry Clinton to request a flag to conduct the exchange. The exchange occurred. On February 5, the minutes of the Associated Loyalists recorded: Clayton Tilton reported that he had, with the flag allowed him, with prisoners taken by the refugees, and after much difficulty and dispute, exchanged them for four of their own people, and had also exchanged two other of his men who were prisoners, for two men he had taken before & paroled. Holmes followed up on the successful exchange with a proposal to Governor William Livingston to let Sarah Wikoff (wife of Lt. Colonel Aucke Wikoff, jailed in New York) visit New York with Huldah Van Mater (wife of Loyalist Daniel Van Mater and Holmes’s sister). Holmes wrote of Mrs. Wikoff: Since the Col. [Wikoff] has been a prisoner, the enemy have plundered his family several times and distressed them to a great degree. His wife is therefore very earnest to see her husband, and as the Enemy will not let her land unless the wife of some refugee is gone with her, Mrs. Huldah Van Mater is recommended for that purpose, as a person as important as any woman that has a husband that has joined the enemy. It is not known if either Governor Livingston or the British permitted this visitation. This exchange defused a tense situation. Subsequent testimony offered during the court martial of Richard Lippincott (an Associated Loyalist captain who hanged Monmouth County’s Joshua Huddy) reveals that Crowell’s failed prisoner exchange nearly led to a murder. Crowell testified that: It was proposed to have executed one of them [local Whig] by way of retaliation, the Board of Directors having promised the deponent that orders should be given for the purpose, but the order was not given, nor did the execution take place; but he [Crowell] in consequence of the declaration made by the Board of Directors, dated 28th December 1780, should have thought himself justifiable in executing one of those Prisoners even had he received only a verbal order. Crowell’s testimony was corroborated by another Monmouth Loyalist, Moffat Taylor, who stated that Captain Barnes Smock was the man to be executed and that Corwell would have done the deed if the Board of Associated Loyalist signed the order—but the Board refused to do put the order in writing. The tense prisoner negotiations in Monmouth County occurred as the Associated Loyalists were trying to expand their ranks and clarify their authority. On January 3, 1781, the Loyalist New York Gazette advertised that the Associated Loyalists had a commission from General Clinton to 1.) keep all of their captures, and 2.) conduct their own prisoner exchanges. Further, new Associated Loyalists who served through the end of the war were promised "two hundred acres of land in North America” and would enjoy “the support of British arms, provisions, and shipping” while conducting British-authorized raids. While we do not know the names of the men exchanged by Tilton and Holmes, we know that this exchange averted a tragic escalation that might have included the deliberate mistreatment of several prisoners and the murder of at least one. That escalation would, however, occur in 1782 when Clayton Tilton was captured and loaded in irons, and Richard Lippincott hanged Joshua Huddy. Related Historic Sites : New York City Revolutionary War Trail (Sugar House Prison) Sources : Thomas Crowell, letter, Library of Congress, MMC - Courtland Skinner, box 10; Crowell’s appointment is n the New York Royal Gazette, October 16, 1779; Jones, E. Alfred. The Loyalists of New Jersey, (Newark, N. J. Historical Society, 1927) p 57. Gregory Palmer, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (Westport, Conn. and London, 1984), p 190. Rutgers University Special Collections, Great Britain Public Record Office, Loyalist Compensation Claims, D96, AO 13/108, reel 8; William Franklin to Henry Clinton, William Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, William Franklin to Henry Clinton, January 6, 1781; Asher Holmes to Thomas Crowell, U. of Michigan, Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, box 138, folder 42; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; John Smock to Thomas Crowell, U. of Michigan, Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, box 138, folder 44; Clayton Tilton to Asher Holmes, Clements Library, U Michigan, Henry Clinton Papers, January 4, 1781; Clayton Tilton to Asher Holmes, U. of Michigan, Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, box 139, folder 11; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, January 6, 1781, p 102-103; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1781) p64-5; Clements Library, Proceedings of the Board of Directors of the Associated Loyalists, January 1781, p. 11-3; Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Coll. D96, PRO AO 10/20, reel 7 and AO 13/112, reel 10; Clements Library, Proceedings of the Board of Directors of the Associated Loyalists, February 1781, p. 3; Asher Holmes to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, p 142; Thomas Crowell’s testimony in Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) pp. 570, 579-80. 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 > Accidents and Humiliations Plague the British at Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg In 1783, the British quit New York. The British navy suffered several setbacks at Sandy Hook, including losing 13 men from the HMS Assistance, sent to retrieve deserters on December 31. - January 1783 - In January 1783, Lt. Colonel William Martin wrote to General Guy Carleton, the British commander in chief, about the posts necessary to protect British assets in greater New York City as they drew down their forces and shipped Loyalists to Canada. Martin concluded: The post called Flagstaff Hill on Staten Island may be rendered very respectable, but Sandy Hook is thought by good judges to be the most important spot to Great Britain of any connected with this communication. Despite this and other indications that Sandy Hook was critical to protecting British shipping in and out New York, Carleton had neither the forces nor desire to heavily fortify “the Hook.” On most days, the military presence at Sandy Hook consisted of a guard ship anchored on the bayside of the Hook and a company of New Jersey Volunteers stationed at the lighthouse. By the end of the war, the size of the ships had dwindled from a frigate early in the war to only a sloop of war in 1783. Similarly, the guard at the lighthouse dropped to as little as 25 men (roughly half a full company). The once formidable shore battery and fire ships at the tip of the Hook were removed. In 1782, New Jersey’s most successful privateer, Adam Hyler, made several descents on Sandy Hook that included taking a number of prizes within sight of the guardship, capturing men on Sandy Hook, and defeating the guard and capturing its captain. Loyalist fisherman , peacefully fishing the banks off Sandy Hook, were often preyed upon and taken prisoner by privateers. Despite these humiliations, the British were disinclined to better fortify Sandy Hook—setting the stage for new humiliations in 1783. Continued Humiliations in 1783 While Hyler was dead, other New Jersey privateers continued to prey on British and Loyalist vessels near Sandy Hook. This admiralty court announcement in the New Jersey Gazette on April 16 is one example. The court would hear “the bill of Tunis Vorhees, commander of the armed sloop Revenge against a certain sloop called the Nancy and a certain sloop called the Rachel ... which said vessels were captured near Sandy Hook and brought into the port of New Brunswick." The Connecticut Journal printed a May 24 letter describing the sinking of a transport vessel carrying Loyalists to Canada. The letter reported "a considerable number of dead bodies from both sexes were lately driven on shore on the outside of Sandy Hook and others near Black Point near Shrewsbury. They are thought to have belonged to a vessel that lately sailed from New York to Nova Scotia which is reported to have foundered one day's sail from the Hook." The reason the transport sank is not stated, but it is noteworthy that the vessel left Sandy Hook without as escort, further evidence of British weakness. Another letter more explicitly demonstrated British weakness at Sandy Hook. On July 11, Lt. John White of sloop-of-war Vixen , serving as the guard ship at Sandy Hook, wrote directly to Colonel David Forman at Freehold. Forman was well known for supporting extralegal retaliation against Loyalists and British. White wrote: Yesterday morning, at eleven o'clock, I sent three men in a small boat for a cask of water, near the watering place, near Mr. Stout's at the Highlands; on their arrival they were made prisoners by a party of armed men, one of the men has been liberated and is since on board, who informs me that he has been beat most unmercifully, indeed his bruises are sufficiently conspicuous; what has become of the other two I cannot learn, I have therefore taken the liberty of acquainting you with the matter, as I am confident you would never give sanction to such an affair, and in the fullest hope that you will take the proper methods to bring the offenders to punishment, and to prevent the retaliating that might be the consequence of such unwarrantable proceedings. Years earlier, the beating of British sailors for peacefully drawing water would have prompted a powerful reprisal from British regulars. But by July 1783, White was forced to flatter Forman and hope for the return of his men. The situation on the Vixen worsened. The crew mutinied a week later, an event likely exacerbated by a lack of potable water and the humiliating capture of its sailors. The Salem Gazette printed a July 19 letter based on an account from two sailors who deserted the Vixen . The sailors deposed that: The greatest part of the crew of the galley, chiefly Americans, rose up upon the officers and having confined them, and rendered the cannon and small arms useless, came off in the two boats belonging to the vessel and landed on the Jersey shore, 24 in number. The Vixen had just completed escorting a Loyalist transport vessel out of Sandy Hook when the mutiny occurred. Bad luck for the British continued. On November 12, a large fleet evacuated the thousands of German and British soldiers remaining in New York. The fleet cleared the Hook on November 12; it was then hit by a severe storm. German Quarter Master Johann Georg Pfaff recorded that "the fleet entered the ocean [but] during the evening the wind increased and the fleet so scattered during the night that in the morning only seven ships were sailing together." A few weeks later, the British lost another ship, Three Crowns, to bad weather off the Jersey shore—this time a few miles from Little Egg Harbor. The Connecticut Courant would report that “the vessel went to pieces, and by the severity of the weather and difficulty of getting ashore from the wreck, the chief mate, ten seamen, and a woman, all perished.” The newspaper further reported that “the captain, supercargo, and ten seamen were saved after suffering almost every hardship.” George Washington entered New York City on November 25. The Treaty of Paris was signed, the British agreed to American independence, and the war was over. However, the British navy continued to hold Sandy Hook in order to alert and redirect ships still arriving at Sandy Hook, unaware of the evacuation. Two ships, the 50-gun Assistance and the 32-gun Hermione, were reported at Sandy Hook in December. The Final Indignity: The Halyburton Incident, December 31, 1783 On January 14, 1784, the Pennsylvania Gazette , reported the last British losses of the Revolutionary War, which occurred on December 31: Six seamen belonging to his Britannic Majesty's ship Assistance, of 50 guns, lying at Sandy-Hook, and confederated to desert, jumped out of the ship into a yawl, and pushing for the shore, were pursued by a boat manned with the first Lieutenant, eleven other officers, and a private seaman; presently after they left the ship, a snow storm arose; they lost sight of the chase, as well as of the Assistance, and were all of them (one excepted, who is not yet accounted for) the next morning found dead on a beach near Middletown Point, in New Jersey. - The Lieutenant was the Hon. Hamilton Douglas Halyburton, brother to the Right Hon. the Earl of Morton; the other officers were in general related to some of the most dignified families in Great Britain and Ireland. A second account of the incident, published in Scot Magazine in Great Britain added more detail about the deserters from Assistance : "about 3:00, six seamen of this ship being sent in a long boat, under the command of a midshipman, cut the rope and made for the Jersey shore." The captain of Assistance ordered Lt. Halyburton into a boat with thirteen men to bring them back, but the boat capsized in a storm and Halyburton’s entire party died. A witness at the funeral the next day wrote: I never saw so mournful an affair as yesterday, I attended their funeral at the Light House, where they were buried with full military honors of war, in one grave, tho' in ten different coffins... a most melancholy and awful procession. The British built a memorial on Sandy Hook for the men who "perished off the coast, Sandy Hook." Two other sources reported on the incident, including details about the corpses. The New Jersey Political Intelligencer , reported that the snow storm came on Halyburton’s party "before they got halfway to shore" and that Halyburton’s icy, snow-covered corpse was found on shore the next day. Great Britain’s Gentleman's Magazine , recorded: "A very melancholy accident” at Sandy Hook, writing of Halyburton’s lost crew: Before they reached the shore, a snow storm came on which, as is common in the part of the country, overpowered them so that they lost sight of both the yawl and the ship, and were all except one, found dead on the beach near Middletown Point, New Jersey, most of them sticking in the mud. The logbook of the HMS Assistance has survived. Here’s how it described the incident: Wednesday Dec. 31st, 1783 (Winds) NE b E - Moored in Sandy Hook Bay - First part moderate and cloudy with Snow. midday Weather - fresh Breezes & squally... Sent the Launch on Board the Transport with 7 empty Casks [casks to fill with fresh water]. Found that the people had rose & taken the Boat. Manned & armed the Barge and sent her in Chase of her. Thursday Jan. 1st 1784 (Winds) NNE Moderate and cloudy with Snow... The Barge was not returned. Friday Jan. 2nd 1784 (Winds) N A.M. light Breezes and clear, sent the Cutter on Shore in Search of the Launch & Barge. Saturday Jan. 3rd 1784 (Winds) N b W. Slight Breezes & cloudy. at 4 the Cutter returned with the Barge. informing us that the Barge had swampt the Hon Hamilton Douglas Hallyburton 1st Lieut., Lieut. Champion of Marines and Messrs Haywood, Hamilton, Gascoigne, Spry, Towers, Faddy, Wood, - Tomlinson, Reddy, Johnstone, & Scott Midshipmen& Jno. McChien, Seaman, were perished & all picked up except Messrs Hamilto, Wood & Tomlinson. Sent on Board the Hermoine & Sophie for Carpenters employed making coffins. At 10 A.M. sent the deceased bodies on Shore to be buried. Narratives of wars commonly end with a climactic victory on the battlefield. Inevitably, that victory is followed by months of wind-down activities that produce their own acts of bravery and tragedy. The British navy sailed from Sandy Hook, its last outpost in the original Thirteen States (though the British continued hold of several forts and outposts west of the Appalachians) in early 1784. The author is not aware of the exact date that the British Navy finally quit Sandy Hook, but it was likely shortly after the Hallyburton incident. The first French naval vessel visited New York City on February 5. The Courant reported, “On Monday last, arrived at Sandy Hook, his most Christian Majesty’s packet, Courier de l’New York, Captain Jubert.” The presence of a single French packet sailing safely into New York Harbor was final proof that the British had fully abandoned the region. Related Historic Site : Halyburton Monument Sources : William Marton to Guy Carleton, David Library of the American Revolution, Great Britain Public Records Office, British Headquarters Papers, #5142; M3221, www.nmm.ac.uk/memorials; Lopez, John. “Sandy Hook Lighthouse.” The Keeper's Log, Winter, 1986, p 6; Samuel Smith, Sandy Hook and the Land of the Navesink (Monmouth Beach, NJ: Freneau Press, 1963) p 18; Connecticut Journal, May 24, 1783; Maryland Gazette, March 27, 1783; John White to David Forman, David Library of the American Revolution, Great Britain Public Records Office, British Headquarters Papers, #8405; Salem Gazette, November 19, 1783; Johann Pfaff’s letter in Bruce Burgoyne, Journal of the Prince Charles Regiment (New York: Heritage Books, 2007) p75-6; Pennsylvania Gazette, January 14, 1784; New Jersey Political Intelligencer, January 27, 1784; Gentleman's Magazine, January 1784, vol. 54, p223; George Moss, Nauvoo to the Hook - The Iconography of a Barrier Beach, 32; Log of the HMS Assistance in George Moss, Nauvoo to the Hook - The Iconography of a Barrier Beach, 32; Erik Hinkley, Merchant and Naval Ship Movements, 1764-1799: International Notices from the Connecticut Courant (McFarland: Jefferson, NC, 2025), p 127, 128. 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 > Turning Away the Tea Ship, Nancy by Michael Adelberg This handbill alerted the people of New York City that Captain Lockyer would be permitted to come from Sandy Hook to New York, but strictly supervised while in the city. - April 1774 - On April 19, 1774, a British merchant ship landed at Sandy Hook with a provocative cargo. Five months earlier, Bostonians staged the so-called Boston Tea Party—throwing the East India Tea Company’s tea into Boston Harbor. In response, the Royal Government passed the “Intolerable Acts” to punish the people of Boston and better enforce the tea tax. Colonists throughout the Thirteen Colonies retaliated by boycotting tea and other British goods. Now, the ship, Nancy , hoped to land its cargo of 698 tea chests (twice the amount destroyed in the Boston Tea Party) in New York City. If the tea was landed and sold, it would be a major breach in the colonial boycott. It had been a difficult voyage for the Nancy . A newspaper account noted that the ship was “without her mizen mast and one of her anchors, which were lost in a gale of wind.” In the 1700s, ocean-going ships bound for New York commonly stopped at Sandy Hook, which separates the open ocean from the sheltered waters of lower New York Harbor. Here, ships received fresh water after the long ocean voyage and secured a pilot to guide the ship around lower New York Harbor’s shallows and into the city’s piers. Captain Benjamin Lockyer of the Nancy summoned the resident pilot at Sandy Hook, William Dobbs, to board the ship and guide it to New York. Dobbs, an employee of the City of New York, refused to cooperate. Dobbs was closely tied to the city’s leaders based on prior employment of the administrator of the city’s almshouse; he would serve in the Continental Army as a sergeant from 1776-1781, including being put on-call to guide French fleets four times. Dobbs gave Lockyer a letter “from sundry gentlemen of this city, informing him of the determined resolution of the citizens not to suffer tea on board of his ship to be landed.” Lockyer responded by requesting a personal passage to New York “to procure the necessaries [for his crew] and make a protest.” Dobbs was unmoved. The newspaper report further noted that “the pilot would not bring up the Captain [to New York].” The Nancy sat at Sandy Hook without fresh provisions or a pilot to navigate the shallows of New York’s lower harbor. A few days later, a sloop “with a committee of citizens” came to the Nancy . It is impossible to know exactly what transpired between this committee and Captain Lockyer, but the committeemen declined to let the Nancy pass to New York. Further, at least some of these committeemen remained after the meeting: “a committee of observation was immediately appointed to… remain there near the tea ship till it departs for London.” However, a handbill was printed and circulated in New York stating that Lockyer, but not his ship, would be allowed to come to New York: The long expected TEA SHIP arrived last night at Sandy-Hook, but the pilot would not bring up the Captain until the sense of the city was known. The Committee were immediately informed of its arrival, and that the Captain solicits to come up to provide necessaries for his return. The ship to remain at Sandy-Hook. The Committee conceiving it to be the sense of the city that he should have such liberty, signified it to the Gentleman who is to supply him with provisions, and other necessaries. Advice of this was immediately dispatched to the Captain; and whenever he comes up, care will be taken that he does not enter the custom-house, and that no time be lost dispatching him. Lockyer was apparently permitted to come to New York, but was strictly supervised while in the city and only permitted to purchase items needed to enable the Nancy ’s departure. After five days at Sandy Hook, the Nancy pulled up its anchor and limped away. The senior-most British official in New York, Lt. Governor Cadwallader Colden, complained that he never knew that Lockyer or his ship was at Sandy Hook. He blamed Lockyer for not requesting his help. While surviving documents discuss the Nancy ’s difficult time at Sandy Hook from a New Yorker’s perspective, it is important to remember that dozens of Monmouth Countians regularly sailed the waters around Sandy Hook. Each day, they ferried goods from Monmouth farms to New York in barges and sloops; they fished the banks off Sandy Hook and sold their catch in New York. These Monmouth Countians would have seen the Nancy . Further, Monmouth Countians were likely in the committee that visited Captain Lockyer and the subsequent Committee of Observation. They had it within their power to assist the Nancy with supplies or pilot services and chose not to do so. Many later accounts of this event liken the boycott of the Nancy to the Boston Tea Party. Some narratives suggest that the Committee detained Lockyer and took control of the ship. Original sources do not support these details. The stiff-arm given to the Nancy was not a second Boston Tea Party. The Nancy ’s tea chests were not thrown overboard and Lockyer was permitted to purchase a narrow set of provisions. This discipline was not evident a few days later when a mob gathered in New York and then proceeded to the docks to sack the ship London after it was learned the ship was carrying eighteen tea chests. The decision to turn away the Nancy was a strong expression of colonial solidarity. It also appears to be the first instance of Monmouth Countians participating in the anti-British agitation that immediately preceded the American Revolution. Soon, the people of Monmouth County would form their own committees to coordinate further dissent and seize vulnerable British ships . Related Historical Site : Fraunces Tavern Sources : The Parliamentary Register Or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons (London: J. Debrit, 1775) vol. 1, p70; Pennsylvania Packet , April 25, 1774; Peter Force, American Archives , (Force and Clarke: Washington, DC, 1837) Series 4, vol., 1, p247; New Jersey Archives, 1st Series, Documents Relating to the Colonial, Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary History of the State of New Jersey , vol. 29, pp. 348-50; Handbill titled “To the Public.” at: https://www.alamy.com/history-of-the-united-states-new-yorks-tea-party-handbill-about-boycotting-the-ship-loaded-with-english-tea-newly-arrived-in-sandy-hook-new-york-april-19-1774-image211094009.html ; The New York Tea Party, https://www.frauncestavernmuseum.org/the-new-york-tea-party ; New York Almanak , https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2018/06/1774-patriots-new-yorks-tea-party/ ; 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 > Richard Lippincott Hangs Joshua Huddy by Michael Adelberg This sketch shows a proud Joshua Huddy being taken from jail by Loyalists. The brazen hanging of Huddy on April 12, 1782, would become the most infamous incident in Monmouth County’s local war. - April 1782 - As discussed in a prior article, a 100-man Associated Loyalist party attacked the village of Toms River on March 24, 1782. They overwhelmed the small guard of New Jersey State Troops defending the village. A dozen state troops, including the commander, Joshua Huddy, were captured and jailed in New York. A week later, the Loyalist partisan, Philip White, was captured near Long Branch, separated from the other Loyalists taken, and murdered by his guards. The Chairman of the Associated Loyalists, William Franklin (New Jersey’s last Royal Governor) supported eye-for-an-eye retaliation for such atrocities. Huddy, because of his role in hanging a Loyalist years earlier, was an ideal target for a retaliatory killing. Regardless of what Franklin believed, it was risky to take an officer out of a British prison and kill him outside the law. The British Commander in Chief, General Henry Clinton, refused to condone eye-for-an-eye retaliation, and his distaste for the Associated Loyalists was longstanding. So, it appears that the Board of the Directors of the Associated Loyalists issued orders that would enable Huddy’s execution without actually authorizing it—at least in writing. Richard Lippincott's Orders As the Board considered retaliating for the death of White, a report came in from Monmouth County. The Loyalist Clayton Tilton (formerly of Shrewsbury), who was captured in Monmouth County on the same day as White, was sentenced to death. After White’s murder, there was worry that more Loyalists would perish and this report added immediacy to those worries. It is unclear exactly what happened next. But based on the majority of evidence presented in the May 1782 court martial trial of Richard Lippincott, it appears that Franklin discussed Tilton’s endangered status with two embittered Monmouth County Loyalists—Samuel Taylor and Lippincott. Lippincott was a “captain” in the Associated Loyalists who had taken a Whig vessel and led incursions into Monmouth County. He was likely regarded as a man of action. According to his testimony at Lippincott’s court martial, Samuel Taylor informed William Franklin of the murder of Philip White and the death sentence on Clayton Tilton. Taylor proposed two actions: 1.) conduct a prisoner exchange for Tilton, and 2.) hang Huddy in retaliation for White. According to Taylor, Franklin discussed a plan with Lippincott on April 8. Lippincott was apparently willing to conduct a prisoner exchange and hang Huddy, but he also wanted to raid Freehold and capture the vigilante leader David Forman if it was practicable. Lippincott wrote up the plan and presented it to the Board of Associated Loyalists. The extra-legal execution of Huddy was beyond the pale for some on the Board of Associated Loyalists. Samuel Blowers, a Board member, would later acknowledge only some of what Lippincott proposed: Captain Lippincott then proposed to make an expedition against the Jerseys with a view to force the gaol in Monmouth County, with a party of about thirty Loyalists, and to rescue Clayton Tilton, or if that was found impracticable, to make an attempt to seize General Forman. Tench Coxe of the Board was forthright in his opposition to the execution of Huddy. Upon seeing Lippincott’s plan in writing, he reportedly stated: "We have nothing to do with that piece of paper, Captain Lippincott, keep your papers to yourself, the Board does not wish to see them or have them read." The written plan to execute Huddy was apparently withdrawn, but the execution was nonetheless verbally authorized by William Franklin, Chairman of the Board. Samuel Taylor believed this, telling another Loyalist that Huddy’s hanging “was by order of Governor Franklin." Encouraging an execution without issuing a written order was not new for Franklin. In December 1780, Captain Thomas Crowell of the Associated Loyalists was presented with this scenario. Crowell testified that Franklin wanted him to hang one of three Whig prisoners under his care if his prisoner exchange with Monmouth County’s Asher Holmes failed: It was proposed to have executed one of them by way of retaliation, the Board of Directors having promised the Deponent that Orders should be given for the purpose, but ...the Order was not given, nor did the execution take place; but he (the Deponent) in consequence of the Declaration made by the Board of Directors, dated 28th December 1780, should have thought himself justifiable in executing one of those Prisoners. We do not know exactly what Franklin told Lippincott, but it is reasonable to assume that Lippincott was instructed to execute Huddy on the Navesink Highlands—a place where Huddy’s dead body would be quickly found. The conclusion of Lippincott’s court martial was that Lippincott was not guilty of murder because he had a “verbal order” to hang Huddy. Lippincott’s Landing in Monmouth County On April 8, the Board of Associated Loyalists formally authorized Lippincott to take the three most prominent men captured at Toms River—Huddy, Daniel Randolph, Jacob Fleming—and attempt to negotiate a prisoner exchange for Tilton. The next day, on April 9, the Board of the Associated Loyalists approved a (revised) proposal from Lippincott: The Board, having information that Capt. Clayton Tilton, now a prisoner in Monmouth County jail, is in danger of being sacrificed to the violent resentments of the rebels, and that a party of Loyalists under Captain Lippincott proposes to attempt his relief by forcing the jail or by seizing General Forman or some violent rebels in that county. The Board then agreed to request “fifteen stands of arms, eight hundred cartridges, thirty spare flints, and five days provisions for thirty men” under Lippincott. Lippincott was issued a passport to go to Sandy Hook and into New Jersey. Huddy was not mentioned in the approval of Lippincott’s mission. Franklin promptly requested military wares for Lippincott from General Oliver DeLancey; he did so without mentioning Huddy: Captain Clayton Tilton of the Associated Loyalists was lately taken prisoner by a party of rebels in Monmouth County. From the report made to the Board, we have reason to believe Capt. Tilton will speedily fall sacrifice to the resentment of the Rebels, to whom he rendered himself obnoxious for his Loyalty & Activity, unless he is relieved by the immediate action of the Loyal Refugees. To effect this relief, a party of Refugees, propose to make an attempt to force the jail or seize General Forman, a violent persecutor of Loyalists in the County. Franklin asked for the supplies quickly, "as the party must set off this evening to save him [Tilton]." Franklin ordered Lippincott to rescue Tilton who "is in great danger of losing his life" and "save him by forcing the gaol or seizing General Forman.” Lippincott was told to “make your descent on the Jersey shore, proceeding with the greatest secrecy and dispatch to Freehold, the gaol of which you will force, and relieve the prisoners therein." It is unclear if Franklin genuinely expected Lippincott to raid Freehold (fifteen miles inland, and well-guarded) with only thirty men, or whether this was a ruse to conceal the real purpose of Lippincott’s mission. Franklin also issued a letter to the Commissary of Prisoners to turn Huddy, Randolph, and Fleming over to Richard Lippincott: "Sir--Deliver to Captain Richard Lippincott the three following prisoners: Lt. Joshua Huddy, Daniel Randolph and Jacob Fleming, to take down to Sandy Hook to procure an exchange of Captain Clayton Tilton and two other Loyalists." No document lists Lippincott’s entire party. Lippincott claimed he had 25 men. By cobbling together information from various sources, it is possible to identify almost half of the men in Lippincott’s party: Samuel Taylor (who advocated for the hanging), John Tilton and Ezekiel Tilton (brothers of Clayton), Timothy Brooks (a Pennsylvania Loyalist who likely participated in the attack on Toms River), Moses (an African American loyalist who had been captured with Philip White but escaped), Aaron White (brother of Philip White), John Fennimore, John Worthly, and Isaac (African-American) (with Philip White at Long Branch). Huddy was loaded in irons on his hands and feet for his transport from New York to Sandy Hook—an unnecessary punitive act. John Tilton (a Monmouth County Loyalist and brother of Clayton Tilton) testified about this at Lippincott’s court martial, but attempted to explain it away: Joshua Huddy was put in irons on board the sloop, Dolphin. He [Tilton] asked Huddy whether he [Huddy] thought it was good usage or not, to which Huddy answered he thought it was not, but he expected to be exchanged in a few days. Tilton also claimed that Huddy threatened revenge against the Loyalists who had loaded him in irons: He [Huddy] hoped to have the killing of him, the deponent, and a good many others. The deponent then asked if he [Huddy] would hang him in case he fell into his hands, as he did the late Stephen Edwards, to which he [Huddy] replied that he did not hang Edwards, but only tied the knot and put it round his neck, and greased the rope that it might slip easy. Edwards was a Loyalist captured at Eatontown in 1777. He was hanged without a proper trial—an act that outraged Loyalists. Daniel Randolph later stated that on April 8, he, Huddy, and Jacob Fleming were "carried immediately on board a sloop, put down in her hold & ironed, the aforesaid Huddy having irons on both feet and both hands, and a certain refugee named John Tilton told Capt. Huddy that the aforesaid Capt Huddy was ordered to be hanged." Randolph said the men were "confined below deck until the 12th." That day, Huddy was told "to prepare to be hanged for having killed Philip White." Huddy replied that "he was not guilty of having killed Philip White, and should die an innocent, in a good cause, and with uncommon composure of mind and fortitude, prepared himself for his end." British Captain Richard Morris of the guard ship Britannia at Sandy Hook met with Lippincott on the morning of April 10. Morris testified that he understood that Lippincott intended to hang Huddy. He further testified that if the rebels retaliated on Tilton for Huddy’s hanging “he believed one of those two who remained [Randolph or Fleming] would also suffer." Lippincott landed on the Highlands on April 10. But he did not immediately hang Huddy. Instead, he chose to capture an enemy boat. He would write the Board of the capture on April 10: I proceeded to Sandy Hook with twenty-five men and received information of a privateer boat being in the Shrewsbury River & notwithstanding the night and a violent storm, I determined to take her; at sunset, ventured the river and proceeded up six miles where I took an eighteen oared whaleboat with one mast, one sail, four oars, one swivel and two blunderbusses. Hanging Joshua Huddy On April 12, Lippincott’s men were prepared to hang Huddy; Huddy was permitted to compose his will: I, Joshua Huddy, of Middletown in the County of Monmouth, being of sound mind and memory, but expecting shortly to depart this life, do declare my last will & testament. First, I commit my soul unto the hands of almighty God hoping he may receive it in mercy & next I commit my body to the Earth, I do also appoint my trusty friend, Samuel Forman, to be my lawful executor, and after all my just debts are paid, I desire that he do divide the rest of my substance, whether by book debts, bonds, notes or any other effects whatsoever, belonging to me, equally between my two children, Elizabeth & Martha Huddy. Huddy left nothing to his estranged wife, Catherine Hart (born Catherine Applegate). Witnesses at Huddy’s hanging disagreed on the details. Pennsylvania Loyalist, Timothy Brooks, testified that prior to the hanging, "Captain Lippincott shook hands with Huddy, as he was standing on the barrel." But John Tilton testified that Huddy was defiant, claiming that if he was freed, he would hang Clayton Tilton. Taylor claimed that Huddy begged for his release, saying "he would be their friend & a good subject, but the said Taylor said it was too late, shook hands with him, and Huddy was turned off." Huddy was hanged on April 12. Huddy’s corpse was left swinging with a note pinned to it that left no doubt about the Loyalists’ retaliatory intentions: We the Refugees, having with long grief beheld the cruel murder of our brethren and finding nothing but such measures daily carrying into execution. We therefore determine not to suffer without taking vengeance for the numerous cruelties and thus begin and have made use of Captain Huddy as the first object to present to your views, and further determine to hang man for man as long as a refugee is left existing. Up goes Huddy for Phil White. James Putnam, a New York boatman, met Samuel Taylor shortly after he returned to New York. Taylor put himself at the center of the hanging: "Huddy would not have been hanged had it not been for said Taylor" because "many people at the said hanging were against it, but he, said Samuel Taylor, was determined that Huddy should be hanged.” Taylor reportedly told Moses, the African American hangman “that if he, the said Negro, did not do his duty, he, said Taylor, would blow his brains out." Timothy Brooks corroborated that the hangman was a black man: Brooks testified that it was a "Negro that did the hanging." Lippincott, who set out to conduct an execution, ensured that Huddy’s blood would be on the hands of a Black man. After Joshua Huddy’s Hanging The chain of events immediately after Huddy’s hanging is hard to assemble. But a few acts are certain: Lippincott’s party quickly returned to New York without trying to free Tilton or capture Forman; While sources disagree on details, a limited prisoner exchange did occur—Clayton Tilton for Randolph and Fleming (some sources suggest that additional people were exchanged); The Associated Loyalists delayed reporting events in Monmouth County to British leadership. As outrage over Huddy’s hanging built in New Jersey, William Franklin finally reported on the proceedings in Monmouth County to General Clinton on April 27, "Randolph & Fleming are both exchanged for Capt. Tilton -- Capt. Lippincott, on his return from Sandy Hook, made the report of a capture of an eighteen-oar barge.” Franklin then singled out Lippincott as the person solely accountable for killing Huddy. According to Franklin, Lippincott “went before the full Board” and stated that: Huddy had been exchanged (laying emphasis on the word) for Philip White, and that when he came away from the Hook, Randolph was allowed to go to Freehold on his parole, in order to propose an exchange for Tilton, and Fleming for Aaron White, or if that could not be obtained, to offer both Randolph and Fleming for Captain Tilton alone. Franklin claimed to "know nothing" of the hanging of Joshua Huddy beyond Lippincott’s report and took no responsibility for it. His desire to place the blame solely on Lippincott is revealed by Dr. Henry Stevenson who testified at Lippincott’s court martial. Stevenson stated that “the Board of Directors had drawn up an Instrument in writing (which they wished Captain Lippincott to sign) purporting that Captain Huddy was executed without their knowledge or consent." Stevenson stated that members of the Board discussed this certificate and whether "he (Captain Lippincott) might alter it as he thought proper." It is unlikely that Lippincott signed any such statement as it likely would have been presented as evidence at his court martial trial. As discussed in the next article, the brazen retaliatory killing of Huddy sparked outrage in Monmouth County. Local leaders who feuded before and after Huddy’s hanging, united to escalate the matter to the highest levels of the Continental Government. Congress and General George Washington proposed executing a British officer in retaliation for the killing of Huddy unless the killer (Lippincott) was turned over. The British scrambled to defuse the situation by convening a court martial to examine if Lippincott was guilty of murder. Franklin laid low and then quietly boarded a ship for England. The flurry of actions and protests would escalate to senior officials from the Continental, British and French governments. The so-called “Huddy Affair” would become the most infamous incident in Monmouth County’s local war. Related Historic Site : Captain Joshua Huddy Historic Marker Sources : Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p224-5; Transcript of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/halew/Lippincott.html ; George Washington Papers, Library of Congress: http://founders.archives.gov/?q=privateer%20AND%20Sandy%20Hook&s=1111311111&sa=&r=27&sr= ; Transcript of the Court Martial of Richard Lippincott, http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/halew/Lippincott.html; The Associated Loyalist exchange note is in Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 191; Connecticut Journal, May 2, 1782; James Putnam’s Testimony at Richard Lippincott’s Court Martial, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v107, #240-2, 261, 268; Note to Commissary of Prisoners, Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #168-70.; Chronology of the Huddy hanging discussed in Sheila Skemp, William Franklin: Son of a Patriot, Servant of a King (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) pp. 256-9.; William Franklin to Oliver DeLancey, Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #158-65; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p217; Roth’s essay is in Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) pp. 515, 552, 554-7, 579; In Kinvin Roth’s essay in Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) pp. 578-9; Princeton University Library, Microfilms Collection, #1081.133, Board of Associated Loyalists, April 9, 1782; Testimony of Captain Richard Morris at Richard Lippincott’s Court Martial, Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #31-7; Richard Lippincott’s testimony at his court martial, David Library of the American Revolution, Great Britain Public Records Office, British Headquarters Papers, #4387. Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #186; Joshua Huddy’s will, Catalog of the Exhibition: Joshua Huddy and the American Revolution, Monmouth County Library Headquarters, October 2004; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p219-20; The note pinned to Huddy’s body is printed in David Fowler, egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 201; Edward H. Tebbenhoff, “The Associated Loyalists: An Aspect of Militant Loyalism,” New-York Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 63 (1979), p 142; Maryland Gazette, May 2, 1782; William Franklin to Henry Clinton, Library of Congress, Richard Lippincott Court Martial, reel 1, #175; Richard Lippincott to Board of Associated Loyalists, Princeton University Library, Microfilms Collection, #1081.133, Board of Associated Loyalists, April 15, 1782; Deposition to John Tilton, Great Britain Public Record Office, British Headquarters Papers, 30/55, #4439; Samuel Blowers’ testimony quoted in Howard Peckham, Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) p 562. 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 > Daniel Van Mater and Monmouth Refugees in New York by Michael Adelberg British commander-in-chief, Henry Clinton, had to contend with thousands of Loyalist refugees in New York. Supporting these refugees strained British resources through the war. - February 1777 - As discussed in a prior article, hundreds of Monmouth County Loyalists went behind British lines in the first months of 1777. For most of these “refugees ,” life in British-held New York was difficult. Most Monmouth Countians were farmers and landowners—few had the opportunity to remain so in New York. New York was an overcrowded garrison city with continuous shortages of housing, food, and wood. Loyalist men could enlist as soldiers, but most Loyalists of means did not wish to “lower themselves” to a rank & file soldier. There were limited economic opportunities beyond that for men; women and children had even fewer opportunities. The Loyalists who chose to serve in the New Jersey Volunteers are documented in other articles. This article provides a case study of one Loyalist—Daniel Van Mater—who sought a civilian life in New York. He is the best documented Monmouth County Loyalist among those who did not seek military service. Daniel Van Mater as an Active Loyalist Daniel Van Mater was a prosperous farmer before the war. He owned 530 acres of non-contiguous farmland in Freehold and Middletown townships. Van Mater’s wealth was considerable—it included seven slaves and 53 head of livestock. While the majority of the Dutch-descended families of Monmouth County favored independence, Daniel Van Mater strongly opposed it. He went behind British lines shortly after the Declaration of Independence, living with relatives in New York. At least one of his brothers, Chrineyonce Van Mater, became a notorious Loyalist (he helped capture leading Whigs, Richard Stockton and John Covenhoven). Daniel Van Mater returned to Monmouth County on December 17, 1776, and helped raise wagons and corn for the British Army during the Loyalist insurrection . He also led a party that captured a militia officer, Tunis Vanderveer. Another Loyalist, Richard Lawrence, would testify about Van Mater: In December 1776, Mr. Van Mater was active in rendering every assistance to the troops and disarming and taking the rebels prisoner; that he, with some others, took on Tunis Vanderveer, a rebel militia Captain, prisoner, and some privates, and took them to this deponent. When the insurrection collapsed, Chrineyonce Van Mater escaped but another brother, John Van Mater “was taken by the Continental Army and sent to Maryland , 250 miles from his house, where he was confined in close gaol for six months.” Daniel returned to New York. Daniel Van Mater in New York Back in New York in early 1777, Daniel Van Mater visited and assisted some of the Monmouth militiamen who were captured at the Battle of Navesink . On February 20, he wrote David Forman of “being on Long Island with my relations, hearing of our Monmouth men being taken prisoner, went to New York to see them, petitioned for sundry of them to leave their imprisonment.” Van Mater claimed to have negotiated parole for two of the prisoners and wrote “I hope to get more released.” For this service, Van Mater made a request of Forman: I beg the favor of you to admit me to come home to my young family & pray you would consider my age, as I was out from home before you came in our Country to give me your protection - if I had known you had command I should have come home as soon as I could have obtained leave and submitted to your direction. Van Mater acknowledged participating in the Loyalist insurrection and seeking the return of his imprisoned brother, but concluded: I am a friend to my country, I humbly beg your benevolence and clemency & further pray that you will not suffer my property destroyed but protect it; please ask Mr. [John] Covenhoven and [Richard] Stockton of my conduct & friendship when confined, I have acted from no principle other than to get my brother out of confinement; times are so very precarious. We may slide into errors undesigned and know not how to steer clear of blame. If Forman responded, his letter has not survived. Van Mater stayed in New York. Daniel Van Mater Captured and Impoverished Daniel Van Mater attempted to return home in December 1778. But he was intercepted by a Continental patrol which did not accept his British-issued passport and brought him to Elizabethtown. General William Maxwell wrote George Washington about Van Mater, and the larger British practice of issuing passports to Loyalists: I ordered this Vanmater back immediately and His Lordship [Lord Stirling, William Alexander of the Continental Army] had ordered the others home before, but the inclosed [sic] shows that they had been appointed to come here long before His Lordship knew anything of the Matter & I have good reason to think that they are collecting their friends from different parts and providing passes for them on their arrival here, and refusing all others. In February, Van Mater, back in New York, wrote a memorial (petition) to Henry Clinton, commander-in-chief of British forces in America, on behalf of an unnamed group of Monmouth Loyalists: Since the commencement of the troubles, they have been uniform friends of the Government, on the 18th of December 1776, took their protection under the [Loyalist] Government of New Jersey, have since been obliged to quit their homes and property for services rendered to the Government, have since lived within British lines at a very great expense, without any assistance from the Government. The Loyalists requested "rations to be drawn for ourselves and one servant each” from the British commissary. It is unknown if Clinton responded. Daniel Van Mater petitioned for relief again on September 1, 1782. He discussed his loss of wealth and need to find employment as a streetsweeper and housekeeper for a British officer: Your memorialist has left a very considerable estate, both real and personal, and undertaken the principles of Loyalty to his sovereign, came in a very precipitate manner, with very little cash or property, has long since been constantly borrowing upon his credit, which was naturally his own, has met with a great deal of sickness to himself and family, and which has been very expensive to him... In order to get bread, did hire a horse in Brooklyn, in order to follow some public employment for which said employment gives £150 per annum and ever has kept a card house with a broom and also keeps house for the wife of an officer. Van Mater ended the memorial with a plea for help: “Your Memorialist prays your Excellency will be pleased to take favorable notice of his humble state and grant payment for the guard room and upper room, as he is unable to pay the rent for the whole of these rooms." Van Mater again petitioned for relief after the war as part of the Loyalist compensation process that was set up by the British government. In his application, he discussed: He has been entirely excluded from all the benefits of his property, and experienced considerable embarrassments while at New York, having beside himself four children to maintain - nevertheless, he has never yet enjoyed any allowance whatsoever, only about nine months rations when he first came to New York. The Similar Fate of Dr. James Boggs Van Mater was not the only well-to-do Loyalist to suffer economic ruin during the war. Dr. James Boggs of Shrewsbury, for example, also petitioned for relief after the war. “By the unfortunate issuance of the American war, your memorialist has lost all. That he has a wife and a very large family of children to provide for - that is reduced to great distress.” He stated in a second appeal for relief: He resided in Shrewsbury, in New Jersey and says that he uniformly supported British Gov't. He ever opposed the choosing of Committees , and say he never took an oath or carried arms with the Americans. A number of Loyalists were taken up in Shrewsbury in 1776. The dread of being taken made him fly to Sandy Hook, where he got aboard the Fly , sloop of war. He has continued under the protection of the British troops ever since. He acted as a mate in the Gen. Hospital at New York from July 1777, until Sept. 1783, when he was appointed by Sir Guy Carleton Asst. Surgeon on staff. His pay in both situations has been 7s, 6d per diem [a fraction of his prior income]. His wife, Mary, like other wives of Loyalists , attempted weather the war as a neutral at the family home on Rumson Neck, but in April 1782 she petitioned Governor William Livingston for permission to join her husband in New York, writing: “I have no means of support but what I can derive from my husband, have been plundered and distressed by the Continental galleys, and had so little returned that, but for the assistance of my friends, we must have suffered this winter past." The request was presumably granted as the Boggs estate was confiscated and sold in 1783. Both Van Mater and Boggs had their estates confiscated . Loyalist Women also Suffer in New York While the difficulties experienced by formerly comfortable men like Daniel Van Mater and James Boggs were real, the difficulties experienced by poorer Loyalists, and Loyalist women in particular, were generally greater. This was known by British leaders who were continually petitioned by Loyalist women for poor relief when their husbands were captured or dead. The author’s research documents twenty Loyalist women from Monmouth County emigrating to New York during the war—with complete documentation, the number certainly would be higher. Catherine Reading’s 1781 memorial provides an example of Loyalist women suffering in New York. She wrote of living "genteelly" in Monmouth County with her husband and five children before the war. But she needed to flee to New York because she could not support her family without her husband (who was in New York). Now in New York, she petitioned for rations because her husband had lost his sloop and with it, the ability to support the family. She wrote that her “children are sick and she has no means of support.” She also noted that she has previously been allowed to draw rations but now "must show cause why she could not subsist without them." General James Pattison perceived New Jersey women coming to New York as a nuisance. He wrote in August 1779: “I am really at a loss to say with regard to the Legions of women from the Jersies -- by your description of them, in no other light than as a swarm of locusts who will devour the fair crop of Long Island." Six months later, Pattison banned Loyalist women from entering New York on the pretense that some were spies. He gave the order: “You will not allow any women whatever to cross from the Jersey shore." Meanwhile, Colonel Roger Morris, charged with provisioning Loyalists in need of poor relief in New York, found that 153 as men, 208 women, and 406 children were deserving of relief in December 1779. It is impossible to know how many of these Loyalists were from Monmouth County. Related Historic Site : The Old Stone House (Brooklyn) Sources : Peter W. Coldham, comp., American Loyalist Claims (Washington, D.C.: National Genealogical Society, 1980), p 504. Gregory Palmer, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (Westport, Conn. and London, 1984) p 888; Daniel Van Mater, Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Coll. D96, PRO AO 13/112, reel 11; Daniel Van Mater to David Forman, Rutgers University Library Special Collections, Neilson Family Papers; John Fell's Journal, Brooklyn Historical Society, coll. 1974.225; Daniel Van Mater and James Boggs, United Empire Loyalists, Loyal Directory: http://www.uelac.org/Loyalist-Info ; William Maxwell to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 18, 1 November 1778 – 14 January 1779, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008, pp. 426–427; Daniel Van Mater, Memorial, David Library of the American Revolution, Great Britain Public Records Office, British Headquarters Papers, #1769; Daniel Van Mater’s Memorial, David Library of the American Revolution, Great Britain Public Records Office, British Headquarters Papers, #5518; Memorial of James Boggs, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Audit Office, Class 13, Volume 17, folio 99; Loyalist Compensation Application of James Boggs, Rutgers University, Special Collections, Loyalist Compensation Applications, Coll. D96, PRO AO 13/112, reel 10; Letter of Mary Boggs, Mary Benjamin, "American Revolution ALS," The Collector, vol. 69, July - Aug., 1956, p 74; Memorial of Catherine Reading, BF Stevens, Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain (London: Mackie & Co, 1906) v2, p117; James Pattison, "Official Letters of Major General James Pattison: Collections of the New-York Historical Society for the Year 1875, (New York: The New York Historical Society, 1876.) pp. 237, 367; Roger Morris, "Return of Refugees Receiving Provisions,” Return of Refugees, Online Institute for Loyalist Studies, www.royalprovincial.com : University of Michigan, Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, vol. 86, item 20. table 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 > Anglican Reverend Samuel Cooke Flees Shrewsbury by Michael Adelberg Rev. Samuel Cooke preached at the Christ Church in Shrewsbury, which he led until his plainly-stated Loyalist views made it unsafe for him to remain in Monmouth County. - May 1775 - At the start of Revolutionary agitation, Reverend Samuel Cooke was arguably the most influential man in Shrewsbury Township. For a decade, he led the county’s Anglican congregation at Shrewsbury and smaller congregations at Middletown and Freehold. He lived in a comfortable home in Shrewsbury immodestly named “the Glebe.” As anti-British agitation swept the colonies, Cooke led the resistance. He wrote that, for a half year, “he prevented any committee from being chosen in Shrewsbury.” But the winds were blowing against Cooke’s public support of the British government. Cooke Leaves Shrewsbury for England As sentiments turned against the British, Cooke felt unsafe. He wrote that "he rec'd several threats before he came away, this hastened his departure.” Cooke left for England in May 1775. In his final sermon at Shrewsbury's Christ Church, Cooke alluded to the mixed motivations of Continental leaders in a sermon titled, "The Duty of Mutual Love Enforced by God's Example.” In an apparent swipe at the Continental movement, Cooke warned against following leaders with “secret intentions” and "pretended love.” He urged his congregants to be wary of men “where nothing but self interest is at their bottom." Cooke’s departure was hastened by a clash with Josiah Holmes. Holmes was a former magistrate who was stripped of the office by the Governor for showing sympathy for the rioters who closed the county courts in 1770 and 1771. Holmes was a church warden at the Christ Church and he challenged Cooke’s political influence over the congregation. Later in the war, Cooke would write of Holmes, "He broke out, took the lead as a Committeeman, and joining with a few Presbyterians created all the disturbances in his power against me." Cooke had Holmes removed as a church warden in 1775, but Holmes remained influential. He returned to the Christ Church after Cooke’s departure. There is little documentation of Cooke’s time in England. He wrote fondly of the Loyalism of his flock in Shrewsbury: “few of them have, indeed, swerved from the path of duty.” He also noted the minority status of Anglicans in Monmouth County: “the congregation of the Church of England is small in comparison to the number of dissenters.” Cooke was known by Philip Van Courtland, one of New York’s wealthiest Loyalists, who referred to him as “the worthy Doctor of Kings” and urged a colleague in England to send Cooke his “sincerest respects.” Cooke’s Return to America Cooke returned to America in June 1776. He wrote that “he came home in 1776, hoping that the confusion in the colonies would subside.” Cooke soon learned that returning to Shrewsbury would be dangerous. Instead, he joined the British Army as deputy chaplain to the Brigade of Guards, a British Army unit. Cooke stayed in the Army until the end of the war. In May 1780, he from New York wrote about the "great numbers of the inhabitants of Shrewsbury, both church people and Quakers, here within the King's lines." He also remained in contact with at least some former congregants in Shrewsbury. Of them, he wrote: “Those who remain conform no farther to the present tyranny than is absolutely necessary for their safety, and to exempt themselves from confiscation and jail.” His Loyalist compensation application to the British Government was supported by William Franklin (the last Royal Governor of New Jersey) and Courtland Skinner (the commander of the Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers). This proves that Cooke was on good terms with the most important Loyalists at war’s end. Cooke’s family, however, stayed in Shrewsbury. He wrote that he "was compelled to leave behind his large & helpless family, with but slender support.” The family initially owned two farms – 165 and 50 acres – and two slaves. That did not last. In May 1779, Cooke’s was in the first group of Loyalist estates sold in Shrewsbury. His daughter, Mary, was permitted to purchase some of the family estate (another source claims the estate went to Cooke’s son). But Cooke’s main estate was purchased by his old rival Josiah Holmes who, according to Cooke, “took possession of the Glebe and continues to live in it with his family.” After the War Cooke was not immediately replaced. The Anglican (now Episcopal) minister at Spotswood, William Ayres, attempted to serve the Monmouth County congregations, but the war years were hard on him. A 1785 report on the Episcopal Clergy in New Jersey noted that Ayres was “afflicted with insanity” for much of the war, but had recovered his mental health by 1785. Records from the Christ Church note the assignment of a “Mr. Beach” as Reverend in 1782, but it is unclear if this was a permanent assignment. The next long term minister was Henry Waddle, appointed in 1787 after serving the church as its “Lay Delegate” in prior years. Waddle was an early leader of the county’s Revolutionary militia, but he soured on military service early in the war and was permitted to weather the war as a non-participant. After the war, Cooke settled in New Brunswick, Canada, and was appointed Chaplain to the military garrison at Saint John. At least one of his children stayed in Shrewsbury and a son settled on Staten Island, where he, according to genealogical sources, apprenticed as a mason. In 1786, Samuel Cooke became the first rector of the Episcopal Church at Fredericton and in 1791 was named Commissary to the Bishop of Nova Scotia. Reverend Cooke died a few years later. His canoe overset in the St. John River on May 23, 1795. His son, Michael, died while attempting to save his father. Related Historical Sites : Christ Church Sources : Records of the Shrewsbury Christ Church, Shrewsbury Christ Church; Dennis P. Ryan, "Six Towns: Continuity and Change in Revolutionary New Jersey, 1770-1792" (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1974) p 167. Ryan, New Jersey's Loyalists (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1974) p 11; Dennis P. Ryan, "Six Towns: Continuity and Change in Revolutionary New Jersey, 1770-1792" (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1974) pp. 46-59; United Empire Loyalists, Loyal Directory: http://www.uelac.org/Loyalist-Info ; Monmouth County Historical Association, Vault, Shelf 4, Christ Church (Shrewsbury) - Vestry Book; Leonard Lundin, Cockpit of the Revolution the War for Independence in New Jersey (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) p 68; Hugh Edward Egerton, The Royal Commission On The Losses And Services Of American Loyalists, 1783-1785 (London: Kessinger, 2010) pp. 35-7. See also Rutgers University Special Collection, Loyalist Compensation of Application of Samuel Cooke, D96, AO 13/108, reel 8; Frederic Parris, "The Case of Rev. Samuel Cooke: Loyalist," Monmouth County Historical Association Newsletter vol. 3, May 1975; Gregory Palmer, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (Westport, Conn.: Meckler, 1984) p 174; Monmouth County Historical Association, Samuel Cooke Papers, sermon #7; Great Britain, Public Record Office, Audit Office, Class 13, Volume 54, folio 633-634; Journals of the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the State of New Jersey, 1785-1816, (New York: John Polhemus, 1890), p 34;"Six Towns: Continuity and Change in Revolutionary New Jersey, 1770-1792" (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1974) pp. 169-76. Ryan, New Jersey's Loyalists (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1974) p 19; Anglican Church at Shrewsbury, Christ Church, October 7, 1782, Monmouth County Historical Association, Vault, Shelf 4, Christ Church (Shrewsbury) - Vestry Book; Rev. Samuel Cooke's United Empire Loyalist bio: Minister at Shrewsbury before the war; becomes the Rector of the first church of Fredericton, NB after the war -- United Empire Loyalists, Loyal Directory: http://www.uelac.org/Loyalist-Info ; Cooke’s 1780 letter is in Dennis P. Ryan, "Six Towns: Continuity and Change in Revolutionary New Jersey, 1770-1792" (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1974) pp. 169-76. Ryan, New Jersey's Loyalists (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1974) p 19; Journals of the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the State of New Jersey, 1785-1816, (New York: John Polhemus, 1890), p 112-113; Peter W. Coldham, comp., American Loyalist Claims (Washington, D.C.: National Genealogical Society, 1980), p 465. Gregory Palmer, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (Westport, Conn. and London, 1984) pp. 830-1. 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 Capture of the William and Anne and Post-Capture Maneuvering by Michael Adelberg The William & Anne resembled this British brigantine. In July 1777, it grounded on the Monmouth shore and was taken. It took months to determine who had rights to sell the vessel. - August 1777 - As discussed in prior articles, the large British Army in New York required continuous re-provisioning. This meant that an unprecedented number of ships were entering New York harbor via Sandy Hook. Many of those ships were captained by officers navigating the unmarked waters near Sandy Hook for the first time. Groundings and ship seizures were inevitable—the first one occurring in 1775. Over the course of the war, opportunistic shore-neighborhood militia, though often dysfunctional , demonstrated a willingness to fight when unloading ships and protecting cargoes from British capture. As early as July 1776, the British brig, Halifax , was fired on by local militia in two separate incidents on the Monmouth shore. In December, HMS Syren , while “moored at Sandy Hook… landed the Marines” on a beach near Shrewsbury “in order to examine a Schooner which was run a Shore.” Syren’s “marines took possession of the Schooner” and “27 rebel prisoners.” However, local militia chased off the marines. Syren was forced to return, “firing a number of swivels & small arms at the Rebels who were plundering the Schooner.” Syren ’s men “set fire to the schooner” but local militia prevented its capture. The Capture of the William & Anne In spring 1777, a British brig from the Caribbean bound for New York beached near Long Branch. The crew came ashore looking for provisions. A local militiaman, William Applegate, recalled that the crew was “captured by Capt. Morgan who surprised the crew resorting on the shore procuring provisions & thereby became possessed of the vessel, they having negligently left no guard on board except one sick man.” The vessel “was armed & had sugar aboard.” Probably informed by Loyalists who went to Sandy Hook, the next day “2 English armed vessels and attempted to regain” the brig and its valuable cargo. Local militia arrived in time to reinforce Morgan and defend the prize. John Howland, a militia sergeant, recalled: They were ordered to defend her [the beached brig]. They had a piece of artillery mounted on a turret threw upon her, which they defended the brig until they got the sugar out, they were found only among the vessel for the best part of a day. A similar and better-documented incident would occur two months later off of Deal. On July 28, 1777, the New York Gazette & Weekly Mercury , a Loyalist newspaper, printed a brief account about the capture of the merchant vessel, William & Anne : “A brig supposed to be from the West Indies, run ashore last evening at a place called Deal… and the rebels on shore have been seen unloading her." The brig was an ocean-going vessel that had previously made ports of call in Russia and Portugal before heading for the Caribbean. More detail on ship’s capture was provided the in the same newspaper the following week: The brig mentioned in our last to be ashore at Deal, near Sandy Hook, was the prize to the Milford and Thomas frigates; she taken by a rebel privateer and ordered for Boston, and on the voyage was re-taken by the above mentioned frigates, and sent for this port, but the prize master thought proper to call on the coast of New Jersey, where the cargo, consisting of oil, lemons, wine, basil and sugar, was immediately taken ashore and carried up into the country. The key phrase “the prize master thought proper to call on the coast of New Jersey” raises two possibilities. 1.) The prize master, a junior British officer named Jacobs, may have grounded the ship by accident off Deal, where it was taken by rebels; the report sought to downplay this grievous error. 2.) Alternatively, as the story suggests, the prize master may have steered for Deal intentionally because he expected a friendly reception, including picking up a local pilot, along the largely disaffected Shrewsbury Township shoreline. This mystery is solved by a subsequent report in the Pennsylvania Evening Post . On August 15, the newspaper advertised an admiralty court to be held at Gilbert Barton's Tavern in Allentown. The court would hear "the bill of James Morgan, captain of a company of militia… against the brigantine or vessel called the William & Anne , lately commanded by Capt. Jacobs, and taken as a prize by the said Capt. Morgan near Long Branch." The referenced “Capt. Morgan” was James Morgan, a militia captain from the Cheesequake neighborhood of Middlesex County. His militia company consisted largely of Raritan Bay boatmen. When the William & Anne beached, Morgan’s men likely rowed to it and demanded its surrender in the same way that Essex County men rowed to and demanded the surrender of the Blue Mountain Valley in 1776. The residents of Deal, disaffected or not, offered the British no aid. Instead, as they had with the British ship, Good Intent , earlier that year, they willingly unloaded the vessel’s valuable cargo once the ship was secured for a share of the prize. Job Throckmorton of the Monmouth Militia recalled the capture. He recalled that Morgan “imprisoned the crew whilst on shore procuring provisions, and thereby became possessed of the vessel, they having left no crew on board except a sick man.” Throckmorton also recalled an attempt by the British to recover the vessel: “The day after, Captain Morgan became possessed of the brig, an English armed vessel endeavored to reclaim her, but making use of the guns still on board, they eventually drove her off.” After the Capture The William & Anne was certainly not the first vulnerable British ship taken off the Monmouth shore, but it was the first to be formally condemned through New Jersey’s newly-established Admiralty Court . Ownership and rights to prior captured ships, such as the Betsy , bogged down in months of confusing debate over rightful ownership of the ship and its cargo. The admiralty courts were established to hear claims on the vessel and its cargo, and then promptly settle questions of ownership. The court’s appointed agent would then advertise the sale of the vessel and its cargo, attend the sale, and collect fees for the state. Over the next five years, Gilbert Barton’s tavern—likely due to Allentown’s central location—hosted more admiralty courts than any other New Jersey location. Interestingly, the August 15 Evening Post report contradicted a prior announcement in the same newspaper. This prior notice claimed that the William & Anne was already condemned at Freehold, and would be sold at auction at Long Branch on August 5 with “a cargo of sugar, oil, lemons, sumack, figs, wine vinegar, corks, almonds, and wine.” This errant notice suggests that Monmouth Countians had locally determined ownership of the vessel and condemned it to a body “Continental soldiers.” The only Continental soldiers on the Monmouth shore at this time were David Forman’s Additional Regiment . Perhaps David Forman, who was holding extra-legal tribunals for other purposes, condemned the vessel to his troops. This would have placed him at odds with Captain Morgan of the Middlesex militia, but Forman was also the militia general for Monmouth, Middlesex and Burlington counties at the time and the commanding officer over Captain Morgan. Forman could have sent Morgan home. The state’s assertion of the admiralty court’s jurisdiction clarified that a state-appointed Admiralty Court judge would determine the vessel’s rightful owner and the person entitled to the windfall from the sale of the vessel and its cargo. In a final twist on the post-capture maneuvering, the Admiralty Court hearing in August 1777 did not lead to the prompt sale of the William & Anne . The following April, the New Jersey Gazette advertised that the William & Anne would be sold at the house of James Wall in Freehold on May 15. The agent of the Admiralty Court who advertised the sale was David Forman. Related Historical Site : Mystic Seaport Museum (Mystic, CT) Sources : Journal of H.M.S. Syren , Captain Tobias Furneaux, December 13, 1776, Great Britain Public Record Office, Admiralty 41/930. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, John Howland of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#27247928 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, William Applegate of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#11273804 ; American War of Independence at Sea - American Privateers: http://www.awiatsea.com/pl/Br/British%20Prizes%20July%201777/William%20and%20Anne%20Brig%20(Edward%20Howe).html ; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 1, pp. 434, 443-4; William Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1970), vol. 9, p 704; Pennsylvania Evening Post, August 15, 1777; The Library Company, Pennsylvania Evening Post, August 23, 1777; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Job Throckmorton. Previous Next