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 Rental of Loyalist Estates by Michael Adelberg Dr. James Boggs lived in Shrewsbury before the war. In December 1776, he became a surgeon in the British Army. His family stayed behind. Despite this, his estate was seized and rented in 1777. - July 1777 - In August 1776, Monmouth County became the first county in New Jersey to inventory the estates of Loyalists who had left to join the British. New Jersey law established a multi-step process through which Loyalists forfeited their estates to the state for resale. First, state-appointed commissioners (in Monmouth County—Kenneth Hankinson, Samuel Forman, and Jacob Wikoff) inventoried the estate; next, a formal inquisition was posted and citizens could make statements regarding the status of the inventoried estate owner; finally, the Forfeiture Commissioners could confiscate and re-sell the estates. While the cash-strapped New Jersey government desperately needed money, land confiscation in an agricultural community was the ultimate penalty; land was the primary route to acquiring wealth. Estate confiscation was tantamount to a final and irreversible break with the Loyalist. In 1777, most Americans clung to a belief that a short war and reconciliation was still possible and were not ready to confiscate estates. Renting Loyalist estates was a way to bring in revenue without the finality of confiscation. Renting Loyalist Estates in Monmouth County According to surviving records, the Forfeiture Commissioners—Hankinson, Forman and Wikoff—rented 34 Loyalist estates in July 1777 and would ultimately rent out 89 estates. Estates rentals raised an impressive £21,000. Monthly rents ranged from £1 to £87 (the estate of Daniel Van Mater , who had purchased a new farm in New York). Estates were rented across Monmouth County’s four northern counties—Freehold, Middletown, Shrewsbury and Upper Freehold. Dover and Stafford township Loyalists were not included in this process. The Loyalists whose estates were rented were a combination of wealthy and modest landholders. While several of the most prominent Loyalists had their estates rented—Colonel John Morris, Colonel George Taylor, Rev. Samuel Cooke—others had their estates temporarily spared—Colonel Elisha Lawrence, Major John Antill. Three families were particularly prone to estate rentals—such as: Van Mater: Daniel Van Mater, Chrineyonce Van Mater, and Henry Van Mater; Taylor: George Taylor, Morford Taylor, John Taylor, and William Taylor; Leonard: John Leonard, Joseph Leonard, and Thomas Leonard. Other families, including those that headed the Loyalist insurrections , such as the Woodwards of Upper Freehold, were conspicuously not included on the list of rented estates. The criteria for estate rental is not easily explained from surviving documents. Determining exactly who was subject to an estate rental was controversial. At the highwater mark of Loyalism in New Jersey, December 1776, many Monmouth Countans lined up behind the British. Many of these fickle Loyalists did not become Loyalist refugees when the British quit New Jersey in January. Authorities were generally lenient toward these fickle men , as long as they were not leaders and were not violent. Still, the dividing line was controversial. On June 2, 1778, the New Jersey Council of Safety received a petition from Monmouth County: Setting forth that a number of persons who had been in the enemy's lines, aiding & assisting them, and who plundered a number of inhabitants when the enemy were last in Trenton, and had returned to their respective homes & being bailed by the Justices & suffered to go at large. The petition was delivered by militia Colonel Asher Holmes along with a list of the "delinquents" and the magistrates who dropped charges against them. The estates of these delinquents would presumably be subject to inventory and rental. The rental of Loyalist estates could become complicated. One case specific to estate rentals rose to the New Jersey Supreme Court in January 1781. In this case, Daniel Randolph, acting as a subcontractor to the Forfeiture Commissioners, charged William Grover with reneging on rents owed. Grover had rented two farms, and later a third farm, from Randolph for £150 a month which "he faithfully did promise to pay." Grover promised to pay the Commissioners £98 of the fees owed. The indictment claimed Grover “has not paid for that one either despite being summoned to pay.” Grover was charged with "not regarding his several promises... contriving to fraud." Grover’s defense and the outcome of the case are unknown. Whatever the complications, the rentals of Loyalist estates raised significant and much-needed cash for the New Jersey government. On October 10, 1778, the New Jersey Assembly recorded receiving £3680 from Samuel Forman, on behalf of Monmouth County’s Forfeiture Commissioners. This was the approximate value of two mid-sized estates if sold at auction, and a larger sum than any county forwarded to the Legislature at that time. Other Loyalist estates were not rented until April 1779 or later, after Loyalist estates were being confiscated and sold at public auction. Later account books demonstrate that well over one hundred Loyalist estates were sold in Monmouth County (different sources have differing totals), so several confiscated Loyalist estates were never rented. Perhaps the Forfeiture Commissioners showed mercy on certain families by delaying or not renting their family estates. After the war, Loyalists applied to the British government for compensation for their lost property. In these applications, virtually every Loyalist discussed and estimated the value of their lost estates. Only one Monmouth Countians, Dr. James Boggs, additionally discussed losses to his family related to the rental of his estate prior to confiscation. Boggs took a British loyalty oath on December 7, 1776 and joined the New Jersey Volunteers as a surgeon. His family stayed behind in Shrewsbury. Despite this, his 111-acre farm in Shrewsbury was rented out in July 1777 (and then confiscated in May 1779). The Boggs family was presumably evicted. The rental of Loyalist estates was an important intermediate step toward confiscating and re-selling Loyalist property. While it aroused some controversies and displaced some Loyalist families, the impacts of estate rentals were small in comparison to what would come later. Related Historic Sites : Nassau Hall Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Commissioners of Forfeited Estates, box 5, folder 4.1; Peter W. Coldham, comp., American Loyalist Claims (Washington, D.C.: National Genealogical Society, 1980), p 42; Rutgers University Library Special Collections, Great Britain Public Record Office, Loyalist Application Claims, James Boggs, D96, AO 13/17; Auditor’s Book, New Jersey State Archives, Dept of Treasury, Auditor's Account Books, reel 181, pp. 469-72; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 245; NJ State Archives: NJ Supreme Court Records, case #32076; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 245; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey 1775-1776 (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009) p 245; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 10, 1778, p 192-194. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Monmouth Leaders Split as David Forman Re-Emerges by Michael Adelberg Elias Boudinot, on behalf of the State, sued Monmouth County’s Highway Overseers for neglecting their duty. This and other disputes stoked tensions between factions of county leaders. - March 1780 - Prior articles showed that, at times, there were bitter disputes between Monmouth County’s Revolutionary Era leaders. For example, the county’s 1777 election was voided by the state legislature after Colonel David Forman, backed by armed men, “harangued” the election-day crowd with accusations about the incumbents he was campaigning against. In January 1779, the Freehold township magistrate, Peter Forman, sent a militia party to seize the grain and hay of Benjamin Van Cleave of Middletown after Van Cleave refused to sell provisions to the county’s Quartermaster agent, David Rhea (also of Freehold). Middletown’s magistrate, Peter Schenck, was outraged that Forman had sent men into his township to take provisions that had been set aside for poor relief. The seizure of goods from two other Middletown farmers would stoke divisions within Monmouth County again in April 1779. A quantity of silks taken from John Holmes and Solomon Ketchum (Middletown) by Elisha Walton (Freehold) led to the famous New Jersey Supreme Court case, Holmes v Walton , in which the Supreme Court overturned the seizure because the October 1778 law allowing it was held unconstitutional. Seizures of vessels by militia units also stoked tensions, as out of area militia often clashed with locals over claims to a vessel. Initial decisions were appealed to the Supreme Court on the likelihood of reversal. A December 1779 petition signed by 120 Monmouth Countians complained that: A quantity of goods was taken, condemned and sold pursuant to the law to the amount of five thousand pounds and the money is in the hands of the officers on duty, ready to divide amongst the men pursuant to the law had not the Judges of the Supreme Court advised the commanding officer stationed at this place not to suffer any dividend to be made of the prize money until the next Supreme Court. The withholding of the money from the men has almost raised a mutiny. The petitioners, mostly from but not entirely from Freehold Township, claimed that they might stop serving on the shore if denied quick access to prize vessels by shore township magistrates: We serve on a frontier county and we believe there will be frequent actions to call out the militia in that time - a great number declare they will not turn out at a future call unless they are allowed to have the benefit of such prizes as the law directs. The various disputes between supporters of the Revolution (they called themselves “Whigs”) had two commonalities. First, they pitted Whigs who were willing shelve the legal rights of individuals in the interest of more vigorously prosecuting the war (Machiavellian Whigs) against those who believed that individual legal rights needed to be protected, even if it made the prosecution of the war more difficult (Due Process Whigs). Second, while there were exceptions, there was a geographic dimension to the division. The leaders from the inland townships of Freehold and Upper Freehold tended to be Machiavellian Whigs. Those in the shore townships—particularly Middletown and Shrewsbury—tended to be Due Process Whigs. (It appears that majorities in the lower shore townships of Dover and Stafford were disaffected .) Struggling to Govern a War-torn, Divided County Aggravating the division between Monmouth County’s Whigs was the inability of county leaders to effectively govern. Evidence of ineffective governance shows up in many places—court dockets show jurors skipping jury duty and constables skipping courts; taxes were inconsistently collected from disaffected neighborhoods; militia delinquency was common in those same neighborhoods and fines for delinquency were ineffective until 1780. The county’s roads were unsafe and poorly maintained. This prompted Elias Boudinot, on behalf of the State, to file an extraordinary “nuisance” lawsuit against the county’s Overseers of the Highways before the Supreme Court in 1780. As a result: Hendrick Hendrickson of Middletown Township was required to post a £50 bond "certifying that the roads and highways will be cleared & repaired." The same bonds were required of Elisha Lawrence and Abiel Aiken for the roads of Upper Freehold and Dover townships. Thomas Little of Shrewsbury posted a bond to clear and repair "the road leading from Freehold to Black Point, and also the road leading from the Falls to Squan bridge to Meteconk bridge." Denice Denise of Freehold Township posted a bond to repair "the road from Covenhoven's to Toms River." Monmouth leaders must have given Boudinot the information necessary to win these bonds before the Supreme Court (presided over by David Brearley, a “Due Process” Whig from Upper Freehold). On March 19, 1780, James Mott, one of Monmouth County’s Assemblymen, spoke to that body on the mistreatment of David Morris by Machiavellian Whigs led by David Forman. Morris was a Continental Army soldier jailed in the county gaol at Freehold. In 1778, Morris defaulted on L10 debt to Peter Imlay (a state Admiralty Court judge). For defaulting, Morris was fined £50 more by Justice Thomas Forman. Morris joined Continental Army and sent his £10 recruitment bounty of Imlay to pay off his debt. He was apparently unaware of the additional fine against him. While home on furlough, Upper Freehold’s magistrate, William Tapscott, arrested Morris for not paying the fine. The Army demanded Morris's release and he returned to the Army without documentation or a decision about the unpaid fine. Mott publicly insulted the Machiavellian Whigs who oversaw the affair: "We have further information that he [Morris] is released from confinement, but by what authority, Mr. Forman could not say." David Forman – Asher Holmes Rivalry In mid-June 1780, a 150-man Loyalist raiding party launched a punishing raid against Middletown. The militia captured one of the raiders. David Forman, at Freehold, interrogated the prisoner. He wrote Governor William Livingston: He confesses he is not a soldier - neither was he to receive any pay - that their sole business was to take a number of inhabitants from their houses and to plunder, & that the plunder was to be divided amongst them. The fact is they were probably a marauding gang. Forman noted the longstanding British policy of executing “marauders,” men who committed violent acts outside of the chain of command. Forman concluded, “Some such example, I am sure, is necessary in this part of the country to deter that class of people, we can no longer be secure at night… If agreeable to the rules of war, prisoners taken in that way [must] be executed.” Forman then turned then wrote Asher Holmes, commanding the militia and state troops on the Raritan Bayshore: "I did expect to receive from you the particulars of the Tory invasion" but did not, "consequently every question will be called as to their [Continental troops] necessity… I have reason to believe we shall in a few days have very few Continental troops." Forman blamed Holmes for the departure of Continental troops from the county, presumably a reference to Major Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee’s dragoons, who were stationed in Monmouth County intermittently through 1779 and 1780. However, Holmes had no duty to report to Forman. Forman was a Continental Army officer (who lacked a command), while Holmes was actively commanding the 1st Regiment of the Monmouth militia and county’s regiment of State Troops . Holmes’ chain of command went through the State’s militia generals, not Forman (who had resigned his militia commission three years earlier). Forman’s dislike of Holmes was evident the following month when Forman criticized Holmes in a letter to George Washington. The specific issue was Holmes’s decision to conduct prisoner exchanges with the Loyalists, a practice that Forman believed encouraged additional “manstealings . ” Forman wrote: The militia here have lately entered into the exchange of prisoners taken when on duty, that the refugee parties take from their own houses or whilst about their usual business. The measure appears to me so replete with evil that I would be wanting in my duty should I pass it unnoticed... 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. Forman’s dislike of prisoner exchanges continued. By September 1780, Forman was chairman of the vigilante group, the Association for Retaliation . In that role, Forman, issued "Retaliating Committee order no. 16" in which he queried Holmes for information about a potential prisoner exchange for Hendrick Smock: Attending members of the Committee are informed that you [Holmes] have paroled a certain Mr. Williams to go to New York for the purposes of effecting an exchange for Capt. Hendrick Smock, a member of this Committee -- We hope the information is not true. -- If such parole is given and for the purpose aforesaid, we do conceive it counteracting the spirit of the Association [for Retaliation]. We are sorry to learn of your refusal to attend, after first a verbal request from a member, and afterward a note from the Chairman [Forman], without assigning any particular reason. Given the attending member's real concern -- we do therefore request your attendance, or that you assign the particular reason for refusing; and at the same time inform us whether the exchange is effecting for Capt. Smock. It is unknown if Holmes responded, but as an extra-legal body, the Association for Retaliation had no legal authority to require a report from Holmes, much less direct his conduct. Forman’s complaints about Holmes reached Governor Livingston, who must have inquired to Holmes about his conduct. Livingston’s letter has not survived, but it prompted a long and defensive reply from Holmes on December 12. First, Holmes defended his prisoner exchanges, claiming that they had been authorized by Livingston himself: When I was last at Trenton, I informed your Excellency that one of our Commissaries of Prisoners had authorized me to exchange such prisoners of war as are taken here; your reply then was that every commanding officer had a right to exchange their own prisoners - If any exchange going through my hands had been deemed not advisable, I think it would have been consistent with those professions you are pleased to make in your letter to have mentioned [those] to me at that time. Next, Holmes responded to Livingston about the rigor with which he was suppressing the London Trade on an unnamed point of land (which was likely Black Point, present-day Rumson): The intercourse you are pleased to mention with the disaffected of this state, may perhaps exist in the imagination of some, altho’ not reality, for it being a narrow point of land, & the guards above them & scouts round the neighborhood was sufficient to prevent either intercourse or intelligence more than what they have any other time have. The situation of that place is such that the enemy can land there almost when they please (except when we have men on that spot), and the place is by no means safe or convenient to station a guard. Finally, Holmes spoke to the controversy over William Odell, a Loyalist who had landed at Black Point to negotiate a prisoner exchange. Holmes addressed complaints over letting Odell stay at Black Point: As to the censure of some of the Monmouth men I have incurred, your Excellency tells me it will give you particular pleasure to find it has originated from mistake, rather than being founded in reason... I have shown that those that commanded on this county before, allowed a Mr. Elliot and others from New York to come to Shrewsbury & Middletown to visit their acquaintances at these places, & pass through the troops then on duty without being under any restraints that I know of. - I suppose those gentlemen did not think it necessary to go to your Excellency with censure for that transaction & others of a similar nature. Holmes further addressed an allegation that he was too friendly with Odell. Holmes called Odell, “a man I have never saw in my life… neither do I know anything more of his character than from common report.” He further reported that: He came over with a flagg, with two of our officers that had been almost four years in captivity & obtained their paroles for a limited time, as their had been proposals of an exchange for those officers for some taken by the militia of this place, I know of nothing on Odell's character more obnoxious than other common enemies. Finally, Holmes disputed an allegation that Odell was given access to the countryside. Holmes referred to Odell only being “permitted to stay at Black Point, or within half a mile of it, till an answer could be had from our commissary of prisoners respecting an exchange, & as soon as that was obtained they was soon off." Presumably, an exchange was not arranged. The 1780 County Election The animosity between the inland Machiavellian Whigs and Due Process Whigs reached a crescendo at the October 1780 County election. An argument broke out about whether to hold the polls open a second day to allow men serving in the militia along the shore to come and vote—a move that would boost votes for the Due Process Whigs (who lived further away from the county seat of Freehold). The polls were not held open; Assemblyman James Mott was then beaten by David Forman for protesting the closure. The scandalous election was nearly voided by the legislature and is the subject of another article. At the next Court of Quarterly Sessions for Monmouth County, Forman pled guilty to assaulting Mott. Forman admitted that he "did beat, wound and ill-treat him." At the same court, William Van Cleave (from the family that had its rye and hay seized by Freehold Township magistrate, Peter Forman) pled guilty to assaulting Thomas Henderson, the former Freehold magistrate and ally of David Forman. David Forman’s Re-Emergence In 1777, David Forman was the Colonel of a regiment of Continentals and the general of the militias of Monmouth, Middlesex, and Burlington counties. Monmouth county’s civil government was virtually non-existent and Forman filled the power vacuum. However, Forman descended into a string of scandals that included hanging a Loyalist without a proper trial, using his troops as laborers at a salt work he co-owned, and intimidating voters at the county election. Forman resigned his militia commission rather than answer a summons from the New Jersey Legislature and George Washington relieved him of his Continental command in early 1778. After this, Forman retreated from public life. In 1780, David Forman re-emerged as Monmouth County’s most visible leader. He did so in response to vindictive Loyalist man-stealing raids and frustrations that the county’s militia and state troops—led by Colonel Asher Holmes—were not aggressive enough in countering the challenge. Forman helped create and then led the Association for Retaliation, which according to historian, David Fowler, "functioned as a sort of parallel government.” Forman’s re-emergence also split open the simmering division between the county’s Machiavellian and Due Process Whig leaders. As Fowler noted, “The indiscriminateness of their [Retaliator] operations tended to alienate the moderate elements in the county, and thus serve to highlight tensions not only between Whigs and Tories but also among Whigs." Related Historic Site : Victory Park, Rumson Sources : Petition, New Jersey State Archives, Bureau of Archives and History, Manuscript Collection, Manuscripts, box 14, #51; Elias Boudinot v Monmouth County Townships, New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #38922; James Mott, presentation, The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, March 19, 1780, p 169; David Forman to Asher Holmes, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 5, folder 9; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 68, July 12, 1780; Retaliating Order no. 16, Monmouth County Archives, Court of Quarterly Sessions, folder: 1780; Asher Holmes to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 13, December 12, 1780; David Fowler, "Furious Whig: A Biography of General David Forman of Monmouth County", unpublished manuscript. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Monmouth Soldiers Participate in Campaign against Iroquois by Michael Adelberg In summer 1779, New Jersey’s Continental Line marched into Pennsylvania to punish the Iroquois Indians for past frontier raids. About 100 Monmouth Countians participated in the campaign. - July 1779 - As described in another article, spring 1779 was a hard time for the New Jersey troops in the Continental Army. The state was unable to properly pay or provision its men. So, the soldiers of the New Jersey Line were in poor condition and foul disposition when they received orders to march west into Pennsylvania and campaign against the Iroquois Indians. Six Monmouth Countians—Captain John Burrowes, Lieutenant William Barton, Sergeants Michael Errickson, Moses Sproule, Thomas Roberts, and Privates Benjamin Paul and Henry Johnson—kept journals or wrote letters during parts of the campaign. This article highlights their documentation of the campaign. Before the Campaign Thomas Roberts of Middletown Point (serving under Captain Burrowes) recorded that his company left its camp at New Brunswick on May 29 and reached Easton on June 5. That day, the Army hanged three soldiers for desertion and made a fourth run the gauntlet. After spending a few days at Easton, the company marched further west. Michael Errickson of Freehold wrote of additional discipline on June 12: "three men hanged in presence of our troops and a great multitude of inhabitants, for murder & robbery." Lieutenant Barton of Allentown wrote his father, Gilbert Barton, from the village of Wyoming, Pennsylvania on June 22: Very few Indians seen near here lately – they supposed to be spies only… This place is composed of a few log huts and a fort on the river Susquehanna, which is a beautiful river. Our living is tolerable good as the woods abound with wild hogs of which the soldiers kill numbers. Barton complained of the “horrid roads” and inactivity: “We are laying here doing little or nothing, but hope soon to go on from this place.” A week later, Sergeant Roberts compared the countryside surrounding Wyoming favorably to Middletown Point: "The land is very good for wheat or anything that is put in the ground, the shad lay on the river and on the shore as thick as most bunkers on the Middletown shoar [sic]." But Roberts also noted damage from Indian raids, "the buildings is destroyed on both sides of the river for 20 miles." Errickson also noted the destruction, writing on June 27 that he "marched nineteen miles in the shadows of death." The New Jerseymen stayed put through July. On July 22, Lt. Barton wrote again from Wyoming: We have been retarded here much longer than was expected on account of some part of our provisions that was intended for us being entirely spoiled and unfit for use… The Genl says he is determined to march in a few days or he will not go... We are to march the first for a place called Tioga, to which place we can take our provisions in boats, but from there up on horses – thirty days flour and all of our baggage as there is no other way of conveyance. It appears that we shall return when that is exhausted. Barton also took a swipe at two Monmouth County officers who were apparently ducking service: “The savages have very lately been doing some mischief at Minisink, for particulars I refer you to Mr. Rhea [David Rhea] and Capt Combs [John Combs], they seem to avoid this place with great caution.” Other Monmouth officers were also getting excused from the campaign. On July 1, General John Sullivan, leading the Continental Army in northeast Pennsylvania, granted leave to Lt. Colonel David Brearley of Allentown, "Lt Col Brearley having business of importance which calls him to New Jersey has leave to retire from the Army." Brearley would become New Jersey’s second Chief Justice . On July 5, Errickson recorded that "Captain Burrowes set off this evening for Philadelphia on public business." Private Henry Johnson of Middletown wrote his father from Wyoming on July 22: "The Injenes [Indians] have done a great deal of mischief here, but we lie undistressed by them. We expect to march in about a week after the Injenes, when we return I know not." Sgt. Roberts recalled finally marching to the frontier line on July 29 where he saw "buildings were burnt by the savages.” Barton wrote of leaving Wyoming that same day: Upwards of one hundred boats arrived the day before yesterday with stores & a like number of wagons yesterday from Easton, which will enable us to proceed. I am wanted to remain at this garrison but believe I shall not. If I do, shall endeavor to get home before long. The Iroquois Campaign About August 1, Sullivan’s troops entered Indian County. Sgt. Sproule of Englishtown wrote of frequent transportation challenges. On August 2, he wrote, "several of the packs consisting of ammunition & provisions was lost on account of a [steep] defile & darkness." On August 3, the men had to "lay still this day to collect the cattle & c. which had strayed during the last night." A few days later, "three bullocks was lost when they fell down a defile." At the end of the month, Sproule wrote that "the roads being so bad that the baggage wagons overset at different times, which retarded the march." Despite the challenges, the soldiers soon came upon Iroquois settlements. On August 12, Sgt. Roberts noted that the troops were ordered to be ready for combat; the first skirmish occurred the next day. Roberts recorded that as the men fired a village, they skirmished with an Iroquois party-- killing seven and wounding eight before the Indians fled. There were two more skirmishes in the next three days. Sproule wrote of entering an Iroquois village on August 13, where he "found the enemy had abandoned the town in great confusion… the army then went to destroying corn" and razing the village. After days of advancing, Errickson wrote on August 17 the "troops was weary, very fatigued.” That same day, the Iroquois exacted some revenge, sneaking into camp, killing three cattle, and scalping a sentry. Not coincidentally, Lt. Barton wrote a melancholy letter to his father that day: I have undergone a long and fatiguing march and retain my health perfectly as I ever did in my life. Yet I must confess time passes on but tediously in this horrid Indian country where there is nothing to cheer & divert one’s mind--unless it is barely thought of against returning to Jersey after reducing those infernal savages. God grant it may not be too long they meet the destruction they justly merit. The next day, Barton wrote again, describing the court martial and lenient punishment of Upper Freehold’s Isaac Robins: He was sentenced to have ten lashes only, and had he not been favored surprisingly, it would have been one hundred. Richard Jobs was ordered to flog him and to favor him likewise, which he did, for you could hardly perceive that he had been whipt at all. Errickson wrote of more court martials being held on August 22, including a court martial of a Sergeant Wilson who was "reduced in rank" and forced to run a gauntlet. Errickson wrote that this "made me very sorry, by all accounts he was not guilty." By late August, Captain Burrowes, had returned from Philadelphia and rejoined his men. On August 25, he wrote of the need to quit campaigning: "The season of the year is advancing when we should begin to think about winter quarters, as the men are poorly clothed and not above one in 12 have a blanket, and the nights here are already very cool." Despite his worries, General Sullivan and the campaign went forward. Burrowes wrote on August 27 of the men feasting at an Iroquois field: We got this night to a large flat… where corn grows such that cannot be equaled in Jersey… contains about 100 acres of beans, cucumbers, simblens, water-melons and pumpkins. We sat until between one and two o'clock feasting on these rarities. Indeed, the men ate so well that General Sullivan cut the men’s rations on August 30 and, according to Burrowes, “it was agreed and answered with three cheers." Burrowes noted that "the men find a good deal of plunder in every town and settlement we come to... the savage villains continue flying before us and generally leave their villages a few hours before we enter them." While Burrowes showed contempt for Iroquois fighters, he was impressed by their agriculture and villages. On August 30, he wrote: “The land exceeds any I have ever seen, some corn stalks measure eighteen feet, and a cob one foot and a half long.” Then, he wrote of an ample fruit orchard at the next settlement. And a week after that, Burrowes wrote of the Iroquois village of Cashong: “The houses new and built very neat and appeared that they were whites that lived there.” More often, Burrowes wrote about the difficulties of the campaign. On August 31, he wrote that "the country is very mountainous, makes our march very tiresome" and the next day the men marched "through a most horrid swamp." A week later, Burrowes worried that food was now scarce, "Living is already hard. We eat meat twice in three days & bread once in four or five. The country abounds with corn and beans which we live solely on, salt is very scarce." According to Errickson, there were several mini-sieges and skirmishes as the troops pushed deeper into Indian Country. Lt Barton wrote of an attack on an Iroquois fortification on August 29: “Some shells and round shot were thrown at their works, which caused them to give several yells, and doubtless intimidated them much.” The artillery apparently killed several. Barton reported, “they gave a most hideous yell and quit their works… leaving their dead behind.” Barton noted the corpses of the Iroquois fighters “were scalped immediately.” Moses Sproule wrote that among the enemy killed on 29th were "one Tory, one Neggar." Having scattered the resistance, the New Jerseyans fired the fields on August 30, took “plunder of all kinds” and scalped four Indians. Sproule recorded that on August 28, "the troops went to destroying the corn & c., with which this place abounded." On August 30: "this day was spent destroying corn." On August 31, he was sent "to destroy what crops of corn they could find." The brutality of the campaign worsened. Sgt. Thomas Roberts wrote on August 30: “Found four Indians and scalped them and brought them into camp . . . besides a great deal of plunder of all kinds.” The same day, Lt. Barton wrote, “Toward noon they found them and skinned two from the hips down for boot legs; one pair for the Major and the other for myself.” The next day, the New Jersey troops captured two Indians and "skinned their legs & dressed them for leggings." Sproule recorded that two weeks later, the New Jerseyans found two soldier corpses "mangled in a most inhuman and barbarous manner, having pulled the nails out by the root, tied them to a tree and whipped them with prickly ash, threw darts at them, stabbed them with spears, cut out their tongues & off their heads." Captain Burrowes also reported on two corpses (possibly the same men): We find Lieut. Boyd and one of the men... their heads cut off and scalpt [sic]. They had been whipped horribly. Their body's are spread all over and Boyd's partially skinned. Such is the barbarity of these savage villains. The campaign continued through September. Errickson wrote that on September 8, the New Jersey troops burned an Indian village and the surrounding fields which Erickson estimated at “50 acres of corn, 50-60 houses.” Errickson recorded that on September 6 "most of the day was employed in destroying the corn & c., and collecting the cattle" and on September 8, 400 men went to raze an Indian village. On September 15, Errickson wrote: "the whole of the troops this morning, with great cheerfulness, went about destroying the corn & c. at this post." The same day, Burrowes estimated the destruction: "It is judged we have burnt or destroyed about sixty thousand bushels of corn and two or three thousand of beans." The destruction continued. Errickson wrote that on September 23: "most of the day was taken up destroying the scattered towns & c. within two or three miles around this town." Benjamin Paul, a private from Monmouth County, recalled an encounter at an Iroquois village. The soldiers found one old squaw remaining. She refused to serve as a guide or leave, so the men gathered her a basket of provisions and then "all the rest was destroyed.” Paul personally “cut down a large apple orchard and assisted to destroy fields of corn, beans and Indian towns.” The men also rescued a hostage: “We also took a white woman and kept her until we returned to Wyoming, where she had been taken." None of the journals lists a specific date that the Continentals ended the offensive and turned around, but the campaign was over by early October. Lt. Barton and his company returned on September 30. He wrote his father: I am very well & arrived the 30th of Sept. at this place with very little loss on our side, but total destruction of the Indian Country, which we have penetrated about three hundred miles, burning everything before us & supposed by some to have destroy’d one hundred thousand bushels of corn, but others think a much larger quantity… Mr. Rhea [David Rhea], who will be the bearer, is in great hurry. Tomorrow morning, the Army marches for Wyoming; when we arrive there, I shall apply for leave to come home. Captain Burrowes also returned and was safe enough on October 9 to spend the day hunting with Captain Jonathan Forman. The New Jersey troops were all back in Wyoming by October 12. After the Campaign It is impossible to know exactly how many Monmouth Countians participated in the Iroquois campaign, but one hundred is a reasonable estimate. There two company commanders—Burrowes and Jonanthan Forman—from Monmouth County and recruits were typically raised from the captain’s locality. Burrowes had 35 men in 1779 and Forman likely had a similar number. By mid-1779, the New Jersey Line companies had been jumbled by drafts and consolidations making it likely that Monmouth Countians were serving beyond these three companies and vice versa. The viciousness of the Iroquois campaign went beyond anything seen in Monmouth County to that point. The brutality of the local war in Monmouth County surged in 1780 as both sides formed active vigilante groups—the Association for Retaliation and the Associated Loyalists —that sought to punish the enemy beyond military objectives. It is probable that the brutality of the Iroquois Campaign influenced this lurch toward greater brutality. Veterans leaving the Army after three years of army service likely brought these tactics into Monmouth County’s local war. Related Historic Site : The Iroquois Museum Sources : Thomas Roberts, Letter, Journals of the Military Expedition of Maj John Sullivan Against the Six Nations of Indians, 1779 (NY: Knapp, Peck, & Thomson, 1887), p245-6; John Sullivan to David Brearley, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I41, Memorials to Congress, v1, p475; Thomas Roberts Journal, Journals of the Military Expedition of Maj John Sullivan Against the Six Nations of Indians, 1779 (NY: Knapp, Peck, & Thomson, 1887), p240-5; Library of Congress, Michael Errickson, Diary; William Stryker, The New Jersey Continental Line in the Indian Campaign of 1779, (1885) pp. 8, 13, 62-3; John Burrowes, Journals of the Military Expeditions of General John Sullivan Against the Six Nations of Indians (Auburn, NY: Frederick Cook, 1887) p 42-50; John Burrowes is quoted in John Rees, Supply Shortages, Suffering Soldiers and a Secret Mission During the Hard Winter of 1780, Military Collector & Historian, v52, n3, Fall 2000, p100-7; John Burrowes Journal, Frederick Cook, Journals of the Military Expedition of Major General John Sullivan against the Six Nations (Auburn, N. Y.: Knapp, Peck and Thomson, 1887), pp. 8, 42-51, and 244; Johon Burrowes Journal, Frederick Cook, Journals of the Military Expedition of Major General John Sullivan against the Six Nations (Auburn, N. Y.: Knapp, Peck and Thomson, 1887), pp. 42-51; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Benjamin Paul; Sproule, Moses. "The Western Campaign of 1779: The Diary of Quartermaster Sergeant Mosts Sproule of the Third New Jersey Regiment in the Sullivan Expedition of the Revolutionary War, May 17-October 17, 1779" Edited by R. W G. Vail, pp. 11-34; Letters of Lt. William Barton, son of Gilbert Barton, 1777-1779, American Revolution Institute, Society of the Cincinnati, 13 A.LL.S., Washington, DC; Henry Johnson’s letters in Monmouth County Historical Association, Collections Alphabetical, Letters 1770-1779. 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 > Adam Hyler Captures Loyalist Regulars on Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg The HMS Lion served as the guardship at Sandy Hook when Adam Hyler’s privateers captured a party of British regulars. A party of marines from the ship arrived too late to help their comrades. - May 1782 - Adam Hyler of New Brunswick was New Jersey’s most prolific and successful Revolutionary War privateer. As discussed in a prior article , Hyler launched a remarkable string of attacks against British-held New York and Sandy Hook, consisting of at least 17 actions between April 1781 and his death in August 1782. Based on surviving documentation it appears that about half of Hyler’s crew was from Monmouth County—particularly Middletown Point (Matawan) from which New Jersey’s first maritime raids against New York City and Sandy Hook were launched. While Hyler’s exploits were many, his most impressive attack occurred in May 1782 when he captured a party of British regulars sent from Sandy Hook to attack him. Hyler’s attack against Sandy Hook began with taking four small vessels near Sandy Hook, but, as reported in the New York Gazette, on May 29, Hyler was forced to give up some of these vessels: Mr. Hyler paid a visit to our fishing boats last Saturday and took three boats and a prize, inward bound, without [outside Sandy Hook]; he was pursued by an armed vessel dispatched from one of his Majesty's ships, which obliged him to run the prizes ashore. Hyler Captures Loyalist Regulars on Sandy Hook On the same trip, Hyler took on a larger party of British regulars. The New Jersey Gazette reported that on May 25: Capt. Hyler with his armed boat, being in the Shrewsbury River, a party of twenty-five men, a party of British troops, under Capt. Schaak, was detached to intercept them. Hyler discovered them and landed thirteen men with orders to charge; when four of the enemy were killed and wounded, and the Capt. and eight men taken prisoners. By the firing of a gun it was supposed that others were killed, as they were seen to fall. Just before this affair, Hyler had met with a hurt, or otherwise he would probably not have let a man escape. On June 27, Lieutenant H. Sinclair, at Sandy Hook, reported the event to General Cortland Skinner. He described “the arrival of the noted partisan Adam Hyler, with two whaleboats, off Shrewsbury Inlet, a short distance from the Gut." Captain Schaak with 21 men marched after him, with Sinclair staying back with half of the command. At 9 a.m., Sinclair "heard several volleys of musketry, accompanied by two or three rounds of cannon" that "made the necessary signal [for assistance] from the Light House to the Lion , man o war, lying off the Hook.” 40 marines from the Lion under Lieutenant Wood went to assist Schaak. However, they were too late. Sinclair reported on Schaak’s defeat: We had not gone far when we met a refugee who told us he had attended Capt. Schaak and informed me that Capt. Schaak and several of his party were taken, the remainder of Capt. Schaak's party had fallen back to the Light House under command of a Sergeant. Sinclair did not pursue "on account of Hyler probably being on the shoal, and a number of [State Troop ] dragoons constantly hovering about the Jersey side of the Gut, which is fordable at low water." The next morning, 50 marines landed at Spermacity Cove to attack Hyler but "were informed that Hyler went off last night to Middletown Creek" in two boats. The loss of the Schaak’s party at Sandy Hook was significant enough for Skinner to report it to the British Command in Chief, Guy Carleton. Skinner inferred that Sinclair did not follow orders to engage the enemy, “my instructions to him could not justify his march." Skinner then proposed to attack Adam Hyler's base. It is unclear if Skinner was referring to Middletown Point or New Brunswick, but he wanted the row gallies of Lt. Blanchard that razed Toms River in March rather than larger British navy vessels: As Hyler has gone up the bay, I wish that Lt. Blanchard, with his boats, was ordered to this post. I think with these [boats] he [Hyler] could be followed to his haunts, his boats destroyed. The armed vessels [at Sandy Hook] may protect particular places, but cannot follow him. One of Hyler’s men, John Riddle, recalled the clash with Schaak’s party in his veteran’s pension application. After taking three vessels, the privateers returned to Sandy Hook: The next day we returned under British colors, and coming close alongside the fleet off Sandy Hook, we dropped sails and run into Sosbury [Shrewsbury] River. The same evening we passed through the narrow passage between Sandy Hook and the Highlands [the Gut], about sunset, when we spied a craft going across the guard ship in pursuit of which our Captain immediately sent the whaleboat. Riddle (exaggerating the number of British troops) then described the action against Schaak’s party: “Perceiving a line of British soldiers marching down the beach,” Hyler’s men attacked: We were but thirty strong, including the fifteen we had landed: the enemy about seventy. While we were looking over the beach for them from our vessel, they came suddenly round a point within pistol shot of us. The first thing we knew, [there] was a volley from the platoon, having come up on a solid column. Twelve of our men fired with muskets, and in such quick succession that the barrels began to burn our hands. The other three managed a four pounder, which the Captain ordered to be loaded... An opening by our four pounder being made thro’ their column, the enemy broke and run; and the fifteen men before landed, happening to come up, charged and took the Captain [Schaak] and nine of his men. According to a notice published in the New Jersey Gazette , an Admiralty Court would be held at Raritan Landing on June 27 to hear Adam Hyler claims to: A whaleboat & two fishing boats "taken in the Shrewsbury River and off the Hook" A Black man, John Jeffrey, "taken on the 24th taken on board a schooner near the fishing banks" "15 stands of arms" from Captain Schaak’s party. This indicates that Hyler carried off three boats, an African-American (to be sold as a prize of war), and arms—in addition to the prisoners taken that day. Schaak was sent to Elizabethtown, but not initially confined. George Washington wrote to Colonel Elias Dayton, about Captain Schaak on June 11: “A Captain of the 57th Regt British, lately taken by Captain Hyler at the Light House, is on his parole at Elizabeth Town.” Washington asked Dayton to have Schaak “taken into safe custody… and guarded in such a manner as that he cannot possibly make his escape.” But Washington did not want a harsh confinement, instead Dayton should “have him treated with every species of tenderness and delicacy." Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : The New Jersey Gazette report is printed in Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 125; J.A. McManemin, Captains of Privateers. (Spring Lake, N.J. : Ho-Ho-Kus Pub. Co., 1994), pp. 467-477; H. Sinclair to Courtland Skinner, David Library of the American Revolution, Great Britain Public Records Office, British Headquarters Papers, #4675; Courtland Skinner to Guy Carleton, Great Britain Public Record Office, British Headquarters Papers, 30/55, #4681; Riddle, John, The Memoir of Colonel John Riddle, pp. 1-4. Personal photocopy. Correspondence from Jack Fulmer; George Washington to Elias Dayton, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw240366)) ; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; George Washington to Elias Dayton, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw240366)). 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 > Local Leaders at Battle of Monmouth by Michael Adelberg General Charles Lee led Continental forces during the first part of the Battle of Monmouth; he relied on Monmouth County leaders as guides, but was generally unhappy with their guidance. - June 1778 - Due to their knowledge of the Freehold -Englishtown area, a number of Monmouth County’s leaders played important roles at the Battle of Monmouth. The four most important were Lt. Colonel David Rhea and Captain Peter Wikoff, who acted as faithful guides to Continental commanders during the battle, Colonel David Forman, who furnished guides, and Dr. Thomas Henderson who provided George Washington with early information on the Continental Army’s late morning withdrawal. David Rhea grew up just west of Freehold, but lived as a merchant in Allentown before the war. He enlisted in the Continental Army in 1775 and served continuously through the Battle of Monmouth. Due to his local knowledge, Rhea spent the first hours of the battle advising General Charles Lee. Lt. Col. Tench Tilghman, Washington's Aide de Camp, met Rhea on the battlefield as Lee began the mid-morning troop withdrawal (in the face of a British counter-attack). Tilghman said of Rhea: "He appeared to be very much agitated, expressed his disapprobation with the retreat, and seemed to be equally concerned that he had no place assigned to go where the troops were to halt." Later, Tilghman noted that Lee "desired me to go and bring him [Rhea] as quick as possible." Late in life, Rhea wrote about being pursued by a British dragoon that morning: The Colonel abruptly wheeled, put spurs to his horse, and galloped to a barn, the dragoon after him. Around the barn, and through one door and out the other, went both pursuer and pursued. Ray [sic] galloped for safety to the regiment [Continental Army], passed in front, the trooper still at his heels. More than 100 muskets were discharged at him. But he [the dragoon] escaped unharmed, galloped back to his regiment, and was seen to take his place in line. In the afternoon, Lt. Col. John Fitzgerald recalled Rhea assisting George Washington. Rhea offered to guide Washington’s arriving army to better ground: “It was good ground, and that, should General Washington want him, he should be glad to serve him." Fitzgerald concluded that Rhea “knew the ground exceedingly well.” Rhea also sent a letter to Washington about troop movements: "There is a strong party by your order posted at the pass I mentioned, and will in a few minutes open four pieces of artillery on their left flank…. They must go near five miles round before they can flank us." Peter Wikoff was a local militia captain. He served as a guide to General Lee in the morning of the battle. Capt. John Mercer (an aid to Lee) noted that Wikoff "directed him [Lee] to the heights occupied afterward by Lord Stirling, as the only piece of ground in our favor." Wikoff proposed his family’s house as a rallying point for retreating troops and was sent off to inform retreating units of their withdrawal points. Colonel Isaac Ogden recalled Lee treating Wikoff disrespectfully in the heat of battle, "Mr. Wikoff in some measure apologized as if he [Lee] had looked upon it rather as an intrusion, and then turned off." Lee suggested he was not disrespectful, "I had not the least apprehension that Mr. Wikoff would not have the influence to lead a battalion to the point proposed for the halt." Other officers spoke positively of Wikoff’s role guiding troops during the battle, though there is reason to think the militia officer’s counsel was not always heeded by regimental army commanders in the heat of battle. At least one other militia officer (probably more) served as a guide that day. Captain David Baird wrote: The day of the battle, his men were far from where the enemy passed, [and] were desirous of going to look after their property; not anticipating an engagement that day, permitted them to do so -- that he afterward rode to Englishtown, where he met Washington and Stirling, and even conducted them, that they might know the ground in the vicinity of the battle. David Forman was a colonel in the Continental Army in June 1778, but did not command any men; he lost command of his regiment a few months earlier. In the days leading up to the battle, Forman attached himself to the advancing Continental Army. On June 26, he met with the Marquis de Lafayette at Cranbury. Lafayette wrote that “Gal. Forman is firmly of the opinion that we may overtake the enemy... his sentiment is of great weight on account of his knowledge of the country." But Lafayette also expressed caution about Forman’s advice: "Gal. Forman says that on account of the country, it is impossible for me to be turned to the right or left -- but I shall not quite depend upon that." While Forman was away, a 200-man British detachment sacked his house and farm. Moses Estey of the Middlesex County recalled that on June 27: [He] volunteered with others to go in pursuit of a detachment of the enemy of about 200 men at General Forman’s, who had plundered his house of all valuables, destroyed all his furniture & taken off his plantation all his cattle which they were driving off the British Army then near. They succeeded in re-taking the cattle which were brought back, but the detachment of the enemy got back to the camp of their main army. Forman accompanied General Lee on the morning of June 28, and wrote a note at Lee’s direction to George Washington on the British line of march: I am directed by Genl Lee to Inform your Excely that the Enemy’s Front have advanced one and a half Miles on the road leading to Middle Town and South Amboy… I have no doubt of Middle Town being their distination [sic], as Amboy would Expose there left flank to your Excelys Army. Forman brought Lee guides (including, presumably, Wikoff and Baird). Based on testimony at Lee’s court martial, it appears that Lee and Forman did not like each other. Early on, Forman offered Lee advice on needed troop movements and offered to lead a column of Lee’s men. Lee reportedly responded curtly: “I know my business.” He had nothing to do with Forman after that. After the battle, Forman wrote a letter to Washington criticizing Lee. And at Lee’s court martial, Forman testified against Lee. Forman claimed that, "Gen. Lee committed an error in his order of line by neglecting to find orders to hold the Gentlemen in march" and then "detaining the troops at least two hours longer than was necessary" at Englishtown. Forman stated that Lee was reluctant to attack the enemy: "Instead of marching to attack them, halted in the woods a mile from the enemy, and only sent a detachment." Lee also "appeared confused, and as he said, not well appraised of the enemy's situation.” During the Continental withdrawal, Forman said of Lee: "I observed the greatest confusion amongst the troops, occasioned… by Genl. Lee's frequent and contrary orders.” In total, "Genl. Lee, from the whole of his conduct, appeared determined to avoid fighting." Forman’s role in furnishing guides was affirmed by the testimony of Colonels William Grayson and John Laurens. However, the timeliness of Forman’s assistance was questioned by Lee’s supporters. Lt. Colonel Brooks, Lee’s aide-de-camp, testified about the lack of local guides early in the battle, "about six o'clock they [Lee's men] began their march from Englishtown towards Monmouth Court House, having been detained by want of guides." Captain Evan Edwards, another aid to Lee, said he had to seek guides before assistance was offered: General Lee sent me to procure some for him, but the guides who were ordered to remain with us could not be found. I went through the town to procure others... Genl. Forman [then] came to General Lee's quarters and said he would procure guides, which is supposed he did. Lee, himself, testified about "various delays, halts and embarrassments, occasioned by false alarms and contradictory intelligence" from local guides. Dr. Thomas Henderson served in 1776 as the Lt. Colonel of a regiment of Flying Camp that was attached to the Continental Army. In early June 1778, in retaliation for a Loyalist raid that resulted in the capture of his father-in-law, John Burrowes, Sr., Henderson led a gang that extra-legally seized the Loyalist William Taylor. Henderson’s vengeful act (and probably other acts) made him a target of Loyalists and British. They burned his house and farm on June 27—the first of a dozen arsons . That same day, Henderson led forty mounted men in gathering intelligence on British troop movements and reporting to the arriving Continental generals. Daniel Applegate recalled seeing “Henderson about 4 miles from Village of Freehold on the day before the Battle of Monmouth with about 40 Calvary under his Command” as he gathered information on the British camp and pickets. Henderson observed the withdrawal of Continental troops in the late morning of June 28 and then reportedly raced to Englishtown to debrief George Washington as he arrived at Englishtown. This was apparently Washington’s first intelligence about Lee’s late morning retreat. However, historians Mark Lender and Garry Stone have concluded that Lee’s withdrawal was prudent and relatively orderly, as were the positions Lee staked out for forming a defensive line. So, if Henderson characterized Lee’s retreat as disorderly (or even cowardly, as David Forman suggested), Henderson’s counsel was partially correct. After the battle, on June 30, Henderson, Congressman Nathaniel Scudder, and David Forman, met with George Washington at Englishtown. Col. John Laurens recalled the three local leaders advising Washington not to pursue the British Army, now camped on higher ground at Middletown: The reason for not pursuing them farther with the main body of the Army was that people well acquainted with the Country said the strength of the ground would render it impracticable for us to injure them [the British]; and that the sandy, parched soil, together with the heat of the sun, would probably occasion us considerable loss. After the battle, Henderson documented the arson and plundering of Freehold by British soldiers during their stay in Freehold, including the often-cited account of Elizabeth Covenhoven. Several other Monmouth County leaders participated in the Battle of Monmouth. At least two Monmouth Countians, Captain John Burrowes, Jr., and Captain Jonathan Forman, were company captains in the New Jersey Line. They participated in the early morning attack on the British and subsequent retreat. Militia Colonels Asher Holmes and Samuel Forman skirmished and harassed British parties leading up to the Battle of Monmouth, Forman spent the day under the command of Colonel Daniel Morgan, south of the battlefield, as a non-participant. Holmes and Captain Joshua Huddy led a brave but doomed attacks on the British baggage train east of the battlefield. And, finally, Congressman and Dr. Nathaniel Scudder, watched the battle from an attic window, having been pulled away to deliver a baby. Related Historic Site : Monmouth Battlefield State Park Sources : Mark Lender, Garry Wheeler Stone, Fatal Sunday (Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press, 2016) pp 269-349; Cyclopedia of New Jersey Biography, American Historical Society, New York City, 1921 Page 25-29; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Samuel Mount; Muster Rolls, John Burrowes’s Company, National Archives, Revolutionary War Rolls, Coll. 105, p35, 36, 38, 41, 44, 46; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, David Rhea of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# 14148165; Marquis de Lafayette to George Washington, in Stanley Idzerda ed., Lafayette in the Age of the American Revolution. Selected Letters and Papers, 1776-1790 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981) pp. 89-91; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Moses Estey of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 18309690; Charles Gilman, Monmouth: A Road to Glory (Red Bank, NJ: Arlington Laboratory for Clinical and Historical Research, 1964) p 34; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 357; Benson Lossing, The Battle of Monmouth Court House, Harper's New Monthly Magazine, vol. 57, 1878, June, p43; John Barber, Historical Collections of the State of New Jersey (New Haven, Conn., J. W. Barber, 1868) pp 341; David Forman to George Washington, Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - American Sources; Proceedings of a General Court Martial Held at New Brunswick for the Trial of Major General Lee (New York: Privately Printed, 1864) pp. 30, 164, 197-8, 204, 213; Lee, Charles, The Lee Papers. 4 vols. (New York: New York Historical Society, 1871-1874) vol. 3, pp. 22-187; Lee, Charles, The Lee Papers. 4 vols. (New York: New York Historical Society, 1871-1874) vol. 3, pp. 22-187; David Forman to George Washington, Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - American Sources; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - David Baird; David G. Martin, The Philadelphia Campaign: June 1777-July 1778 (Cambridge, MA: DaCapo, 1993), pp. 209-20; John Rees, 'What is this You have been about Today?': The New Jersey Brigade at the Battle of Monmouth, www.revwar75/library/rees/monmouth/Monmouth.htm, p5; John Rees, 'What is this You have been about Today?': The New Jersey Brigade at the Battle of Monmouth, www.revwar75/library/rees/monmouth/Monmouth.htm, p14-5, 18; John Rees, 'What is this You have been about Today?': The New Jersey Brigade at the Battle of Monmouth, www.revwar75/library/rees/monmouth/Monmouth.htm, p15; John Burrowes, The Revolutionary War Reminiscences of John Burrows, Virginia Historical Society, MSS5:1B9466:1; David Rhea to George Washington, The George Washington Papers, Library of Congress, www.loc.gov ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of New Jersey, www.fold3.com/image/#23877525 ; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, reel 50, June 28, 1778; Hamilton Cochran, Scudders of the American Revolution (Peterborough, N.H.: Scudder Association, 1976), pp. 97-8; David Forman to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, p. 577; David Rhea to George Washington, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 15, May–June 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006, p. 582; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 216; William Stryker, The Battle of Monmouth (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1927) p 232; John Laurens, The Army correspondence of Colonel John Laurens in the years 1777-8 (New York: New York Times, 1969) pp. 200-1; Thomas Henderson (W426), Forman’s Regiment and Monmouth County militia, Supplementary deposition of Daniel Applegate, 21 April 1837, transcribed by John U. Rees. 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 > Lt. Joshua Studson Killed by John Bacon by Michael Adelberg Shore militia companies took to the sea in boats like this one. Lt. Joshua Studson led a boat like this against a small vessel trading with the enemy. While doing so, he was shot and killed at close range. - December 1780 - Joshua Studson was a boatman of modest standing at Toms River before the war. He lived on a 23-acre plot of land (too small for a family farm) with his wife, Mary Studson, and a single head of livestock. Despite his modest standing, he was selected sergeant in the first Dover Township militia loyal to the Provincial and Continental Congresses. His selection as sergeant was likely the result of having strong anti-British views in a neighborhood where many men had pro-British sympathies. By 1777, Studson was a lieutenant in the militia. His boat was a small vessel named Alligator and it was used for militia duty. In May 1778, Alligator , led by Studson, rowed past Sandy Hook and captured a small schooner lying near the Roebuck , a British frigate and the guardship at Sandy Hook. The Toms River men took the prize into Matawan Creek. The reprisal was swift—a British-Loyalist party landed at Middletown Point , scattered the Middletown militia, burned much of the village, and then burned Studson’s boat. The Toms River men had to walk home—40 miles. The loss of his vessel did not dampen Studson’s zealous support of the Revolution. In 1780, Studson joined the vigilante Whigs of the Association for Retaliation , petitioned for a State Troop guard at Toms River, and then was appointed a recruiter for that guard when the New Jersey Legislature authorized it. Studson was elected Dover Township’s Surveyor of the Highways, demonstrating he was ascending in status. This occurred even as Dover’s voters elected disaffected men to other offices. Joshua Studson as a Privateer Concurrent to all of this activity, Studson was at sea again, but now as a privateer. According to John Field, a privateer and militiaman, Studson commanded a Philadelphia brig, Hornet, for three months. During that time, Hornet was nearly taken by a larger British vessel: He volunteered and served the full term of three months on the ocean. The vessel in which he served was a brig called the Hornet, commanded by Capt Studson, John Dillon was the first mate, and the name of the second mate was Thomas Smith. The vessel was a Privateer. This declarant embarked at Philadelphia – our Brig stood out to sea and continued cruising on the ocean for about one month when she came in contest with a British man-of-war and was chased by her for nearly three days and was finally driven into a small inlet called Tom’s River he thinks. Studson’s fortunes soon improved. A short time after the British vessel had departed, we again stood out to sea and after sailing about for some time, we came across a British merchant vessel on her voyage from the West Indies: We attacked her- after firing one gun she struck [struck her colors, surrendered], and we conducted her into Tom’s River aforesaid. On August 18, 1780, Studson was listed as the master of the privateer vessel, Dolphin , a “Pennsylvania Boat” mounting one swivel gun (a small cannon on a turret) with a crew of fourteen. The vessel was owned by Samuel Brown (Studson’s militia captain), and Daniel Griggs of Toms River. Thomas Brown, Samuel’s son, was with Studson as they put to sea. In his postwar veterans’ pension application, he recalled taking a small brig off Barnegat with cargo of rum, molasses, and linen, which was brought into Toms River. In November, Studson took two more vessels, the schooner John and the sloop Catherine , within sight of Sandy Hook. The prizes were taken to Middletown Point. On November 22, the New Jersey Gazette advertised that on December 1, at Freehold, “the sale of the sloop Catherine and the schooner John , as they now lay at Middletown Point, lately captured by Capt. Joshua Studson." The vessels were sold on December 1, but Studson never saw the proceeds. The Death of Joshua Studson On December 1, Studson was not in Freehold. He was leading a militia boat in Cranberry Inlet outside of Toms River. Studson saw a boat with three local disaffected men Asa Woodmancy, Richard Barber, and Thomas Collins entering the inlet. They were presumably returning from a London Trading trip to New York. The militia boat closed in on the London Traders and called for them to halt. As Studson prepared to board the trading boat, a fourth man in the London Trading vessel stood up (by some accounts, the fourth man was concealed). It was John Bacon, a Pine Robber . He shot and killed Studson at close range. An 1858 newspaper described the event this way: Arriving in the bay, Capt. Studson (Dec. 15, 1781) met them off the south-east point of Pelican Shoal, near Cranberry Inlet. Captain Studson bore down upon the sloop, and brought on the engagement by firing his nine pounder into her broadside. Woodmansee ordered his men to strike and himself cried for quarter, but the instant that Capt. Studson mounted the railing, Woodmansee caught a musket and shot him through the head, where upon Mr. John Wilbur, Acting Lieutenant, left the prize and returned to the village with the corpse of Capt. Studson. This account well-illustrates the difficulties of over-relying on antiquarian sources. The account has the wrong year of the incident, it substantially overstates the size of Studson’s cannon, and it establishes Woodmancy as the killer of Studson, rather than John Bacon. After killing Studson, the London Traders and Bacon escaped by jumping into the shallow water and fleeing on foot. Panicked and leaderless, the militia apparently did not pursue them. Some antiquarian accounts suggest that the London Traders were non-violent and Bacon acted on his own. Fearing retribution, the London Traders could not return home. An antiquarian account claims that one of the traders joined the New Jersey Volunteers , which, by this time, was an organization in decline. He caught smallpox, and nearly died. The New Jersey Gazette noted Studson’s death in a brief statement on December 22: "Lieut. Joshua Studson of Monmouth was shot last week, as he was attempting to board a vessel of Toms River, supposed to be trading from New York to Egg Harbor." Bacon was soon indicted for waging war on the United States. He would participate in several other notorious events before meeting a bloody end in 1783. On March 24, 1782, a large party of Associated Loyalists attacked Toms River, overwhelmed the guard of State Troops commanded by Captain Joshua Huddy, and razed the village. They spared only one home—the home of Mary Studson. Even vengeance-minded Loyalists showed a measure of mercy for Joshua Studson’s widow. But Mary did not prosper; she is listed in the 1783 tax rateables as owning eighteen acres with zero livestock. Related Historic Site : Barnegat Bay Maritime Museum Sources : Alfred Heston, South Jersey: A History 1664-1923 (Lewis Historical Publishing, 1923) p 238; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 22, item 11, #172-6; David Fowler, egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 240-2, 247-9; Heston, Alfred M. South Jersey, A History, 1664-1924 (New York: Lewis Historical Co., 1924) p 239; William Fischer, Biographical Cyclopedia of Ocean County (Philadelphia: A.D. Smith, 1899) p 53; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 202; Edwin Salter, Old Tims in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 43-4; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 5, p 145; Bacon indictment discussed in David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 246; The New Jersey Gazette advertisement of Studson’s prizes is in Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 5, pp. 122-5; John C. Dann, The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts of the War for Independence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) pp 135-41; Alfred Heston, South Jersey: A History 1664-1923 (Lewis Historical Publishing, 1923) p 238; Thomas Brown’s pension narrative in, John C. Dann ed., The Revolution Remembered: Eyewitness Accounts of the War for Independence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) pp 137-9; National Archives, John Fields, S.8472, State of Ohio, Greene County National Archives, John Fields, S.8472, State of Ohio, Greene County; The Ocean Emblem , January 30, 1858. 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 > Shrewsbury Friends Move to End Slaveholding by Michael Adelberg In 1776, Shrewsbury’s Quaker meeting pressured its members to free their slaves. The Meeting House, rebuilt in 1816, was likely where the Friends provided education to the recently freed slaves. - August 1776 - As noted in prior articles, slaveholding in Monmouth County was destabilized during the ramp up to the American Revolution. There was increased agitation from African Americans, a number of whom escaped behind British lines. Relatedly, the Quakers of Monmouth County, following the lead of Philadelphia’s Quaker meeting, sought to end slaveholding in the summer of 1776. On August 19, the combined Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meeting issued a new code of conduct for its members as the war commenced. While much of the code was focused on maintaining neutrality and not giving offense to others, the code also included a provision banning “any further buying or selling of slaves.” Item #7 of the code pertained to “manumitting slaves, educating children of slaves.” That same day the Shrewsbury Friends meeting discussed efforts to have its members free their slaves: Those [Quakers] who hold negroes in bondage have been labored with, in order to prevail on them to do justice... some of which have manumitted, some of them as are arrived to the age of 18 & 21 years, one has manumitted several young negroes who are to be freed at that age, some others say that those that are young shall be free when of age, but have not yet manumitted them & divers [sic] others cannot be prevailed with to set them at liberty. Shrewsbury Friends Move to End Slaveholding in Their Meeting Three months later, the meeting appointed Joseph Wardell, Joseph Jackson, and Edmund Williams from Shrewsbury and three more Friends from Rahway as a committee to counsel slaveholders and report on the results. The committee filed its report on August 18, 1777, the anniversary of the first direction to manumit slaves. It wrote: "a number of them [slaveholders] have been prevailed upon to execute proper manumissions... others seem senseless with respect to their duty." The committee determined to further counsel the holdouts. Regardless of good intentions, resetting relationships with former slaves caused tensions. On May 5, 1777, the Friends recorded that James Williams and John Williams beat the freed slave, Caesar Moore. The Friends appointed a committee to investigate. On July 7, the committee reported that James and John Williams had submitted a letter of apology but the committee rejected the letter because they deemed the apology insufficient. In August, John Williams apologized again: “I have deviated so far from our principles as to strike a black man through a passion, for which I am sorry," but James Williams "showed a condescending disposition toward reconciliation." His apologies were not accepted until October. In April 1778, the Shrewsbury meeting reported on continued slaveholding among Friends. It was noted that: Amos White of Rumson and Jonah Parker have freed their slaves; Essek Hartshorne agreed to free his adult slaves on bond and pledge to release child slaves when they reach the age majority; John Stevenson "has left his Negroes in such a situation that they cannot legally be freed as yet"; Jonathan Wright had made "several manumissions." The one strident hold-out was John Corlies who "continues to decline to comply with the annual meeting's advice on that head, therefore John Hartshorne is appointed to inform him that unless he complies with the said advice, this meeting will be under the necessity to disown him." After another counsel, Corlies was disowned on December 7. In 1779, the Friends turned their attention to the few members who still owned slaves. Essek Hartshorne, it was reported, "showed a willingness to comply with the advice of the yearly meeting, he is desired to produce proof of his manumissions for his negroes.” Proof of the manumissions was provided later in the year. The report also noted that William Corlies freed the slave, Jack, and William Parker freed the slave, Neamus Parker. However, Parker continued to keep another slave named Robin (though Parker committed to freeing Robin in April 1780). The report concluded: "We are nearly clear of them (slaves)." In November 1779, two problems remained: William Parker had manumitted Robin, but in a manner judged "not satisfactory." Full manumission was completed in October 1780. Benjamin Corlies sold his last slave, but to Esek Hartshorne. Hartshorne promised manumission, but only after this slave worked off the debt related to his purchase. This slave was freed in July 1780. Support for Freed Slaves In 1780, the Shrewsbury Friends shifted their focus from freeing slaves to supporting freed slaves. In January, they noted that "it don't appear that the committee appointed to have care & oversight of the freed Negroes have made any report… some of them have been entirely unthoughtful of their charge." In August, the committee appointed for supporting freedmen met with several freed slaves. It reported giving “such counsel as we are capable of... said advice seemed acceptable to most of them, and Friends that have them under care seem disposed to do justice to them.” By January 1782, that same committee optimistically reported, "not any negro has been offered to that meeting as suffering & that care is extended toward the free negroes there." An August report also offered an upbeat assessment: "Those negroes who have been manumitted have a comfortable subsistence & justice, in a good degree, administered to them by some.” An August 1783 report concluded: It appears that those negroes who have been manumitted are generally well provided for as to the necessities of life, & some care taken for their school learning, except for the cases of some, who are placed with those not in society with us [non-Quakers]. However, a second report noted that while most of the freed slaves were being assisted, several were not. The report expressed concern about “those freed by Josiah Parker, a part of those freed by Elihu Williams & two of those freed by Essek Hartshorne, which are under care of those not in society with us." The report also discussed the freed child slave of Samuel Allison: “there is cause to fear are [is] sold back into slavery." As the war drew to a close, there were still three slaveholders among the Shrewsbury Quakers. Curiously, the names of two of the hold-out Quakers are not offered in the minutes in the Shrewsbury meeting: “None [are] held in bondage except one friend who purchased & manumitted, but with a promise from the slave of having the purchase money restored;” “One other difficult case of which care has been taken but that nothing can be done at present." The third member of the meeting was “Widow Stevenson.” It was reported that she maintained "6 [slaves] in the estate of John Stevenson.” The report suggested there is no executor to the estate and the family was in debt. Attempts to counsel widow Stevenson were unsuccessful: “The widow cannot be reasoned with." The Shrewsbury Quakers were part of a larger New Jersey community that frequently discussed the future of slavery. The state’s primary newspaper, the New Jersey Gazette , printed a number of essays on the topic—both in favor of and opposed to slave manumission. New Jersey’s Governor, William Livingston, was a known opponent of slavery. In 1778, he called it "utterly inconsistent with the principles of Christianity and humanity: and in Americans who have idealized liberty, particularly odious and disgraceful." Neighboring Pennsylvania—the state with the largest Quaker population—abolished slavery in 1780. While ending slaveholding was clearly important to Shrewsbury’s Quakers, an argument could be made that it was not among their top concerns. Between 1775 and 1783, the Shrewsbury Friends meeting censured or disowned two members for refusing to free their slaves. The infomation below lists other misconducts that resulted in more than two censures or expulsions. Marrying Outside the Faith - 19 censures or expulsions Fornication - 16 censures or expulsions Quarreling/Fighting - 7 censures or expulsions Marrying without Approval - 7 censures or expulsions Drinking Alcohol - 6 censures or expulsions Profane Language - 4 censures or expulsions Meeting Non-Attendance - 4 censures or expulsions Horse Racing/Fox Hunting - 3 censures or expulsions The gravest threat to the Friends, however, was the war itself. Strict Quakers vainly struggled to keep other members from militia service or otherwise align with the Continental or British armies; that was the Shrewsbury Meeting’s continuous worry. Some Shrewsbury Quakers faithfully served in the local militia; others took up arms for the British, including those who joined an ill-fated Loyalist association in the neighborhoods of Deal and Shark River. Related Historic Sites : Shrewsbury Friends Meeting House Sources : Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, Reel MR-PH, 51; J. T. Main, The Sovereign States, 1775-1783 (New York: New Viewpoints, 1973), pp. 290-1; William Livingston, quoted in Benjamin Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), p 49; John Corlies expulsion discussed in, Graham Hodges, African Americans in Monmouth County during the American Revolution (Lincroft, NJ: Monmouth County Park System, 1990) p 15; David Fowler, Egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 90 note 70; The abolition of slaveholding in Pennsylvania is discussed in Gary B. Nash, Race and Revolution (Madison: Madison House, 1990) p 19. 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 > Elias Longstreet's Continental Army Company by Michael Adelberg Fort Ticonderoga, where Elias Longstreet’s company of Continentals spent the summer of 1776, prior to seeing limited action in Canada. - January 1776 - In late 1775, at the request of the Continental Congress, the New Jersey Provincial Congress began raising two regiments of troops for the Continental Army—one from East New Jersey and one from West New Jersey. Although the colonies had not declared independence from England, there were already hostilities around Boston (where the British had besieged the city) and in Canada, where the Continental Army had invaded in hopes of bringing Canada into the “Continental” rebellion. Monmouth County’s response to the call for troops was modest in comparison to the size of the county. The county was tasked with raising only one company for the First New Jersey Regiment. Elias Longstreet of Freehold Township was tasked with raising this company, and commissioned as its captain. Recruiting was a struggle for Longstreet; he had raised fewer than 40 men at the end of November—less than any of the seven other company commanders in the First Regiment. On December 3, the regimental commander, William Alexander (Lord Stirling), reported to the Provincial Congress on Longstreet’s difficulties: Captain Longstreet, of Monmouth County, reported to me at Brunswick that his company is near complete, but scattered at so great a distance that it will be impossible to assemble them in less than ten days… These Captains all complain very heavily of the usage they meet with from the justices, who issue warrants against the men on the smallest pretense. John Covenhoven of Freehold, a Monmouth County delegate in the Provincial Congress, further noted Longstreet’s recruiting problems on December 15. “Captain Longstreet has been under many disadvantages in raising a company… some people discourage the enlistment.” On January 12, 1776, Longstreet’s company finally reached full strength. It now numbered three junior officers, four sergeants, four corporals, two musicians, and 60 privates. The company assembled at Freehold and marched to Perth Amboy, where it quartered in barracks recently abandoned by British troops. They then marched forward to Elizabeth to join with the rest of the regiment. The combined regiment quartered in New York City for the rest of the winter. The winter was hard on Longstreet’s company. According to a March 6 return of the First Regiment, the Monmouth Company had been whittled down to 45 privates “fit & present.” Five were absent from camp (probably sick), five more were deserted, one was taken prisoner. The company’s arms were adequate (44 guns, 56 bayonets, 70 cartridge boxes) but other important supplies were woefully short (only 22 blankets, 15 beds, 0 shoes). Given the poor state of supplies, it is no wonder that the New Jersey regiment’s rank and file did not take kindly to orders to head to Canada. One of Longstreet’s men, Private Henry Vunck, recalled a near-mutiny in response to the order: When the regiment ascertained that they were to be ordered to march to Canada -- a disposition to marching or refuse going manifested itself among the men in consequence of which Genl Washington [George Washington] caused the regiment to parade without arms which being done it was surrounded by other troops. A parley took place when a man by the name of Brown stated that the cause of dissatisfaction on the part of the regiment was that they were not paid nor clothed and that the hardship of the campaign could not be endured without clothing and if anything of an assurance could be given of their being paid the regiment would cheerfully go and reinforce the northern army. Apparently, the New Jersey troops were mollified because, as reported by Vunck, “about the 10th May the troops destined to reinforce the northern army embarked on board of sloops at New York and sailed up the river to Albany where they landed and encamped on the hill, the whole under the immediate command of Genl [John] Sullivan." Sullivan marched the troops into Canada. At the St. Lawrence River, the New Jersey troops met Massachusetts troops who had endured the previous winter in Canada. Vunck recalled that they were "much worn down with sickness and fatigue, numerous dying with smallpox.” The New Jersey troops were inoculated and moved to Ticonderoga. There, they stayed through the summer without seeing any action. The only event Vunck found worthy of mention was the celebration of the Declaration of Independence “which was followed by the firing of cannon and musketry.” After that, Vunck “was taken sick & with the invalids went to Fort George and afterwards [went] to Albany, where he remained." As for Captain Longstreet, he never participated in any major battle, but was captured sometime that summer. His wife, Rebecca, recalled that “he was taken prisoner” and knowing nothing further about his status until 1779 when “he returned home on parole.” Longstreet was finally officially exchanged March 16, 1780. At the end 1776, the company’s one-year enlistments expired. Few of Longstreet’s men re-enlisted. However, four more companies were raised from Monmouth County in May 1776 for the Continental Army. These men would be called Flying Camp due to their short enlistments. They are the subject of another article. Related Historical Sites : Perth Amboy Barracks Sources : National Archives, New Jersey, 1st Battalion, Elias Longstreet's Company, from: http://www.fold3.com/image/14579224/ ; Robert K. Wright, Jr., The Continental Army (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983), pp. 255-7; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Carhart Walling; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p133; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Joseph Van Note of Ohio, S.11617; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 179, item 162, #330; "Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v4: p 164; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 4, p 279; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I68, NJ State Papers, p134; National Archives, New Jersey, 1st Regiment; http://www.fold3.com/image/14579224/ ; National Archives, New Jersey, 1st Regiment, http://www.fold3.com/image/14579224/ ; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 179, item 162, #438; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Elias Longstreet; Information on Longstreet’s services and exchange is in National Archives, Revolutionary War Rolls, Coll. 2, p36, 42; Coll. 4, p16. 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 > Continental Congress Seeks Blankets Via London Trade by Michael Adelberg Richard Peters served on the Board of War of the Continental Congress. He championed an ill-fated, secret plan to buy British blankets for the Army via illegal traders at Manasquan. - January 1780 - While much is written about the Continental Army shivering through a miserable winter at Valley Forge (1778-1779), the winters of 1779-1780 and 1780-1781 at Morristown were colder. Amidst harrowing reports of soldier suffering, the shortage of blankets for the Army tempted the Continental Congress to relieve the shortage with a half-baked scheme. On December 31, 1779, the Continental Congress approved a secret plan developed by its Board of War. The minutes of the Congress did not describe the plan because it could not be entered into the public record, but the minutes do document that this secret plan was approved: [The] plan appears practicable and if carried into execution promises supplies of certain articles immediately wanted for the troops at much less expense, and with greater dispatch than can otherwise be procured. Congress then allocated $500,000 Continental dollars to buy blankets from British-held New York via “London traders ” at Manasquan. Bowman’s Secret Mission is Implemented The Board of War, chaired by Richard Peters of Pennsylvania, wrote George Washington on January 8, 1780, regarding the secret plan. It wrote, "we have employed Maj. [Richard] Howell... to facilitate the measures we have communicated to him. Capt. Nathaniel Bowman of that Regiment may be detached with his entire company of Light Infantry." Bowman was ordered "to proceed with an ammunition wagon to Squan by way of Freehold, where he is to draw two weeks provisions with orders on the Commissary [John Lloyd] there." The Board was clear about the secret nature of the mission: Your Excellency [is] to give these orders to Capt. Bowman alone with direction to keep his route and destination a profound secret & to repair to Squan with all expedition...To ensure their good temper and fidelity, it will be necessary that they be as well equipped as to clothing & supplies as circumstances will admit. The Board also warned Washington "should your Excellency have occasion to detach any other officer into that part of the country, it will be necessary to order him not to interfere with Capt. Bowman's command; tho' we would wish no other officer may, for a time, be sent there." Washington’s aide, Robert Harrison, promptly ordered General William Maxwell, leading the New Jersey Line, to detach Capt. Bowman's company on the secret mission. Bowman was to be provided "an ammunition wagon provided with horses & a driver. There is to be no ammunition in the wagon.” Maxwell was further ordered to make sure Bowman’s company was full: “Whatever men are deficient [in Bowman's company] are to be made up out of the Regiment, and the General desires that those men may be furnished as soon as possible with their clothing in preference to others." Bowman was asked to be ready to march to Freehold in three days. Maxwell was not told of Bowman’s mission. On January 11, Washington wrote directly to Bowman with secret orders: You are to proceed immediately with the men of your company present, and those attached to it by an order yesterday for the purpose of making it complete, to Squan by way of Freehold, taking with you the ammunition wagon for which you obtained an order of General Knox at Freehold; you will draw two weeks provisions for your party, for which purpose you will find an order enclosed for the Commissary of that place... It is the desire of the Board of War that your route and destination be kept a profound secret. No officer may interfere with your command in the course of your march and command. You [will] keep strict discipline and good order. Troubles with Bowman’s Blankets at Manasquan There is no documentation of Bowman’s time at Manasquan until the end of March. On March 30, Abraham Clark, a New Jersey delegate in Congress, wrote to Governor William Livingston. By law, British goods were illegal in New Jersey. Any New Jersey citizen who found British goods in the state could seize them. With the approval of the local magistrate and a verdict from a mini-jury, those goods would be forfeited to the person who seized them. This meant that the blankets at Manasquan were liable to seizure. Clark wrote: There is now stored at Squan a quantity of blankets for the use of the Army… it appears they are of British manufacture and on that account are liable to seizure, it is said that a number of inhabitants, having knowledge of said goods, are determined to avail themselves of the law authorizing seizures in case of their removal. This embarrasses the Board of War. Clark requested that Livingston intervene to allow Bowman to safely bring the blankets out of Manasquan. That same day, Richard Peters wrote Washington that "the great distress of the Army for want of blankets induced the Board to sometime since attempt to import them from New York." He provided an update on Bowman’s mission and made a request: The Board contracted with a Gentleman for 5,000 blankets on terms advantageous to the Public & gave him a permit to go into N. York, where he has been a most unreasonable time. He has at length sent to Squan in N. Jersey upwards of 2,000 blankets and some other goods...a small quantity which has been at rec'd by the Clothier here [Philadelphia]--but the transportation of them through the Jersies and the imprudence of the persons conducting them have created such suspicion and uneasiness among the people as to make the board apprehensive of risking the rest across the Country. Peters asked that Washington give Bowman a pass to carry the blankets across the state. Livingston and Washington exchanged letters about the blankets at Manasquan. Livingston wrote: There is now stored at or near Squan a quantity of blankets designed for use of the Army; these with other articles of clothing are under the direction of the Board of War...How and whence these blankets came to the above place, I am not able to inform your Excellency, but it appears they are of British manufacture and on that account liable to seizure. It is said that a number of inhabitants of New Jersey, having knowledge of the said goods, are determined to avail themselves of the law authorizing seizure. Livingston asked Washington to issue a special pass for the blankets: "Orders to the effect which he [Clark] mentions should doubtless be given without delay, but as this is a matter relating solely to the Army, it seems proper that the passport should come from Your Excellency [Washington]." Washington complied with the requests from Livingston and Peters by sending a pass for Bowman to transport the blankets to the Board of War. He also complained of being pulled into a plot that contradicted New Jersey law: I enclose a permit for the goods in charge of Captain Bowman. This mode of obtaining supplies is certainly justifiable, from the unhappy situation of our affairs and the necessity of having them; but at the same time, for reasons which will steadily occur to the Board, I very much wish the business could have been concluded without any interference on my part. Bowman's pass read: "The goods which Capt. Bowman has in his charge have been procured by the public, and are essential articles of supply for the Army; They are therefore permitted to pass." Livingston promised his support: "I shall cheerfully do everything in my power that may be thought necessary to facilitate the safe transportation of the blankets." It is unclear when Washington’s pass made it to Bowman, but Bowman stayed at Manasquan through April. The delay proved costly. At the end of April, Bowman compiled a troop return: three men deserted on April 18; five more deserted on April 20; five were captured during a Loyalist raid on Manasquan, also on April 20; and four more deserted on the march back to Morristown on April 29. In April alone, Bowman lost seventeen of his 62 men (though two of the deserters eventually returned). It was inevitable that London Traders at Manasquan who regularly conversed with Loyalists at Sandy Hook and New York would inform a Loyalist with military resources. The April 20 raid on Manasquan was reported in the Loyalist New York Gazette . A detachment of New Jersey Volunteers (Loyalist troops) "under the command of Lt. Col. Lawrence [Elisha Lawrence] embarked at Sandy Hook on an expedition against a rebel post at Squan.” The report continued: After being detained for a week at the Light House by contrary winds, Coll. Lawrence landed at midnight and marched immediately for the cantonment of the enemy, which he soon reached, but was mortified in finding the post had been withdrawn to the south. However, the Loyalists did capture a small detachment of Continentals, consisting of a Lieutenant and five men. After this, Lawarence determined that "nothing further to be done, the detachment re-embarked and returned" on April 22. The captured officer was Lt. Benajah Osmun, who had just returned to Manasquan from Philadelphia on April 18 with two privates (he probably had delivered a wagonload of blankets to that city and was returning). After his capture, Osmun was permitted to write Colonel Israel Shreve, his regimental commander. He wrote of the capture of his party while searching local homes (perhaps searching for pilfered blankets): I ordered them [his men] to rest their selves for a little time and then would go search the houses and no doubt should have found them but was disappointed by a party under the command of Col. Lawrence which landed about 1 o'clock and took me and the men, which was brought to New York, and I was sent to Long Island [Brooklyn] on parole where I still remain. Congress’s Board of War had funded Bowman to purchase 5,000 blankets, and, in March, reported that “upwards of 2,000 blankets” were brought from New York to Manasquan. Lt. Osmun apparently brought “a small quantity” of those blankets to Philadelphia, but most of the blankets were likely lost—either to the Loyalist raiders or to local disaffected who pilfered the blankets when Bowman retreated from Manasquan on Lawrence’s landing. After the Collapse Bowman’s Mission In May, an anonymous intelligence report was sent to Congress from Black Point (Rumson). The secret correspondent was probably Major Richard Howell, who had spent five months at Black Point in 1778. He wrote: "I sent you a line the 8th instant from Black Point from which place I intended a secret visit." The writer warned Congress of rumors that "I have been the principal instrument of supplying the Continental Army with blankets and ammunition, but they are false." Even after the failure of Bowman’s mission was known in Congress, discussions continued about acquiring blankets via illegal trade. Indeed, Richard Peters, who had championed the Bowman mission, proposed a similar plan to acquire blankets via West Point, New York. Peters predicted that, this time, there would be "less examination or suspicion, as the transportation [of blankets] is by water, & no risk to be run by the public." General Washington was cool to the idea and there is no evidence that the scheme was implemented. A month later, it was understood that a lot of money was spent on bringing blankets from New York to Manasquan and only a few of the blankets had made it to the Army. On June 7, Congress summoned Bowman to appear before Congress, via a letter to Washington: The Board are desirous of seeing Capt. Bowman of the Jersey Troops on the subject of his command at Squan, during the last winter and spring, & would be much obliged to your Excellency to order him to repair to Philadelphia without delay. Washington complied. He wrote the Board that he was sending Bowman to Philadelphia; he also vouched for Bowman’s good character: "He is said to be a very brave and active officer." On June 14, Congress noted Bowman’s arrival. There is no record of Bowman’s examination before Congress. This is likely because Bowman’s mission was a secret one, albeit a poorly-kept secret, and a decision was made to keep the proceedings out of the public record. The misadventure at Manasquan had one final twist. According to historian John Rees, in December 1780, Major Howell, Bowman’s commanding officer, was arrested for his role in illegally trading for British blankets. “He was forcibly taken from his father's house before a Judge at Burlington.” Howell then “showed his secret orders, which secured his discharge and erasure of the minutes." Rees suggested that Bowman’s mission "seemed fated for failure almost from the outset” because it started too late in the year, was plagued by poor communications, and was dependent on unreliable locals living along the vulnerable Monmouth shore. Rees concluded that, for Congress, "the experience at Squan must have discouraged any further such plans." This may be true, but it certainly did not stop Monmouth Countians from engaging in other convoluted plots to extract valuables from New York. Related Historic Site : Morristown National Historical Park Sources : John Rees, Supply Shortages, Suffering Soldiers and a Secret Mission During the Hard Winter of 1780, Military Collector & Historian, v52, n3, Fall 2000, pp. 100-107; George Washington to Nathaniel Bowman, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 63, January 11, 1780; Richard Peters to George Washington in John Rees, Supply Shortages, Suffering Soldiers and a Secret Mission During the Hard Winter of 1780, Military Collector & Historian, v52, n3, Fall 2000, pp. 100-7; Abraham Clark to William Livingston, Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 15, p 555; William Livingston to George Washington, John Rees, Supply Shortages, Suffering Soldiers and a Secret Mission During the Hard Winter of 1780, Military Collector & Historian, v52, n3, Fall 2000, p100-7; George Washington to Congress, John U. Rees, The Great Distress of the Army for Want of Blankets, p4-10; William Livingston to George Washington, Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Bowman’s Troops Return in John U. Rees, The Great Distress of the Army for Want of Blankets, p4-10; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Anonymous Report, William Clements Library, Henry Clinton Papers, vol. 98; Congress to George Washington in John Rees, Supply Shortages, Suffering Soldiers and a Secret Mission During the Hard Winter of 1780, Military Collector & Historian, v52, n3, Fall 2000, p100-7 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 > Benjamin Ford's Maryland Continentals in Monmouth County by Michael Adelberg After the April 1779 raid, Chief Justice of Robert Morris went to Tinton Falls to rally the locals. He encountered people angry at Colonel Benjamin Ford for retreating instead of defending the village. - April 1779 - As discussed in prior articles, in an effort to improve the county’s security and check illegal trade, George Washington committed to stationing a regiment of troops in Monmouth County in January 1779. Caleb North’s Pennsylvanians served into March and then were replaced by a cobbled-together 250-man detachment led by Mordecai Gist of Maryland. Gist’s difficult tour included a troop mutiny and other irregularities. His detachment was soon replaced by the Maryland regiment of Colonel Benjamin Ford—who would fare no better. Benjamin Ford Camps at Tinton Falls Ford’s men arrived in Monmouth County on April 10. One of Gist’s officers, Captain Walter Finney, wrote: "Col. Ford and an equal detachment relieved us." Ford’s men set up headquarters at Tinton Falls, as North and Gist had done. A Monmouth militiaman, Anthony Holmes, discussed being detached to Ford’s troops (probably as a guide). Holmes wrote that "in his services, he was detached to the regular troops." Other locals struggled to quarter Ford’s troops. Quaker shopkeeper Benjamin White recalled: My brother was called a King's Man or Refugee and myself a rebel or friend of the Jersey troops. Col Ford and Maj Lee [ the dragoons led by Henry Lee] came. We had to find quarters for the Army. The dwellings for some distance around were occupied by soldiers. We gave up our kitchens and cellars. As Ford settled in, Monmouth County’s Forfeiture Commissioners held an auction at Shrewsbury to sell off the estates of thirty Loyalists who had joined the British. The sale of these estates, no doubt, enraged the Loyalists in New York and at Sandy Hook—and likely stirred them toward retaliation. On the morning of April 26, Colonel Ford wrote George Washington. He reported that a large raiding party came off Sandy Hook at 4:30 am: "A body of the enemy effected a landing at Red Bank, about one mile from Shrewsbury, my patrol fired on them but being small did little or no execution." Ford sent a 30-man scout party “to observe their movements & retard them in their march towards Tinton Falls, a post of which I conceived would be their first object.” He reported that “the enemy pushed with great rapidity to the Falls” where Ford wrote that he “intended to have made a stand.” However, Ford believed he was outnumbered “as near as I could judge three to one.” So, he “judged it expedient to retreat” to Colts Neck “till a body of militia could be collected, which I hoped would be done in a few hours.” Ford claimed his retreat “frustrated” the raiders who then “halted at Tinton Falls.” Ford then described the destruction of the village: They burnt two dwelling houses belonging to officers of the militia, destroyed everything they could in others, not leaving a single pane of glass in any windows belonging to the people there, after committing every wanton act they could, plundered and destroying all the furniture they found, they retreated again to Red Bank to their boats, driving all the stock of horses, sheep and cattle they could collect before them. Ford reported that his 30-man scout and militia provided modest resistance: “Capt Beale, with his party and a few of the militia, harassed them.” He noted that another raiding party landed at Shoal Harbor (present-day Leonardo) on the Middletown shore. Ford exaggerated the size of the raiding parties which included “1,000 men said to be commanded by Genl. Skinner [Courtland Skinner], and two British regiments.” In fact, the two raiding parties numbered about 750-men—roughly triple the size of Ford’s detachment. Skinner did not participate in the raid; the Shoal Harbor raiding party was led by Colonel West Hyde, a British officer. Ford reported some loss: “my loss does not amount to more than a dozen men missing” and claimed that weak militia turnout prevented him from offering more resistance. He wrote, “The militia have by no means answered my hopes or wishes, not more than 150 if so many has collected or as yet joined us. Coll. Holmes [Asher Holmes] has collected a party and is hanging on their flanks.” Ford noted taking two deserters as prisoners and concluded: “my men are now refreshing themselves and I shall immediately march to Middletown and act as circumstances will permit." George Washington's aide, Richard Kidder Meade, promptly wrote back that Ford should be careful in responding to the attack, "You will, with caution, give them all the annoyance you can" but not risk a general attack. The April 26 raid is the subject of the next article. Ford returned to Tinton Falls after the raid. His next report to Washington is on May 5, when he noted the movement of a British fleet from Sandy Hook. He revised his losses to 25-men (about ten percent of his force). He wrote that “nothing material occurred after" the raid. That same day, Robert Morris, Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, visited Shrewsbury and Tinton Falls to rally the locals. He reported that Ford’s men retired all the way back to Van Mater's Hill in Colts Neck. Morris said that Ford "was unable to find any ground advantageous on every account than the hill where his men lay." Surely understating anger at Ford, Morris wrote, "Col Ford is censured by some of the inhabitants for his conduct." Benjamin Ford’s Return to Tinton Falls Ford sent reports on British naval activity at Sandy Hook on May 7, 9, May 13. On the 13th, he noted the arrival of the South Carolina brig Isaac , beached off Shrewsbury. The ship was bound for Boston with a cargo of rice. It had been taken off Long Island by a Loyalist privateer, but "was out on shore at this post yesterday." The vessel escaped capture while being towed into Sandy Hook. The only other event of note during Ford’s time in Monmouth County was his capture of two Loyalists, Joseph Mount and a man named Allen. Ford first wrote of Mount on May 9: Joseph Mount, a refugee from New York [Middletown before that] was apprehended at this place, several articles of merchandize was taken along with him which I conceive need not be condemned by a Magistrate as they were taken from an enemy who is out of the allegiance of the States. It has been practice, I am told, for the capturers to make what disposition they please of the goods. Ford asked to be permitted to seize and sell the goods taken with the Loyalists and sent them forward to the Army’s Adjutant General. He became acquainted with a fickle associate of Mount who apparently was open to spying in New York: "Should your Excellency think it necessary, I believe a person might be sent into New York from this place, that would collect all the intelligence possible to collect.” Ford’s letter apparently did not get a response, so he wrote again on May 24: When Joseph Mount, a refugee from New York, was apprehended at this place, several articles of merchandize was taken with him which I conceived would not need to be condemned by the Magistrate as it was taken by an enemy who is out of allegiance with the State. Ford alluded to disagreement with the local magistrate over this matter, which also occurred with other Continental officers in Monmouth County. He inferred that Goerge Washington might be entitled a share of the goods taken from Mount (including fabrics, sewing needles, pins, and sugar) if Ford was given title to it. George Washington responded two days later with a mild rebuke for Ford. He wrote: Should the goods which have been seized be condemned as legal prize by the laws of the state, in my opinion, it is most equitable to have the prize equally divided among the whole detachment. I am much obliged for your offer, but I do not want any of the articles. Ford’s men stayed in Monmouth County only a few days longer. Captain William Beatty, serving under Ford, wrote that “the next day we took our posts again.” But they only stayed “until the last of May, then marched for Middlebrook." Just ten days later, a party of sixty vengeful Loyalist s gathered at Sandy Hook and launched a raid that would finish off the already-damaged village of Tinton Falls. While Ford’s men failed in providing security against a large raiding party, their presence probably would have deterred this smaller raiding party from attacking and razing Tinton Falls. Related Historic Site : Old Mill Inn Sources : Chester County Historical Society, Diary of Walter Finney; Benjamin Ford to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 57, April 26, 1779; Richard Kidder Meade to Benjamin Ford, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 57, April 27, 1779; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw4&fileName=gwpage058.db&recNum=335&tempFile=./temp/~ammem_YHA1&filecode=mgw&next_filecode=mgw&prev_filecode=mgw&itemnum=8&ndocs=100 ; Morris, Robert, “Letters of Chief Justice Morris, 1777–1779,” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vol. 38 (1920), pp. 172-4; Benjamin Ford to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 58, May 6, 1779; Benjamin Ford to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 58, May 9 and 26, 1779; Benjamin Ford to George Washington, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 169, item 152, vol. 7, #295, 369-70; Benjamin Ford to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw4&fileName=gwpage058.db&recNum=1102&tempFile=./temp/~ammem_YHA1&filecode=mgw&next_filecode=mgw&prev_filecode=mgw&itemnum=7&ndocs=100 ; George Washington to Benjamin Ford, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mgw:1:./temp/~ammem_YHA1 ::; Judith M. Olsen, Lippincott, Five Generations of the Descendants of Richard and Abigail Lippincott (Woodbury, N.J.: Gloucester County Historical Society, 1982) pp. 159-61; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Anthony Holmes of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23390940 ; William Beatty, "Journal of Captain Wiliam Beatty of the Maryland Line, 1776-1781", Historical Magazine, 2nd Series, 1867, pp 117. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Monmouth Countians Attack British Baggage Train by Michael Adelberg The heavy wagons of the British baggage train were pulled single-file on Monmouth County’s narrow roads. During the Battle of Monmouth, the baggage train was attacked twice by local militia. - June 1778 - As the British Army marched across New Jersey in June 1778, its baggage train was its most conspicuous feature. Stretching twelve miles, it contained, among other things, war materials, foodstuffs, and the luxury goods of British officers and Loyalist squires. British commander, Henry Clinton, rightly understood that the baggage train was the most vulnerable and monetarily-valuable part of his army. At Freehold on June 27, as Continental forces gathered in his army’s rear, Clinton moved the baggage train to the front of his line of march. On June 28, before British forces turned west to face the attacking Continental Army, the British baggage train advanced eastward toward Middletown . Attacks on the British Baggage Train With the Continental Army west of the British Army, it fell to elements of local militia east of the British Army to menace the baggage train. While documents are not clear on some details, they demonstrate that two unsuccessful attacks were made on the baggage train on the day of the Battle of Monmouth. Lt. Col. Francis Downman, commanding a regiment guarding the baggage train, wrote: Marched through a close woody country for several miles without the least molestation or annoyance from the enemy until 12 o'clock when a party of 15 or 16 militia, taking advantage of our flanking parties being too widely dispersed, broke through the provision train and wounded two or three men and as many horses without halting at all and another party of 40 or 50 made an attempt on the baggage but went off again on the appearance of two companies [of troops]. General James Pattison of British Army also reported two attacks: A party of 15 or 16 militia, finding our flanks exposed, had the audacity to break through our line of baggage, making use of the bayonet against every man or horse they met, but without waiting the consequence of a delay or halt, & a party of forty or fifty made an appearance afterwards, apparently with a design of attacking our baggage, but they were beat back by a part of our rear guard. Additional details on the attacks emerge in other British accounts. John Peebles called the actions “small” and noted the British “had a few men killed & wounded" in the attacks. German Officer Bernhard Bauermeister wrote that "several skirmishers got between the wagons and maltreated the drivers and patrols alongside them.” Loyalist cavalryman, John Simcoe, reported “the baggage was not seriously attacked; but some very small parties ran across it, from one side to the other.” Simcoe further reported “dispersing” the attackers, but admitted that rumors of additional attacks raised his “public anxiety.” He reported enhancing the baggage train’s defenses after the attacks: “For security, he got together the pioneers of his own and other corps around his wagon… and, when the luggage halted, he passed an anxious night.” At least two British officers were unimpressed by the attacks. Gen. Archibald Robertson wrote: "An attack was made on our flank of the baggage, but they were repulsed without losing a wagon." British Officer Samuel Johnson concluded, “We pursued our march and gained our object, the heights of the Neversink, without losing a carriage." It appears that the two attacks were led by Monmouth County’s Colonel Asher Holmes, leading Middletown Township militia, and Joshua Huddy, leading a company of New Jersey State Troops raised from Monmouth County. As explained below, scant documentation of the participants involved in Holmes’ attack leaves room for interpretation. Huddy commanded an artillery company, while the attack he led was made by mounted men. This suggests that Huddy’s party was comprised, at least in part, by ad hoc volunteers with access to horses on June 28. One of Huddy’s men, Matthias Hulce, recalled the attack: "Came in contact with a party of the enemy having charge of the baggage with whom a skirmish took place in which four of the militia were killed." A second member of Huddy’s party, Andrew Pharo, recalled: "On the day of the battle, he was in a scouting party when Captain Huddy had several men killed & wounded." Joseph Johnson recalled, "They fell in with Capt. Huddy at or near Colts Neck where he was engaged with a small party of the British, he helped carry off a soldier who was butt by the sword of a horsemen, he died." The most complete account of Huddy’s attack was written by Samuel Carman: At request of Capt. Huddy, about 14 or 15 of Capt. Holmes company volunteered to go on an expedition with Capt. Huddy, they were militia men scouting round the baggage that was in advance of the mane [sic] Army, they charged a party of wagons, bayoneted some their horses, overturned some of the wagons - at this moment, they were charged by a small party of horse, they had 2 men killed but at the moment more of the militia coming up - they had retreated in to a swamp where the horse could not come - but by this time, the advance of the British come up and they retreated off, being too few in number to meet them. The second attack, led by Asher Holmes, was recalled by John Holmes of Middletown, "We continued to harass the enemy for about six miles until we came to Col. Holmes, where we had a smart engagement & we had two men killed & two men wounded." An antiquarian source noted that Holmes’ attack came from Middletown militia – the militia had one killed and several wounded. This source claimed that the British lost five men, which is likely exaggerated. Mark Lender, who exhaustively researched the Battle of Monmouth, concluded that the attackers were Middlesex County militia under the command of Colonel John Neilson of that county. Neilson was a few miles north of the baggage train; he wrote a letter that day stating that he had missed the baggage train because the British took “the most private roads” instead of the main road he patrolled. It is likely that Holmes led men from both counties. Continental Army leaders, engaged with the British Army at the Battle of Monmouth, took little notice of the baggage train attacks. The brief mention of the attacks by Colonel John Laurens is typical: "the militia of the Country kept up a random running fire with the Hessian Jaegers; but no mischief was done by either side." Perspective In isolation, the two attacks on the baggage train were small skirmishes that produced a few casualties on each side. They did not impede the British march. The skirmishing parties that engaged the British at Allentown (and elsewhere) were larger than the parties that attacked the baggage train on June 28. However, when the two June 28 skirmishes are considered in the context of the dozen or so additional skirmishes that occurred during the Monmouth Campaign, in addition to the other obstacles and harassments thrown up by the Monmouth militia, it is easy to see that the chain of activities—in total—sapped British resources and morale. As Simcoe noted, small attacks like these reminded the British that they were in hostile territory and (to borrow Simcoe’s term) greatly increased their “public anxiety.” Related Historic Site: Monmouth Battlefield State Park Sources : John Peebles' American War, 1776-1782 (Stackpole Books) p194; Gen James Pattison, report, Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - British Sources; Francis Downman, The Services of Lieut. Colonel Francis Downman (London: Royal Artillery Institution, 1898) p64-72; Archibald Robertson, Archibald Robertson: His Diaries and Sketches in America, 1762-1780 (New York: Arno, 1969) p 178; John Simcoe, Simcoe's Military Journal (New York: Bartlett & Welford, 1844) p 72; Samuel Johnson to Lord Amherst, Amherst Manuscripts, U1350 079/22, Kent County Archives (England), Valley Forge National Historical Park (transcribed by Garry Wheeler Stone); Bernard Uhlendorf, Confidential Letter and Journals, 1776-1784, of Adjutant General Major Bauermeister of the Hessian Forces (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957) p 187; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Matthias Hulce; William Nelson, The New Jersey Coast in Three Centuries (New York: Lewis Publishing Co., 1902) vol. 1, p 172; John Neilson to Philemon Dickinson, Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder – Militia; John Laurens, The Army correspondence of Colonel John Laurens in the years 1777-8 (New York: New York Times, 1969) p 194; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of Andrew Phares of New York, National Archives, p4; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Joseph Johnson; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Samuel Carman; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John G. Holmes. Previous Next