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 > Prominent Loyalists Captured and Scandal Ensues by Michael Adelberg George Taylor, Colonel of an illusory Loyalist militia, led several incursions into Monmouth County. He was taken in August 1780; after months in jail, he was exchanged back to New York. - August 1780 - Prior articles demonstrate that summer of 1780 was a particularly desperate time in Monmouth County. Colonel Tye and other Loyalist irregulars kidnapped more than a dozen county leaders. In response, hundreds of county residents formed an extra-legal vigilante association, the Retaliators . Disaffected county residents trying to weather the war at home had livestock impounded by Continental soldiers and were subject to shockingly high fines for missing militia duty. But it was an equally desperate time for Monmouth County Loyalists behind British lines in New York. The New Jersey Volunteers , which hundreds of Monmouth Loyalists joined in 1776-1777, were largely dispirited —and original recruits drifted into new military units or left the Army for irregular Loyalist paramilitaries such as the Associated Loyalists . Amidst this desperation, a party of prominent Monmouth Loyalists was tempted to land in Monmouth County on an ill-fated mission. Monmouth Militia Captures Loyalist Party The New Jersey Gazette reported that on August 2: Eight of the infamous refugees, five of whom pretended to be officers in the Tyrant's service, were brought to the Commissary of Prisoners at Elizabethtown from Monmouth. When they were captured, they pleaded they came over with a flag , and produced their orders; but their frivolous pretensions would not answer their ends, and they were sent to Philadelphia to occupy a corner of the new gaol until exchanged. The New Jersey Journal reported on the same incident: Yesterday, were brought to this town under guard, being on their way to Philadelphia, Col. George Taylor, Lt. Samuel Leonard, Lt. John Thomson, Ensign John Lawrence and Chrineyonce Van Mater, late inhabitants of Monmouth County, and three others -- they were made prisoners on Wednesday last by a party of militia." Five of the eight captured men were well-known Loyalists from prominent families: George Taylor was the colonel of the illusory Loyalist Monmouth County militia . In 1777, he led raids into Monmouth County and remained active in recruiting Loyalists from the county afterward. Samuel Leonard was a lieutenant in the (Loyalist) New Jersey Volunteers. He often commanded the troops at the Sandy Hook Lighthouse . He was kin to Thomas Leonard (a major in the Volunteers) and Joseph Leonard (the former county clerk who took the county’s records .). John Thomson was a former lieutenant in the New Jersey Volunteers who became an Associated Loyalist. He was involved in raids into Monmouth County. While others in the party were exchanged, Thomson remained in jail. He was convicted of two felonies and hanged. John Lawrence was an ensign in the New Jersey Volunteers. His kin co-led the Upper Freehold Loyalist insurrection of December 1776. Chrineyonce Van Mater was the first of Monmouth’s Loyalist partisans. He helped capture two leading Whigs in late 1776 and participated in the December Loyalist Insurrection. His daring escape on horseback gave birth to the place-name “Jumping Point” in present-day Rumson. The other men in the party—Timothy Scoby, Richard Freeman, and Adam Brewer—were from poor families. Scoby was a private in the New Jersey Volunteers early in the war before becoming an Associated Loyalist. In 1782, he was convicted of treason in the Monmouth County courts, but was pardoned by Governor William Livingston. Less is known about Freeman and Brewer. The purpose of the landing is not explicitly stated in any surviving document. It is known that George Taylor paroled home a captured Middletown militiaman, Daniel Covenhoven. Another militiaman, Cornelius Swart, testified that the Commanding Officer at Sandy Hook told Taylor “he could discharge them if he thought proper - at which time Taylor told them he paroled them both to return home and remain peaceable subjects until called upon.” Perhaps Taylor landed to conduct a prisoner exchange . However, as noted below, the Loyalists brought a large quantity of counterfeit money with them—and the discovery of this money likely ended any chance of the flag of truce being honored. Counterfeiting was a nagging problem throughout the war; various pre- and post-independence currencies and notes traded freely. Continental money was particularly prone to counterfeiting and rampant inflation. As early as April 1777, Thomas Clark, from a disaffected Middletown family, was brought before the New Jersey Supreme Court “for suspicion of receiving and passing counterfeit paper 30 dollar bills, in imitation of the 30 dollar Continental bills.” In January 1780, a bold raid against Sandy Hook resulted in the capture of counterfeit money by Continental soldiers. Major Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee reported on the raid, noting that “the counterfeit money I sent to be burnt." No doubt, counterfeit money was circulated via London Traders and other disaffected New Jerseyans. On August 4, the Pennsylvania Packet reported that the Monmouth Loyalists had reached Philadelphia: Yesterday was brought to town, under guard, being on their way to Philadelphia, Col. George Taylor, Lt. Samuel Leonard, Lt. John Thomson, Ens. John Lawrence and Chrineyonce Van Mater, late inhabitants of Monmouth, and three others. They were made prisoners on Wednesday last by a party of militia. On reaching Philadelphia, the Loyalists apparently complained about the legality of their capture. If they had arrived under a flag of truce, with a British passport, they should have been permitted to present themselves to an officer and explain their purpose. After that, they could have been allowed to stay or sent back to their boats by that officer. If their credentials were appropriate, they should not have been taken. Hearing the Loyalists’ plea, the Board of War of the Continental Congress inquired to George Washington about the capture. Washington, perhaps not wanting to involve himself in a sordid local affair, claimed minimum knowledge of the incident. He wrote on August 14: I have not yet been fully informed of the circumstances attending the capture of Lieut. Leonard and the others sent to Phila. with him. I only know that they came out under the sanction of a Flag, but there being something irregular in the conduct of it, the Militia of Monmouth thought proper to apprehend and secure them. The Fate of the Captured Loyalists and Capturing Militia Officers The Loyalists remained in jail in Philadelphia until January 1781. On January 9, Colonel David Forman wrote to Governor William Livingston about them: The Grand Jury would esteem it a particular favor if your Excellency would take the earliest opportunity of ordering Chrineyonce Van Mater, Samuel Leonard, John Thomson, John Lawrence, Timothy Scoby, Aaron Brewer and other late inhabitants of Monmouth County, and now confined in Philadelphia to be sent to this place to stand for tryal. Forman was serving as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Monmouth County and was apparently eager to try the Monmouth Loyalists. Forman was also leading the vigilante Retaliators , raising questions about the impartiality of the justice he might administer. The impending transfer to Monmouth County seems to have tempted at least some of the Monmouth Loyalists to attempt an escape. The Loyalist New York Gazette reported on January 21: The following persons arrived in this city, they have been made prisoners by the Rebels and confined in Philadelphia goal, from whence they fortunately escaped the 10th inst., a reward of $2000 was published for apprehending them. The escapees were Chrineyonce Van Mater, Timothy Scoby, Nathan Tyson, Aaron Brewer, and Richard Freeman. Van Mater, Scoby, and Brewer were Monmouth Countians taken in August. Tyson’s biography and reason for arrest are unknown. Thomson was tried in Monmouth County in November 1781, found guilty of horse stealing and “felony” and hanged. The others were probably exchanged for captured Whigs (supporters of the Revolution). Scoby would be captured again in 1782, convicted of high treason, and sentenced to death. He was pardoned by Governor Livingston at the request of Guy Carleton, the conciliatory British commander in chief at war’s end. The investigation of the Loyalists led to inquiries into the conduct of the militia that took the Loyalists despite their arrival under a Flag of Truce. This led to the court martial of several officers, reported in the New Jersey Gazette on February 21. The gravity of the trials is underscored by the fact that they were presided over by General Philemon Dickinson, the commander of the New Jersey militia. The results of the courts-martial are below: Major Thomas Hunn was charged with "cowardice and unofficerlike behavior, and acquitted of the first charge buy unanimously found guilty of the last, and judged to be cashiered"; Ensign Peter Vanderhoff was charged on the same charges with the same results. However, he was fined 200 Continental dollars and permitted to continue serving; Ensign Barnes Bennett was charged with "disobeying orders with respect to the trunks brought from Staten Island with George Taylor and others under the sanction of a Flag.” He was further charged with "suffering those goods to be embezzled" and "for passing the counterfeit money which came over." He was found guilty on all charges and cashiered; Lt. Jacob Tice was charged with "not turning out upon his tour of duty, and adjudged to be guilty." He was fined 200 Continental dollars; Capt. Samuel Dennis was charged with "cowardice and disobedience of orders.” He was “acquitted on both charges"; Quartermaster Richard Hartshorne was charged with "neglect of duty in not supplying the men with provisions.” He was “unanimously acquitted." Surviving documents do not reveal if there were legitimate questions about the documents the Loyalists brought into Monmouth County, but the courts-martial results reveal that, whatever the official purpose of their landing, another purpose was to return with materials purchased with counterfeit money. On this alone, the Loyalists deserved to be detained, though the scandalous conduct of certain Monmouth militia—passing the counterfeit money into circulation—surpassed whatever “irregularity” might have existed with the flag of truce carried by the Loyalists. Related Historic Site : Jumping Point Park Sources : Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 137; William Nelson, Austin Scott, et al., ed., New Jersey Archives (Newark, Trenton, Somerville, 1901-1917) vol. 4, pp. 551-552; State vs. Thomas Clark of Middletown. New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #34610; Henry Lee to George Washington, January 16, 1780, Library of Congress, Early American Newspapers, Pennsylvania Evening Post; Pennsylvania Packet, August 4, 1780; Goerge Washington to Congress, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw190446)) ; David Forman to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 14, January 9, 1781; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, January 21, 1781, reel 2906; The New Jersey Gazette report on the court martial is in William Horner, This Old Monmouth of Ours (Freehold: Moreau Brothers, 1932) p 162; William Nelson, Austin Scott, et al., ed., New Jersey Archives (Newark, Trenton, Somerville, 1901-1917) vol. 5, p 200; Daniel Covenhoven to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 14, February 15, 1781; Michael Adelberg, Biographical File , unpublished, Monmouth County Historical Association. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Grain Seizure Splits Whig Leadership by Michael Adelberg General Nathanael Greene was in charge of raising provisions for the Continental Army in 1779 when the improper seizure of hay from Benjamin Van Cleaf of Middletown was escalated to him. - January 1779 - As discussed in prior articles, raising forage and provisions from the fertile farms of Monmouth County was a high priority for the Continental Army. It appointed two officers, David Rhea and John Lloyd to purchase supplies in the county. But not all farmers wanted to sell their goods to Rhea and Lloyd. Some were secretly trading with Loyalist middlemen (called “London Traders ”) who brought their goods to the British. Other farmers were simply interested in holding onto their goods in order to get a higher price later on. The treatment of one of these farmers was escalated to senior Army generals and New Jersey’s governor. It caused a rift in the county’s leadership. The Benjamin Van Cleaf Affair Benjamin Van Cleaf was a comfortable Middletown farmer from an extended family that solidly supported the Revolution and included both militia and local government officers. Van Cleaf was a militia lieutenant who signed a number of pro-Revolutionary petitions and served on grand juries. In January 1779, Peter Forman, the magistrate from neighboring Freehold Township, came to Van Cleaf’s house and ordered his grain to be impounded for the use of the Army. Van Cleaf was compensated at the Army’s standard rate. General Nathanael Greene was made aware of the controversial seizure. He noted: “This Van Cleaf has had rye in stacks upwards of two years. He has frequently refused to sell it, cloaking his real intentions with the very charitable purpose of reserving it for the poor." Greene was implying that Van Cleaf was participating in the London Trade, though there is no evidence of that in surviving documents. According to Greene’s letter, Forman had initially sent Captain Knight [Richard McKnight] to buy the rye, but Van Cleaf refused, claiming he was keeping it for poor relief. Forman then went to Van Cleaf with a party of teamsters, and, under threat of arrest, forced Van Cleaf to sell his rye. Forman appears to have exceeded his authority in two ways: First, he left his own township to impound the goods of a farmer living in another township; second, magistrates were permitted to impound goods from those disaffected from the Revolution or materials likely to fall into enemy hands; there is no evidence that Van Cleaf was disaffected or that his rye was in danger. Aggrieved, Van Cleaf went to the Middletown magistrate, Peter Schenck, who appeared with his own party and ordered the wagons with Van Cleaf’s rye to be unloaded. On February 4, Schenck wrote Forman: “How could you assume such authority as to supersede my precepts?... Neither the Chief Justice nor Governor Livingston would have presumed to supersede any magistrate without giving him a hearing." Schenck wrote that Forman has "scoffed... at giving him [Van Cleaf] an opportunity in his own defence.” Schenck further stated: Your conduct I cannot but resent, and resent accordingly. I know not how you should impress the grain after it was made known it was sold for the use of the inhabitants - the legislature reposing confidence in Magistrates as the guardians of the people - gave them authority to impress produce from disaffected persons, but not to take it from the people who would dispose of their produce for the use of the poor... families are dependent on their bread on Mr. Van Cleave, out of the grain you have undertook to seize. Schenck concluded by insulting Forman with a striking comparison—suggesting that Forman’s actions were even worse than the crimes of the hated Pine Robbers , Jacob Fagan and Thomas Emmons (a.k.a. Burke): “Fagan and Burke, when they robbed, had regard for the poor, they only took out of abundance from those they robbed, but you have endeavored to arrest the bread from the poor." Schenck’s letter was forwarded to Gen. Greene and the Continental Congress with documents showing the market price of a bushel of rye or corn to be $10, but the Continental Quartermaster paying only $4 and $6 a bushel respectively. With the controversy brewing, the Quartermaster purchasing agent from Monmouth County, David Rhea, wrote a Continental officer, Clement Biddle, on February 12: “The country are all in arms about grain prices; send no more wagons here." Rhea informed Biddle that he sent Captain McKnight and Forman to Van Cleaf to purchase the rye: I sent a Magistrate [Forman] with the forage purchase who ordered the brigade [wagon team] to be loaded - paid for the same by taking the receipts without opposition; as soon as they were gone the owner applied to another Magistrate [Schenck] who drove off McKnight with his brigade, nor would he suffer them to take any [of the rye]. Rhea suggested that he would seek to right the situation by gaining Schenck’s support. He apologized for the controversy that he had inadvertently begun: "I am extremely sorry to trouble you about this affair - this much I must say, it is a damnation country to do business with." The Van Cleaf controversy prompted General Greene to write Governor William Livingston on February 14. Greene sided with Rhea and Forman: "I have enclosed for your Excellency's information copies of several papers… respecting the wickedness and villainy of some Magistrates in Monmouth County.” Greene argued that “the great difference in the price offered by the public purchasers and the private engrossers” was the root cause of the problem. He suggested: It appears to me a plan concerted with a design either to save the grain in the county or procure for the inhabitants an extravagant price for it. That we are reduced to the necessity to impress the grain by the aid of Magistrates is notorious. Greene was, in effect, admitting that because of the low price paid by the Continental Army, the Army had to rely on magistrates to take goods from otherwise dutiful citizen farmers at below-market prices. Livingston responded to Greene three days later. He suggested that some of Monmouth County’s office holders were not sufficiently patriotic and even in league with London Traders. "Some of them have rendered themselves culpable. While some are remiss at assisting the Army... others have been oppressive in granting warrants for wood cutting without summoning the owner to try his disaffection, or any proof of his refusal." Monmouth County’s disaffected officeholders is the subject of another article. However, Schenck’s intervention on behalf of Van Cleaf was never reversed. Perspective In isolation, the seizure of Van Cleaf’s rye was a small incident in which a local official exceeded his authority by going into a neighboring township to seize goods for the benefit of the Army. The seizure was reversed by the magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction. Continental and state leadership empowered local agents to act aggressively in raising forage for the Army but acquiesced to the rule of law when one of their agents exceeded his authority. More broadly, the bitter words between the magistrates exposed a growing rift in Monmouth County’s leadership. On one side of the split were “Machiavellian” Whigs (mostly from Freehold and Upper Freehold townships) who took unlawful actions in the interest of better prosecuting the Revolution; other the side, were “Due Process” Whigs (mostly from the Middletown and the Shore Townships) who supported the Revolution, but not at the expense of the rule of law. While this split was evident intermittently before the Van Cleaf controversy (such as the overturned county election of 1777), the Van Cleaf controversy re-aggravated the split and set in motion a string of events that substantially worsened it. Another property seizure by a Captain John Walton of Freehold against a Middletown citizen, Solomon Ketchum, three months later would lead to landmark litigation and further widen the split inside Monmouth County. The split would climax with leaders from the two sides coming to blows at the 1780 county election and splitting into rival associations after that. Related Historic Site : Howell Living History Farm Sources: Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 3, pp. 247-8; Peter Schenck to Peter Forman, Papers of the Continental Congress, Letter of Nathanael Greene, vol. 3, p43-4; David Rhea to Clement Biddle, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I173, Letters from Nathanael Greene, v3, p37; Nathanael Greene to William Livingston, Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 3, pp. 247-8; William Livingston to Nathanael Greene, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 35-6; Michael S. Adelberg, “The Transformation of Local Governance in Monmouth County, New Jersey during the War of the American Revolution,” Journal of the Early Republic , 2011. 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

Become A Member Your support is greatly appreciated! Your support helps us to: Showcase award-winning exhibits Preserve our world-class regional collections Educate K-12 students on fascinating local history Maintain and interpret our historic properties Conserve irreplaceable objects and documents Offer unique and interesting public programming, both on-site and digital Make our collections digitally accessible Foster research efforts to continue to highlight Monmouth County history! All Memberships Include: New members receive one hour of free genealogical research by our archivist ($40 value). All members receive NARM reciprocal membership Individual Member $ 35 35$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: One Adult Membership Card NARM reciprocal membership Student/Senior $ 25 25$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: One membership card NARM reciprocal membership Family $ 50 50$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: Two Adult Membership Cards NARM reciprocal membership Friend $ 100 100$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: Two Adult Membership Cards Four Museum or Historic Home Guest Passes NARM reciprocal membership! Patron $ 250 250$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: Two Adult Membership Cards Six Museum or Historic Home Guest Passes NARM reciprocal membership! Benefactor $ 500 500$ Valid for one year Select Membership benefits plus: Two Adult Membership Cards Six Museum or Historic Home Guest Passes Private Museum Tour with our Curator NARM reciprocal membership!

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 > David Forman Seeks Passport for Mrs. Prevost by Michael Adelberg In 1782, Col. David Forman of Monmouth County sought to send Mrs. Prevost, wife of a Loyalist, to British-held New York. After weeks of wrangling, she was allowed to go to the garrison city. - February 1782 - A prior article discussed the messy matter of permitting people to cross enemy lines. The process and permissible circumstances for granting passports shifted frequently during the war, but trended toward ever greater restrictions. Restrictions aside, the military frontier line between Monmouth County and British-held New York remained porous due to the long shorelines, lures of lucrative illegal trade , and family connections across enemy lines. Yet, despite the difficulties of crossing legally and relative ease of crossing illegally, local leaders in Monmouth sought passports from time to time. The case of Mrs. Prevost is a good case study because it is particularly well documented. Before the war, John Prevost was a merchant at Middletown Point (present day Matawan). Based on the testimony of an informer, William Sands, John Prevost was in the Loyalist association led by the wealthy and openly disaffected Kearney family. John Prevost went behind British lines some time in 1777 but, as with many Loyalist families , John’s wife stayed home—likely an attempt to maintain the family estate. The wife was either Mary Prevost or Ana Prevost, both of whom appear in the Middletown tax rolls (showing that they did, in fact, keep at least some of the family estate). Advocacy to Send Mrs. Prevost to New York Colonel David Forman of Manalapan was George Washington’s best source of intelligence on British naval movements at Sandy Hook. His reports during the Yorktown Campaign in fall 1781 were circulated among civil and military leaders in the Continental government. This likely raised Forman’s stature with national leaders, despite his leadership of an extra-legal vigilante society and past disputes with New Jersey leaders . With his value demonstrated, Forman proposed a scheme to give a passport to Mrs. Prevost to visit her Loyalist husband in New York. Passes were previously granted to allow the families of captured soldiers to visit their kin and exile Loyalist women to New York. But allowing a woman to visit her Loyalist husband in New York and return was highly unusual and fraught with risks. The woman might carry valuables to New York and might provide intelligence on local defenses to an vengeful enemy still launching raids into Monmouth County. For Forman, sending Prevost was not an act of mercy. He would require Prevost to make contact with one of Forman's informants in New York and pay the informant for past and pending services. It would also be an opportunity for Prevost to settle an old debt and bring valuable British currency out of New York into New Jersey. In one of his intelligence reports to George Washington, on February 23, 1782, Forman made his pitch: Application has been made to me for assistance in procuring a permission for a lady [Mrs. Prevost] and her friend to go into New York for the purpose of receiving a large sum of money that has lately been left to her and is in the hands of David Matthews, Mayor of New York. I objected to the Gentleman who [was] proposed to go in with her, and proposed one whose character I am well assured of, and from whose acquaintance with New York and abilities I think considerable advantages may be drawn from him when he returns. Forman then requested the passport. The sensitivity of the request was underscored by Forman deliberately omitting the name of Prevost’s proposed travel companion: If your Excy thinks proper to grant the permission, beg it will be for Mrs. Prevost and Mr. [---blank---] to go into New York and settle Mrs. Prevost's accts with David Matthews, Esq., and to return with such sums of money as she may receive on settlement. Your Excy will I hope excuse my leaving a blank for the gentleman's name. I will be answerable for this person and he shall in wise not operate against the interests of any of these United States. Of course, I would have them go off & return by way of Elizabethtown Point. On February 28, Washington deflected Forman’s request to Governor William Livingston: I have made it an invariable practice not to give permissions for any citizens to go within the Enemy's lines without liberty first obtained from the Executive of the State to which they belong. I must refer the persons mentioned in your letter to the civil authority for that purpose. Upon thus obtaining such permission, there will be no difficulty in getting passports to pass & repass our guards on the lines. Forman promptly went to Livingston, but Livingston also turned down Forman’s request. He cited the poor track record of New Jersians previously sent to New York to recover funds. The Governor wrote: As to Mrs. Prevost, the rule I have been obliged to prescribe to myself from experience, & which fidelity of the State I am obliged to abide by is to refuse passes to all persons who apply to go into the enemy's lines on pretense of obtaining money due to them, unless I am previously satisfied by probable evidence that they will succeed, which I believe not one in twenty ever did. Livingston also worried that passports issued to disaffected persons frequently abetted illegal trade across enemy lines—a topic discussed at the end of this article. Despite his suspicions, Livingston left the door open to concurring with the passport if Washington supported issuing it as a military matter. So, Forman wrote Washington again on March 5. This time, Forman stressed the military intelligence value of sending Prevost: Had I considered it a mere matter of civil resort, I should not have inserted myself so considerably in obtaining permission. Neither would I have given your Excy trouble on the occasion had I not the fullest assurance of being able to obtain a very good acct of the enemy's situation and intentions from the gentleman who shall be engaged to attend Mrs. Prevost. Forman also explained why he was troubling Washington with the request again after being directed to Livingston: “The Governor, in his answer, says it is a matter of military resort and refers me to your Excy." Interestingly, Forman alluded to a more permissive time when he was apparently given several blank passports. He wrote that he had "formerly been granted [passports] with blanks for the names to be filled in.” Forman “had not been informed of these being disallowed at this time." Washington remained unconvinced, writing on March 7: Exclusive to the objection I have to the establishment of a precedent for granting passports to citizens without the interference of the authority of the State to which they belong, I think the circumstance of my deviating from a fixed rule might in the present instance be an occasion of suspicion to the enemy & frustrate the ends you have in view. I cannot therefore consider it advisable or consistent with the line of conduct I have addressed to grant the passport in question. However, Washington did not want to disappoint Forman, on whom he relied for important intelligence. So, he made a conciliatory gesture to Forman: “I have written to Governor Livingston on the subject.” The general promised to go along with Livingston’s decision “if there are no particular reasons of policy operating against it." A note in the published George Washington Papers suggests that Livingston approved the plan for Mrs. Prevost on March 8 and the Continental Army presumably let Prevost and her companion pass to New York. The results of Prevost’s trip to New York are unknown, as are Forman’s full motivations for advocating so diligently to send her. The Connection between Passports and London Trading Livingston’s concern that Prevost’s trip would contribute to illegal trade was well grounded. John Prevost was active in illegal trading between New York and Middletown Point in 1777 before he went over to New York. And, while the Governor could not have known it when he wrote Forman, John Prevost remained involved in illegal trading while in New York. In a clandestine letter between New York and Monmouth County, William Hartshorne, a disaffected Quaker , discussed Prevost to “John Steady” (likely an alias). Hartshorne wrote that a London Trader operating under the alias “Thom Druid” had brought valuables across enemy lines from "Burke, Prevost & c.” Hartshorne wrote with satisfaction that “we find it has happily got over, we congratulate you thereon." Livingston’s concern over a passport enabling illegal trade can be seen in his handling of another Monmouth County passport request a month earlier. In January 1782, the Governor exchanged letters with Monmouth County’s three delegates to the Assembly (Thomas Henderson, John Covenhoven, and Thomas Seabrook). They wanted Livingston to grant a passport to Major John Cook of Toms River whose brother, Thomas Cook, had been held prisoner since 1777. Cook wanted to bring his brother a variety of goods lacking in New York including foodstuffs that fetched a high price from British commissaries. Livingston noted that Continental officers were granted passports for similar reasons: “Those under the direction of the Continent go often." He granted Cook a passport: In virtue of your recommendation of him as having been of humane & beneficent to our prisoners, I have cheerfully given him a pass for his family, with all their apparel and hard money they may bring. But he denied the request for Cook to bring provisions, "I cannot think it my duty to oblige Mr. Cook in a permission to bring over those goods.” It must be wondered if Forman had an unstated ulterior motive for sending Prevost to New York. If Prevost returned from New York with money owed her, might Forman have stood to benefit in some way? Perhaps she owed him money that could only be paid if she recouped money from New York. In 1783, Forman proposed a scheme to extract specie from New York via illegal trade; perhaps Prevost’s trip had a similar, unstated purpose. Related Historic Site : Fredericton Region Museum (Canada) Sources : David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence, February 23, 1782; George Washington to David Forman, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence, February 28, 1782; William Livingston to David Forman, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 16, February 29, 1782; David Forman to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, p 384 note; David Forman to George Washington, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence, March 7, 1782; John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 24, pp. 46-7 notes 63-5. Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 83, February 3, 1782 and March 5, 1782; George Washington to David Forman, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence, March 7, 1782; William Hartshorne to “John Steady” (alias?), Hartshorne Family Papers, MCHA, box 2, folder 19; William Livingston to Thomas Henderson, John Covenhoven, and Thomas Seabrook, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 367-8; Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, unpublished manuscript at the Monmouth County Historical Association. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > The British Burn the Sloop, Endeavor by Michael Adelberg In April 1776, a British Navy sloop sailed off Little Egg Harbor where it chased, beached and burned a small Continental vessel. This may have been the first maritime battle on the Jersey Shore. - April 1776 - With a British naval squadron in possession of Sandy Hook, it was perhaps inevitable that an enterprising British officer would request and receive permission to cruise the New Jersey shore in order to disrupt Continental shipping, avenge prior British captures , and acquire needed fresh provisions for hungry sailors deprived of New York’s markets. Though accounts differ on the exact date and other details, it appears that a well-armed tender of the British frigate, Phoenix , a sloop commanded by a Lieutenant Butler, left its mothership April 10, 1776. Its destination was Little Egg Harbor, the busiest port on the New Jersey shore and the only one capable of admitting deep-hulled vessels. At Tucker’s Island, outside of Little Egg Harbor (on the southern end of Monmouth County, which included present-day Ocean County), the tender found an attractive prey. The Pennsylvania Journal printed an account of what happened next: A small boat belonging to a sloop from Dartmouth, bound to Philadelphia in the Continental service, came on shore at Tucker's on Flat Beach, in whom came a Captain, a mate, and three foremast men belonging to said sloop, which was taken the first inst. in the evening by a King's tender, from out of Sandy Hook, who boarded and rifled her of everything valuable on board; after which they set fire to her and burnt her to the water's edge. The same report further detailed the skirmish that occurred when the Continental boat was captured: “The Capt. has one of his thighs broke and a musket ball thro' the other and the mate is badly wounded in the breast.” And the report revealed the intentions of the British, based on intelligence from a Barnegat man who was aboard the British ship: The said tender intended to come into our inlet with the first north-west wind to take off the cattle from the beaches and destroy all the vessels that were in here. The tender is a small sloop, mounted with two six pounders, four four pounders, some swivels and some small arms, with 36 men on board. Another account of the incident revealed that the Continental boat, Endeavor , commanded by Captain Job Tripp, “was chased and came up with” by the British tender: The tender was not content with firing a broadside at Capt. Trip's vessel, after she had hauled down her sails, but went alongside, after using much scurrilous language, ordered another broadside to be fired, by which Capt. Trip received a ball in his thigh, which has broke... The Mate also had a ball went through one thigh, and lodged in the other; an officer afterwards came on board and told Capt. Trip, that Butler, the Captain of the tender, out of his clemency had consented to give him his boat, on condition he would make the best of his way ashore. Captain Tripp initially claimed that he and his crew were too badly wounded to get themselves to shore, though they eventually did so by driving the Endeavor onto the beach. This likely angered the British and may be the reason they burned the ship. This report concluded that, “The Captain and Mate are both dangerously ill, having been thirty-six hours without any suffering to their wounds. The tender's people, after plundering the sloop, scuttled and set her on fire." On April 20, depositions were taken from two of the surviving sailors, Job Tripp and James Cathill. Their accounts add visceral details about the skirmish: We hailed them twice with our trumpet, but received no answer, but another firing, and hove about, and made after us. We still kept our course, and they after us, continually firing, till about ten o' clock at night. At that time they were about a swivel-shot distance from us ... We immediately hove to, and hauled down our foresail, and were busy in hauling down our mainsail, when they fired a broadside at us; which felled both the Captain and Mate. By their account, they fired two volleys of small-arms just as they fired their cannon and swivels; each volley ten guns. Their carriage-guns and swivels were two four-pounders and six swivels on each side. The Captain was wounded in the thigh, which we imagine to be a swivel-ball, which broke the bone, and shattered it very much. The Mate was also wounded in both thighs; the ball went through the fleshy part of the right, and lodged in the left. A follow up report on the incident, also published in the Pennsylvania Journal , revealed an important additional fact. The man from Barnegat who was aboard the British tender was Arthur Green, who reportedly gave the British “an account of all the inlets about there.” The British used him as their pilot during the attack and the report suggested they would do so again. This appears to be the first instance of a shore resident working directly against the Continental cause; it certainly would not be the last. American sailors were undeterred by the defeat and destruction of the Endeavor . On April 22, a six-gun tender of a British frigate was captured off the New Jersey coast by Captain Barry of Pennsylvania; that same month, the Continental government, in combination with the state of New York, assigned two midsized ships, General Schyler and General Mifflin , to cruise the Jersey shore to pick off vulnerable British shipping and to protect American shipping. The British countered with their own naval build-up, which is the subject of another article . Related Historic Site : National Museum of the Royal Navy (Portsmouth, UK) Sources : Peter Force, American Archives: Documents of the American Revolution, 1774-6 (digitized: http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/find.doc.html), v5: p 1003-4; Gardner W. Allen, A Naval History of the American Revolution (1912, 1940, reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), p 86; Pennsylvania Journal, April 10, 1777; The North British Intelligencer or Constitutional Miscellany (Edinburgh: William Auld, 1776) v 1, p 347; John Jay Papers, Columbia U., digitized, http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.01088&p=3&level=2&originx=0&originy=0&fullheight=2768&fullwidth=2133ℑ.x=129ℑ.y=20 ; Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the state of New-York (Albany: Thurlow Weed, printer to the State, 1842) vol. 1, p414; Maryland Journal, May 1, 1776; Pennsylvania Journal, April 17, 1776. Previous Next

Each and every donation helps the MCHA create exhibits such as this one. Thank you for your support. First Name Last Name Email Address Donate in the name of: We suggest a donation of $10 per person, but any amount is helpful $ Thank you for your donation! Go to Checkout

Now and Then... These images will give you a sense of true local history! WORLDWIDE WORLDWIDE WORLDWIDE

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. Colonel Tupper's Continentals Attack on Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg Benjamin Tupper commanded the party of Massachusetts Continentals that marched up the Sandy Hook peninsula and unsuccessfully attacked the Lighthouse on June 21, 1776. - June 1776 - As discussed in prior articles, the British Navy secured Sandy Hook in April 1776. But Sandy Hook’s strategic location at the entry point of New York Harbor and the imminent arrival of the British Army made it a tempting target for the Continental Army. In May 1776, Lt. Colonel Benjamin Tupper of Massachusetts commanded a regiment of Continentals stationed at Perth Amboy. In addition to commanding a regiment, he was commodore over a squadron of small sailing vessels and whaleboats in Raritan Bay. Two British frigates, Phoenix and Asia , and their tenders, faced them at Sandy Hook. The disparity in heavy guns between Tupper’s motley flotilla and the British frigates made it impossible to attack Sandy Hook by sea. In early May, Tupper apparently asked George Washington about attacking the British by landing on the Middletown shoreline and marching up Sandy Hook to capture the peninsula and lighthouse. Washington’s aide de camp, Robert Harrison, responded cautiously: "On dislodging the people at the Light House, he [Washington] does not mean to advise an attempt, unless you are certain it will be met with success - a miscarriage would douse the spirits of the men." But Tupper remained focused on Sandy Hook, even as more British ships arrived. On June 4, he wrote: There was two ships arrived within the Hook yesterday, there is now at the Hook eight sail of square wrigd [rigged] vessels and five small craft, besides the Asia & her small Tender. It is thought (but we can’t certainly determine) that three of the vessels which lately arivd [sic] is the Roebuck, the Marcury [sic] & the Liverpool. Tupper also was annoyed by the conduct of the Middletown militia under Colonel George Taylor. The militia received three British deserters and immediately dispatched an officer to interrogate them. But the militia “stupidly let them pass toward Philadelphia without asking them scarcely a question." In mid-June, Tupper moved his men to attack Sandy Hook. On June 17, one of Tupper’s men, Solomon Drowne wrote that "a part of the Artillery Regt and a number of volunteers have gone on an expedition to take ye watering place from ye Asia 's men, or drive ye regulars from their fort at ye Light House and destroy it." It appears that Tupper’s party landed on the Middletown shore on June 18, but did not immediately advance on Sandy Hook due to “inconveniences”. Tupper needed cannon, and waited for them to arrive by barge. Under cover of night, Tupper’s men marched up Sandy Hook during the early hours of June 21. He attacked Sandy Hook before dawn. A public version of his report on the battle was printed in several newspapers: This morning about 4 o'clock, we attacked the Light House with about 300 men; they were strongly reinforced being (as I saw a boat go from Long Island) previously informed of our design. I continued the attack for two hours with field pieces and small arms, all the time being between fires from the shipping and the light house, but could make no impression on the walls. I returned to my camp at the south end of the Cedars, which I have occupied for two days and nights, and sent out 50 men for some game; they have this minute attacked them with small arms, and seven boats are making for land from the ships. My men are in high spirits & well, not one of them either killed or wounded. Additional details on the attack were included in Tupper’s private letter to George Washington. In direct contradiction to the public report, Tupper claimed that the British were surprised by his advance: I advanced within 150 yds. of the Light House in so secret a manner that my party was undiscovered. I advanced with an officer and desired to speak with the commanding officer, and after a few words he fired several shot at me, but as God would have it, he mist [sic] me. I returned to my party and ordered the artillery to play, which continued about an hour, but found the walls [of the light house] so thick as to make no impression. Tupper also noted that he held his ground despite taking fire on two sides: "I occupied the ground about two and a half hours between the smart fires viz. to men of war on the one side & the Light House on the other." Tupper concluded his private letter by again complaining about the Middletown militia: "It is a little strainge [sic], I received no assistance from the Jersies, tho' it was earnestly requested." Local militia might have guided Tupper to a better position from which to launch the attack. Solomon Nash, an artilleryman under Tupper, wrote the attack. He provided additional details in his account. He noted that the cannon needed to be floated to Tupper on barges from Middletown Point [Matawan] on June 20: "This morning at 6 o'clock, landed at Spermacity Cove within four miles of the Light House, we got our field pieces ashore and there til about 9 o'clock p.m.” Nash’s account blames his own cannon for the failed attack: “The Light House being so strong that we could make no impression on it.” In July, Massachusetts newspapers, informed by letters home from Tupper’s men, offered some additional information on the battle. The Freeman's Journal reported that the attack failed because Tupper’s cannon were too small to damage light house. "Our men… not having heavy cannon sufficient to make any breach in the Light House." The American Gazette suggested it was heavy fire from the British frigates that “poured in a heavy fire on our men on our flank” that drove off Tupper’s men. British accounts of Tupper’s attack on Sandy Hook largely corroborate American sources. Captain Hyde Parker of the HMS Phoenix recorded his ship’s role, “kept up Constant Fire, for an Hour and a Half to Disperse them.” A British officer who arrived at Sandy Hook four days later reported on the battle from a British vantage point (note the exaggerated figures on the size of Tupper’s force and resulting casualties): Five hundred rebels with two brass field pieces, six pounders, were driven off by a Sergeant and Corporal of the 57th Regiment, with five of Governor Tryon's men; they killed 14 of the rebels, one of whom we hear is a Major; we expect it will be attacked again soon, but we are well prepared for them. Immediately after the attack, the British had an engineer, Lawrence Hartwick, survey Sandy Hook and recommend improvements. Hartwick noted the thickness of the lighthouse and the need for artillery around it. He measured that the lighthouse was 735 yards from the nearest cedar trees (presumably a safe distance) but there was a need to clear tall meadow grass within 525 yards of the light house. The fortification of the Hook was noticed. A Middletown militiaman, Richard Sutphin, looked over at Sandy Hook and later recalled that “the British troops took the light-house and converted it into a fort." Regardless of the steps taken, Sandy Hook remained an attractive target for Americans throughout the war. Tupper’s attack would not be the last attempt to capture it. Related Historic Sites : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Bruce Bliven, Under the Guns, New York 1775-1776 (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) p 236-7; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 2, Letterbooks; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 4, 1 April 1776 – 15 June 1776, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991, pp. 323–325; The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 4, 1 April 1776 – 15 June 1776, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991, pp. 436–437; New York City During the American Revolution: Being a Collection of Original Papers (NY: New York Mercantile Association, 1861) p98-99; Library of Congress, NY Gaz & Weekly Mercury, reel 2904; The Library Company, Pennsylvania Ledger, vol. 1, Jan. 1775-Nov. 1776; The Library Company, Pennsylvania Evening Post; Bruce Bliven, Under the Guns, New York 1775-1776 (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) p 314-5; William James Morgan, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969) vol. 5, p 663. New Jersey Archives, "Newspaper Extracts," 1st. series, vol. 1, p 132; Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, reel 36, June 21, 1776; Solomon Nash, Journal of Solomon Nash, A Revolutionary Soldier (New York: Privately Printed, 1861) pp. 20-1; Margaret Willard, Letters on the American Revolution 1774-1776 (Associated Faculty Press, 1968) p 326; Pennsylvania Journal, June 21, 1776 Freeman's Journal, July 6, 1776; Henry P. Johnston, The Campaign of 1776 Around New York and Brooklyn, (Brooklyn: Long Island Historical Society, 1878) v3, p91; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of Thomas Cummings of Massachusetts, National Archives, p30; Journal of H.M.S. Phoenix, Captain Hyde Parker, June 21, 1776, Great Britain Public Record Office, Admiralty 51/693. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; "Extract of a Letter from on Board His Majesty's Ship Swan, Sandy Hook, New York,” London Chronicle, August 22, 1776. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; Lopez, John. “Sandy Hook Lighthouse.” The Keeper's Log, Winter, 1986, pp. 5-6; David C. Munn, comp., Battles and Skirmishes of the American Revolution in New Jersey (Trenton, N.J.: Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Geology, 1976) pp. 91-3; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Richard Sutphin. Previous Next