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 > French Fleet Threatens Sandy Hook by Michael Adelberg From his flagship, Languedoc, outside Sandy Hook, Admiral D’Estaing, considered ways to engage smaller British fleet inside the Hook. Unable to do so, D’Estaing left for Rhode Island. - July 1778 - France entered an alliance with the United States on February 8, 1778, and two months later dispatched a large fleet to fight the British Army and Navy in America. The French fleet reached American waters off the Chesapeake Bay as a British fleet left Philadelphia and cleared the Delaware Bay. After spending a few days off Virginia, the French turned north, reaching Delaware Bay on July 8 and nearing Sandy Hook on July 10—only four days after the British Army had completed its evacuation to New York via the Hook. The French intentions were clear to Admiral Richard Howe, commanding British ships at New York: “The French squadron was advancing toward this port... anchored this evening without the Hook, seeming to meditate an attack on this port." Howe ordered all British ships to come inside Sandy Hook. As the French neared, ships and boats sprinted for Sandy Hook. Loyalist Louisa Susannah Wells, aboard the Rose in a four-ship squadron, narrated her arrival on July 9. She recalled, "we had a precaution to nail a sail-cloth before the cabin windows and to be careful of showing lights." She also wrote: The [sloop of war] Swift was so apprehensive about being taken that she threw out all her boats in order to be towed in. All the comfort we had was that the Swift would be taken first… We had the mortification to see five or six vessels taken by the enemy that day, which were bound to New York, but did not know its harbor [was] being blocked up. The French Fleet Arrives of Shrewsbury Inlet On July 11, word of French arrival ricocheted among British officers at New York. Colonel Thomas O'Beirne wrote, "in the afternoon they [the French] were observed to come to anchor off Shrewsbury Inlet, about four miles from the Hook.” The Army’s senior engineer, John Montressor, wrote of the first prizes taken by the French: This evening an account of the French fleet coming to anchor off Sandy Hook, consisting of eleven sail of the line and 3 three frigates; they took 12 out of 13 of our fishing boats. The tender of the [frigate] Thunder Bomb [was] drove into the French fleet by a gust and was taken. The logbook of the French flagship, Languedoc , reveals that the French were picking up additional British shipping. Even before they “anchored at Black Point” [actually Shrewsbury Inlet] on July 11, the French “took the sloop of war the York of 14 guns” on July 10 and only the 11th “took possession of some fishing boats” and “took the snow the Carcasse , laden with powder, bombs, and balls." Admiral Charles Henri D’Estaing was not initially impressed by the defenses at Sandy Hook, which he referred to as a "small guard.” Captain Henry Duncan of the Royal Navy described the British ships facing the French on July 11. At this time we had only the Preston, Somerset, Nonsuch, St. Albans, Phoenix, Roebuck. The Eagle, Trident, Ardent, Isis, and Richmond were anchored a little below the Narrows. At five, the Eagle and the ships with her joined those at Sandy Hook; the whole force then collected consisted of six 64-gun ships, two fifties, and the Experiment, two forty-fours, and two or three frigates. These were drawn up in order at the Hook to receive the French fleet. Our ships in general were but very indifferently manned, owing to sickness and their being short of complement. While the British had assembled a comparable number of ships as the French, the British ships were smaller and lightly armed in comparison to D’Estaing’s fleet. Fortunately for the British, winds did not support a quick attack on Sandy Hook. On July 12, Lt. Col. Stephen Kemble wrote that "since their arrival, no favorable winds to induce them to enter and attack us." The Loyalist New York Gazette wrote of a small Loyalist schooner, Dispatch , that escaped capture: With three men on board, was taken off the fishing banks by three barges from the French squadron… The fishermen of the Dispatch threw one Frenchman overboard and secured the other two in the hold, and stood off for Sandy Hook. The Gazette also reported that “six or seven barges belonging to them [French navy] were going ashore for water, were overset near Jumping Point in the Jersies, and a number of men were drowned." Indeed, the French were going ashore; D’Estaing, himself, went ashore. They needed local pilots to guide them through the deep-water channel immediately north of Sandy Hook and they needed fresh water and provisions for their hungry men. Both of these are topics of other articles. While waiting on local pilots and provisions, the French continued to pick up British ships. Admiral Howe and Colonel John Laurens of the Continental Army, arrived at Shrewsbury, both estimated that the French took about a dozen British ships and large boats. But the actual number, based on French sources, was higher than that. Table 6 documents their considerable booty while anchored off Sea Bright. Beyond the prizes, several British ships were chased and wrecked. On July 25, the Loyalist New York Gazette reported the wreck of a vessel carrying sugar wrecking a week earlier and “almost all her sugar is washed away.” In addition, “three more vessels are on shore southward of the Neversink... a schooner ran ashore and went to pieces on the Hook Thursday last." French Are Unable to Attack British Nonetheless, the primary interest of Admiral D’Estaing was determining the best way to cross Sandy Hook and attack the British. He reportedly offered a massive bounty to any pilot who could get his ships in. But he was unable to find a pilot who believed that the channel north of Sandy Hook was deep enough for the largest French warships. D’Estaing later wrote: He promised one hundred thousand crowns to the pilot who would take care of this; but the promise could not make convincing the advantage of an impossible execution, there being depth for only small vessels… the passage [across Sandy Hook] is too narrow to risk, that if the vessel would ground, it would close the passage and leave the ships devastated by the batteries of the enemy. The largest French ships—including twelve ships-of-line sat as much as 24 feet in the water, and the channel depth was reportedly only 22 feet (these figures vary slightly across different sources). A related problem was the narrowness of the channel. British sources note that the channel above Sandy Hook was only wide enough to admit one, or potentially two, ships at time. According to a sketch from O’Beirne, British warships were lined up near the tip of Sandy Hook and immediately south of the channel. The ships and nearby shore battery could therefore focus considerable cannon fire on the channel precisely at the point that French vessels would enter the channel one or two at a time. This effectively negated the fire power advantage of the French fleet (850 French guns against 534 British guns). Word of the French problem crossing Sandy Hook made it to George Washington, who wrote Congress: It was the Count's [Admiral D’Estaing] first wish to enter at Sandy hook in order to possess himself of, or to destroy, if possible, the whole of the British fleet, lying in the Bay of New York; and that for this purpose he had been much engaged in his inquiries about the depth of water, and in sounding the channel to ascertain it. The result of which was, that the water from the experiments made was too shallow at the entrance to admit his large Ships. In addition to the problems with crossing Sandy Hook, D'Estaing lacked fresh water and provisions for his men. Despite efforts to supply the French, supply lines through Shrewsbury could not meet the needs of the large fleet and its 11,000 men. D’Estaing wrote, “without resupply vessels, his troops were much too weak to support an attack by the enemy.” A British report further described the supply problem , particularly with respect to carrying heavy water casks through the ocean surf: They procured some supplies from the Jersies, which was brought three miles by land carriage...but in the portage of casks they lost a number of boats, officers and men amidst the surge that prevails upon that shore, and proves inexorable to navigators unacquainted with it. French Decide to Leave Sandy Hook D’Estaing convened a council with his senior officers on July 20 and the decision was made to weigh anchor and leave. A French Officer, Jean-Julien Chevalier Le Mauff, noted that before leaving, “They decided to sink a small snow carrying oars that was taking much water, after having it unloaded, as well as some fishing boats." This was done in order to block entry into the Sandy Hook channel. British observers noted that the supply boats rowing between the shore and the fleet ceased on July 21. For example, British Navy Doctor John Campbell, wrote: "The French squadron had maintained a constant intercourse with the shore, by means of boats and small vessels; which was observed to cease on the 21st of July.” Some observers thought the French were attacking. O’Beirne wrote, "we consequently expected the hottest day that had ever been fought between two nations. On our side, all was at stake." But the British were misinformed "from the unanimous report of the country people" who were trading with French while informing the British. In reality the moves of that day were French preparations to sail. They would leave for Rhode Island on the morning of the 22nd. Ironically, the winds turned on July 22, deepening the channel. Richard Howe wrote: “A fresh easterly wind, of two days continuance… raised the water on the bar very considerably higher than its common level… Instead of standing in to pass the bar, after tacking two or three times, he stood off to sea." When the French sailed, they chose not to turn over prisoners to New Jersey authorities on shore. This peeved Reverend James Caldwell, a New Jersey delegate to the Continental Congress, who wrote: The French fleet took a number of fishing vessels outside the Hook - the greater part of their crews were the vile Tories who fled to the enemy & were obliged to fish for their support - but some were faithful inhabitants of Staten or Long Islands, obliged to support themselves in that way. Application was made to the Admiral to send the inhabitants to shore to abide the trial of their country & he seemed to consent, but afterwards appeared to be influenced to take them. The fate of these prisoners—including local Loyalists taken by the French while fishing—is unknown. Despite rumors of French fleets returning to Sandy Hook, the French never returned in force. However, the French threat forced the British to spread their naval assets across a wider variety of ports. This created an opportunity for American privateers eager to prey on British shipping bound for New York. Related Historic Site : Sandy Hook Lighthouse Sources : Montresor, John. “Journals of Captain John Montresor.” Edited by G. D. Scull. (New York: Collections of the New-York Historical Society, 1881) p 502; Thomas Lewis O'Beirne, A Candid and Impartial Narrative of the Transactions of the Fleet, Under the Command ofLord Howe (London, 1969), p 10; Louisa Susannah Wells Aikman, The Journal of a Voyage from Charleston, S.C. to London: Undertaken During the American Revolution (New York: New York Historical Society, 1906), pp. 12–6; Adm Richard Howe, published in Thomas Pownall, The Remembrancer or Impartial Repository of Public Events (London: J. Alman, 1778) vol. 6, p352; Lulu Hartshorne’s account, Monmouth County Historical Association, Collection #86, box 1, folder 21; Logbook of the Languedoc in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 233; Jean D'Estaing, Reports, 1778-1779, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Coll. 815; Gardner W. Allen, A Naval History of the American Revolution (1912, 1940, reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), pp. 329-30; Tilly, John A., The British Navy and the American Revolution (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1987) p 84, 143; Jean D’Estaing, letter, B. F. Stevens, ed., Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives Relating to America, 1773–1783, [25 vols., London, 1889–1898], vol. 23, #2023; Colin Lindsay, Extracts of Colonel Templehoffe's History of the Seven Years War (London: T. Cadel, 1793), v2, p485; Henri D’Estaing, Extrait du Journal d’un Officier de la Marine, Morristown National Historical Park, Rare Books Coll., #9596, pp. 9-13 (translated by Google Translate); Lapeyrouse de Bonfils, Léonard Léonce, Histoire de la Marine Française, Par M. le Comte (Chez Dentu, Librarie, Palais Royal Galerie D'Orleans, Paris, 1845) v. 3, pp45-48; London Chronicle, published in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 541; Thomas Lewis O'Beirne, A Candid and Impartial Narrative of the Transactions of the Fleet, Under the Command ofLord Howe (London, 1969), p 11; Montresor, John. “Journals of Captain John Montresor.” Edited by G. D. Scull. (New York: Collections of the New-York Historical Society, 1881) pp. 504-5; Henri Doniol, ed., Histoire de la Participation de la France à l'Établissement des États Unis d'Amérique: Correspondance Diplomatique et Documents, 5 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1876–99), vol. 3, p. 447-9; The Fleet of D'Estaing, Profession Patrick Villiers, http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/fleet01.htm ; Kemble Stephen. Adjutant to General Howe: The Kemble Papers, NYHS Collections (New York: New York Historical Society, 1884–85) p 155; Francis Downman, The Services of Lieut. Colonel Francis Downman (London: Royal Artillery Institution, 1898) p64-72; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Archibald Robertson, Archibald Robertson: His Diaries and Sketches in America, 1762-1780 (New York: Arno, 1969) p 180; Richard Howe in London Gazette, Sept. 15, 1778; Journal of Chevalier de Gra-Prévlle in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 437; Journal of Jean-Julien Chevalier Le Mauff, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 446-447; Thomas Lewis O'Beirne, A Candid and Impartial Narrative of the Transactions of the Fleet, Under the Command ofLord Howe (London, 1969), pp. 15-6, 23; John Tilley, The British Navy in the American Revolution (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1987) p 144; John Campbell, Biographica Nautica, Memoirs of an Illustrious Seaman (Dublin: John Williams, 1785) p 485; George Washington to Congress, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw120252)) ; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; George Washington to John Sullivan, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw120243)) ; Henry Laurens to George Casewell, Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p482; Conrad Alexandre Gerard in Naval Documents of the American Revolution (Naval History Foundation: Washington DC, 2018) vol 13, p 966; United State Naval Academy, Rosenbach Coll., James Caldwell; Thomas Cushing to John Adams, The Adams Papers, Papers of John Adams, vol. 7, September 1778 – February 1779, ed. Gregg L. Lint, Robert J. Taylor, Richard Alan Ryerson, Celeste Walker, and Joanna M. Revelas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989, pp. 147–149; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Piers Macksey, The War for America, 1775–1783 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1964) pp. 217-8. 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 > David Rhea Complains about Lee's Continentals in Monmouth by Michael Adelberg Monmouth County’s Quartermaster Agent, David Rhea, used two-horse teams to bring wagon-loads of hay and grains to the Army. He feuded with Major Henry Lee who purchased his own forage. - October 1779 - As noted in prior articles, David Rhea was a lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army early in the war who served with distinction at the Battle of Monmouth . In late 1778, he wished to return to Monmouth County as the Continental Army’s Quartermaster agent. He wrote Moore Furman, leading the Quartermaster office, on October 30: “You had thoughts of appointing me to that office if I thought it proper to retire from the Army... I can leave the Army on the shortest notice." Rhea received the appointment and established an office at Allentown. He hired a small staff and set up a second office at Freehold (in a house purchased amidst scandal ). By early 1779, he and John Lloyd, agent for the Commissary Department, were purchasing food, hay, and grains for the Army and its horses. In January 1779, George Washington sent the cavalry regiment of Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee into Monmouth County. The reasons for doing so were not explicit but, based on related orders and events, it is probable that Washington was seeking to increase the county’s security (he had sent a regiment of Pennsylvania Continentals to Tilton Falls a few weeks earlier). Also, Washington likely hoped to place Lee’s men in a place with a large winter store of forage. This second reason would put Lee in conflict with Rhea who was purchasing forage for the main body of the Continental Army. David Rhea’s Complaints about Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee David Rhea first complained about Lee to Clement Biddle on February 12, 1779, even before Lee arrived. He wrote: “The light horse have not made their appearance, pray do not send them to these parts as yet; the country are all in arms about grain prices, send no more wagons here." In the same letter, Rhea referred to a growing controversy regarding Middletown’s Benjamin Van Cleave, which Rhea instigated by asking the Freehold Magistrate to seize Van Cleave’s hay. Van Cleave claimed the hay was to be used for poor relief and the Middletown Magistrate sided with him. A frustrated Rhea wrote of his own county, “it is a damnation country to do business with." Lee’s regiment came and went in early 1779, but returned in the summer of 1779 to search for and initiate communication with the expected French fleet . While other Continental regiments set up camp near the shore (at Tinton Falls and Middletown), Lee set up camp at Freehold and sent small parties to the shore. The co-location of Lee and Rhea purchasing forage in the village of Freehold was bound to cause conflict. On October 12, Rhea complained about Lee to Moore Furman: "Major Lee's dragoons have done as they please since they have been in this county.” Rhea went on describe a specific grievance with Lee’s request for wagons and a horse team: Major Lee has called for some light wagons and says it will be much less expense to ye public to have baggage in some light wagons and two horses, then the way he now moves -- I have none [for him], he wants me to have them made & to purchase large strong horses for that purpose. I have put him off in such a manner that I believe he will not ask again -- I think I shall have no more of it -- those horse consume a large quantity of forage, and at a very high price. I know not what to do --I hope they will not stay long, the inhabitants have fixed their price and the Major, I trust, would not alter it. In this last line, Rhea revealed a key aspect of his complaint. Lee was negotiating purchases directly with local farmers rather than deferring to Rhea, whose job it was to make those purchases. While stationed in Monmouth County , Lee issued passports to locals to go to New York (as spies, Lee reported) and proposed a plan whereby his men would impound the cattle of locals living near the shore, where they might be sold to London Traders or taken by Loyalist raiders. However, Lee lacked the authority to perform these acts. Lee’s sharp elbows not only bothered Rhea, but also bothered Judge John Imlay. Imlay asked Governor William Livingston to write Washington about Lee, and Washington abruptly removed Lee from Monmouth County in January 1780. When the French fleet was again expected on the Jersey shore in summer 1780, Washington returned Lee to Monmouth County. Lee again set up his headquarters at Freehold and again aggravated Rhea. Rhea wrote Furman on July 1, to complain that Lee had hired teamsters from Trenton into service to carry forage to Trenton, but Lee did not have forage for them to transport: Early this morning, some teams that were impressed by the Light Horse returned from Trenton, as they say, and report that they are not wanted... I will discharge the horsemen [teamsters] this evening; they have been a great deal of trouble. If events transpired as Rhea suggests, Lee was purchasing and raising forage in direct competition with Rhea, a move sure to draw his ire. It also suggests that Rhea, at least in Lee’s eyes, may have lacked energy in executing his duty. Rhea complained about Lee again a few weeks later. On July 21, he wrote Furman about the need for meal for the prisoners in the Monmouth County jail at Freehold. Rhea wrote “there are a number of prisoners, very impudent, in the gaol now." He then complained that "Major Lee's troops have consumed all the meal at Walton's & Conover's mills" which was intended for the prison. If all Revolutionary War documents had survived, it is very likely that additional complaints about Lee would surface; similarly, Lee likely complained about Rhea or other Monmouth County officials who he likely regarded as uncooperative. Based on available documentation, Lee did exceed authority more than once and was corrected by Washington and Livingston accordingly. Lee also likely perceived, with some merit, that local officials like Rhea were not doing all they could to support the Amry—much less his own regiment. Related Historic Site : US Army Quartermaster Museum (Virginia) Sources : David Rhea to Clement Biddle, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I173, Letters from Nathanael Greene, v3, p37; David Rhea to Moore Furman, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5599; David Rhea to Moore Furman, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5591-5592; David Rhea to Moore Furman, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5593. 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 Struggle to Stay Out of War by Michael Adelberg From their meeting house in Shrewsbury, Monmouth’s Quakers struggled to remain pacifists and keep members from participating in the war. They disciplined 31 members, 16 of whom were expelled. - July 1781 - Of all of America’s religious denominations, none were rocked as profoundly by the American Revolution as the Quakers (Friends). The majority of Quakers were pacifists and therefore at odds with a new government that required militia service. A prior article discussed the drive of the Shrewsbury Quakers to abolish slaveholding among Quakers, but the challenge of maintaining their pacifism amidst civil war would prove a more fundamental problem. Most of Monmouth County’s Quakers lived along its Atlantic shoreline and in its western township of Upper Freehold. The Upper Freehold Quakers attended a sub-meeting at Arneytown that rolled into a meeting in nearby Burlington County; those in Stafford Township attended a sub-meeting at Barnegat that rolled into the meeting at Little Egg Harbor. The Atlantic shore Quakers north of Barnegat attended a meeting at Shrewsbury, which included a sub-meeting at Manasquan. Fortunately, the minutes of the Shrewsbury monthly meetings and annual meeting have survived; they offer exceptional information on the activities of the meeting and its members. Grievances Grow among the Shrewsbury Quakers Not every Quaker was against the Revolution (Nathanael Greene, for example, was the most important American general of the war besides George Washington, was born and raised a Quaker). However, it appears that the majority of Shrewsbury Quakers were disaffected by the Revolution. They lived on the military frontier line that separated Continental- and British-controlled areas. A member of the Shrewsbury meeting, Benjamin White, recalled the difficulty of living on military frontier line and the imposition of quartering Continental troops: We were so near the lines that in the fore part of the night we had the British and Refugees, in the morning the American troops. My brother was called a King's Man or Refugee and myself a rebel or friend of the Jersey troops. Col [Benjamin] Ford and Maj [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. White’s store at Tinton Falls was sacked during a Loyalist raid, but a more frequent source of Quaker grievance with the New Jersey government was its mandatory militia service. For strict Quakers, even paying fines for non-attendance was tantamount to supporting warfare. As early as February 1776, the pacifism of the Shrewsbury Quakers put them at odds with their local government. At that time, the township committee (acting as proto-government) unanimously warned the meeting to “forebear to pass censure on any person or persons... for acting in conformity in their military stations.” A year later, George Washington complained to Governor William Livingston about "the Quakers and disaffected persons are doing all in their power to counteract our Militia Law." The Shrewsbury meeting compiled reports on Quaker suffering due to the war. An August 1777 report concluded that £207 in fines had been levied against them "chiefly for support of the war & fines for refusal of military service.” Fines were enforced by seizing the goods of Quaker families. A 1779 report totaled up £1040 in fines (and this is before militia delinquency fines spiked in 1780). Equally concerning, “diverse friends were imprisoned, some were discharged, one of which qualified [took Loyalty oath], three continued confined upwards of three months, were fined by the court (though not yet levied) & their persons discharged from imprisonment." Over the course of the war, 31 members of the Shrewsbury meeting were disciplined for participating in the war. This was about one third of the 98 members disciplined during the war. In total, 78 men and 20 women were disciplined for a variety of offenses including marrying outside the faith, drinking alcohol, not attending church, and refusing to free slaves . Summary information on the 31 disciplined men is in the appendix of this article. Offenses related to participating in the war included serving in the militia and otherwise bearing arms, but also included less direct means of participation such as hiring a militia substitute and paying fines militia delinquency. Men were even disciplined for paying money for the return of property that was confiscated as a punishment for militia service. The Shrewsbury Friends did not distinguish between Whig and Loyalist when meting out discipline—members were disowned for supporting either side. Examples of Shrewsbury Quakers Disciplined for Participating in the War In September 1776, John Parker was reported at the Shrewsbury Meeting for “bearing arms.” The meeting sent Joel Borden to counsel him. Parker apologized, but his apology was rejected for “not being so full” and Parker committed a new offense by paying a fine for militia delinquency. Parker offered a second apology in December 1776, which was accepted. In June 1777, the meeting reported that "Parker doth acknowledge that he did hire a man to serve in his place for one month, but does not pretend to justify his conduct and seems disposed to make satisfaction.” In December 1777, Parker apologized for paying militia delinquency fines and hiring a militia substitute. Despite his many transgressions, Parker remained in the meeting. (A second John Parker was also disciplined.) In April 1777, Jacob Woolcott was brought before the Shrewsbury meeting and issued an apology: I hereby acknowledge that I did once ride in company with some military men who was on the business of taking prisoners & collecting arms, for which conduct I am really sorry, and do fully condemn the same. A year later, in June 1778, Woolcott again ran afoul of the meeting. It was reported: "Jacob Woolcott paid a sum of money for a man to go into military service, and since that matter has come against him for playing cards." Yet again, in August 1778, he was reported for "leaving his home for military service." Woolcott was given the opportunity to apologize, but apparently declined to do so. In January 1779, he was disowned by the Shrewsbury Friends. He went on to serve as a Lieutenant in the state troops . John Lawrence (son of William) went down the same path as Woolcott. In January 1779, he came before the Shrewsbury meeting: "I consented that a man should purchase my property when taken for a fine for not going into military service." In March 1780, Lawrence was again reported for "fighting formally and has bore arms in a hostile way, has left his habitation and gone where he cannot easily be treated." In March 1780, Lawrence was disowned by the Shrewsbury Meeting. In December 1779, and again in January 1780, the Shrewsbury Friends moved against three Pine Robbers who had previously been members of the meeting. In December, it was reported that: John Worthly and Joseph Hulletts have left us, and been concerned in bearing arms in a hostile manner, and as such practice is directly contrary to our principles & our profession, we think that for the reputation of our Society to disown them from being members. Another Pine Robber, Reap Brindley, was reported to the meeting in January 1780: "Richard [Reap] Brinley has bore arms & continues to do so, is profane in conversation and frequents places of deviation." Obadiah Tilton was sent to counsel him. In May, Tilton reported that his counseling had “no effect” on Brindley. Reap Brindley was disowned. In July 1781, the Shrewsbury Friends moved against three members concurrently. At a prior meeting, it was reported that James Tucker "has taken up arms, and [is] frequent in using vulgar and corrupt language." In July, it was reported that Tucker was still “bearing arms”; he was disowned. At the same time, Wiliam Corlies was disowned for bearing arms. However, a third member of the meeting, Richard Lawrence apologized to the meeting: "I am sensible that I have done wrong in traveling without a certificate, in bearing arms in the militia, and in committing fornication with a woman who is now my wife." He was permitted to remain in the meeting. Shrewsbury Friends Struggle to Comply with New Jersey Law In addition to disciplining individuals for not turning out for militia service. The Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meetings tracked the fines accrued by members. The first such report was compiled in July 1777; at the time, Friends had incurred L416 in fines "chiefly for not bearing arms & paying taxes for supporting a war against the Government." The report also noted that three members had been jailed. In January 1780, a committee of Edmund Williams, Robert Hartshorne and William Smith considered petitioning the New Jersey Assembly with respect to accumulating militia fines. The committee concluded: We do not at present find any matter wherein we can apprehend we can be useful - the laws, we think, is not so vigorously executed as heretofore, therefore [it is] our opinion that an application to those in power will not be of any good purpose. In October, a new committee comprised of Benjamin Woolcott, Jonathan White, William Tilton and George Parker reported that, "they have drew up a remonstrance against the oppressive conduct of those in power & presented it to the Assembly, who informed the Committee that the principal law discussed in their remonstrance expired at the close of the last session of the Assembly." The petition is noted in the minutes of the New Jersey Assembly, which recorded on November 8: Setting forth that the militia bill now in force, more especially that passed sixteenth day of June last, proves very grievous in the manner they have been executed against some of the persons belonging to the meeting, and praying relief. Loyalty oaths posed another problem for Quakers, whose religious principles made the act of taking an oath impermissible. So, the New Jersey government permitted Quakers to take an affirmation instead of an oath. Affirmations commonly included qualifying language such as "as far as consistent with my religious principles.” By 1778, all New Jersians were required to take an oath or affirmation to the New Jersey government; those who had not taken a Loyalty oath or affirmation (or signed the Continental Association before that) were barred from voting and officeholding. The Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meeting also considered the difficulties associated with Friends crossing enemy lines into New York and returning in Loyalist parties that robbed and plundered . On October, 1781, the combined meetings recorded: As there is a number of young people belonging to the Friends, removed from the verge of this meeting to New York, Long Island & Staten Island, some of whom have been privately returned back & committed acts inconsistent with our peaceable principles & thereby occasioned public scandal on our society, it is desired that Friends should consider whether such persons ought not to be publicly testified against. The outcome of their deliberations is unknown, but the willingness of devout Quakers to testify against former members linked to Loyalist raiding may show a desire to move closer to the New Jersey government toward war’s end. As the war wound down in July 1782, the Shrewsbury Friends finally agreed to pay taxes that supported the military. The Freeman's Journal (of Philadelphia) reported: We hear from Shrewsbury in New Jersey that the society of Friends, who are very numerous in those parts, have lately had a meeting to consider and provide against the ruinous tendency of being distrained on for taxes, as they have been these six years past. They are now consented to pay voluntarily to collectors, as other subjects of that State do. The Letters of the Hartshorne Brothers Letters sent to Richard Hartshorne (living on Rumson Neck) from Loyalist brothers, William and Lawrence, give insight into the views of a prominent Quaker family. In a March 20, 1778, William Hartshorne, in New York, wrote Richard Hartshorne to complain about his private letters being opened: The freedom that has been taken with the private letters of friends, however inoffensive they may be, has deterred me from attempting to convey one to you, but I can no longer refrain from endeavoring to have the satisfaction of hearing from you… At the same time, I seriously declare that I mean not to say one word that may do injury or give offense to any people on Earth. William Hartshorne further worried that he might suffer when his letter was read: The probability of this letter falling into the hands of people who may put meaning to words different from what I write – thought to convey, makes me very careful of what I say and not so particular in mentioning my own affairs as I wish to be. William Hartshorne wrote Richard Hartshorne again on September 19, 1778. This time he cautiously expressed hope of visiting the family. He also discussed affairs in New York and on Sandy Hook: “There has passed some compliments of a cordial sort between the commanding officer at S.H. & shore. I think there would not be much difficulty in procuring permission for being at home a day or two.” He also discussed a debate in New York about withdrawing from Sandy Hook (which would make contact between Loyalists in New York and disaffected in Monmouth County much more difficult): “Have found out that a great Revolution in politicks has been brought about in many little principalities in this neighborhood – from western to eastern – that poor S.H. must be given up.” In March and April 1779, Thomas Meadows (probably an alias used by Lawrence Hartshorne) wrote to R.H. (Richard Hartshorne) about the risk of sending letters to Shrewsbury. He also lampooned the Continental government and Colonel David Forman of Manalapan, a vigorous enemy of the disaffected: As there is considerable risqué in conveying letters, you will not hear from me in that way so often, however, I will sometimes attempt it and, in spite of all the lawmakers and lawgivers from Congresses down to Black David [David Forman], [I] will never call writing my brother corresponding with the Enemy. I think we may write to each other in a way that would not bring either of us into any disagreeable scrape even if they should unluckily fall into the hands of those heroes who, as volunteers, are sworn out to guard & protect or, in other words, to break open & plunder the dwellings of their neighbors. He also wrote of the anguish felt by brothers unable to visit family living across enemy lines: My brother would sometimes in a little boat visit his native shore and perhaps steal home to bless his aged parents with the sight of their son, but, of late, guards very frequently patrol the place of landing, so that my brother cannot without danger of being shot from behind the bushes and other skulking places where the guards often conceal themselves… Is it treason to warn him of this danger? His parents are in terror when they hear of his coming and although they long for nothing so much as to see him, could it be done without distressing his life? Lawrence Hartshorne also insulted unnamed Whig leaders: “I always make it a point to adhere to the spirit of the law immutable and to disregard the vile twistings of knaves & idiots.” As for Richard Hartshorne, he was the Monmouth militia paymaster through much of the war, but his warm contacts with New York Loyalists were discovered and he eventually became a Loyalist refugee himself. Perspective The author’s prior research demonstrates that more than a dozen Monmouth County Quakers served in British forces and even more served in the New Jersey (Whig) militia and state troops. Dozens more likely committed acts that, if detected, would have triggered disapproval from the Quaker meeting. These include assisting armed parties and participating in robberies. The war substantially intruded into the everyday lives of Shrewsbury Quakers. For example, the Shrewsbury Friends celebrated seventeen marriages between 1773-7, but only three from 1778-1783. The number of “witnesses” at these weddings also dropped from an average of 42 before the war, to 32 during the war. The pacifism of strict Quakers placed them squarely at odds with the laws of the State of New Jersey that mandated, among other things, militia service and fines for missing militia service. But in neighborhoods that were mostly ethnic-English, militia laws often went unenforced. This allowed many Quakers to ignore the law without penalty into the 1780s. Ultimately, the government of New Jersey made some concessions to Quaker principles and most Quakers evolved their principles to accommodate New Jersey law. Historian Richard McMaster argued that the requirements of the Revolutionary governments (militia service, loyalty oaths, taxes) pushed devout Quakers toward disaffection. These Quakers did not necessarily support the British, but they could not support a Revolutionary government with policies directly opposed to their principles. McMaster termed these Quakers "passive Loyalists" (to distinguish them from “active Loyalists” participating in the British war effort). Neutrality was the position of these passive Loyalists, as nicely stated by the Yearly Meeting of the Maryland Quakers in 1778: We believe it our indispensable duty to abstain from all wars and contests which have tendency to destroy the lives of men... we cannot, consistent with our religious principles, join with either of the contending parties, being thereby equally restrained from entering into solemn engagements of allegiance to either. Related Historic Site : Shrewsbury Quaker Meeting House Appendix: Shrewsbury Friends Disciplined for Participating in the War (see table 15 ) Sources : New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #3792; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel MR-PH 51; 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; Proceedings of the Committees of Freehold and Shrewsbury, Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, First Series, 1846, p 195; George Washington to William Livingston in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, pp. 331, 335. New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 4, May 7, 1777; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Freeman's Journal (Pennsylvania), July 12, 1782; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, Reel MR-PH, 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Letter, William Hartshorne at Edenton, NC, to his brother Richard Hartshorne in New York, March 20, 1778, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Letter, D. B. to Richard Hartshorne, September 19, 1778, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Letter, “Thomas Meadows” to R. H. dated “13th of the 4th Moon 1779. Possibly a pseudonym being used by Richard Hartshorne’s brother William, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Anonymous letter, addressed to R. H., dated “20th of the 3rd Moon 1779.," b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 8, 1780, p 20-21; Information on the marriages of the Shrewsbury Friends is in John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v1, p 306-14; Richard McMaster, "The Peace Churches of the American Revolution", Fides et Historia, v9, Spring 1977, p 8, 20. . 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 Battle of the 1500 at Middletown by Michael Adelberg In June 1781, a large British party raided present-day Holmdel. The Monmouth militia bravely resisted. Among the wounded was Lt. Garrett Hendrickson, whose house was in the path of the raiders. - June 1781 - By 1781, the British Army (including Loyalist units such as the New Jersey Volunteers ) had largely pulled back from raiding into New Jersey. Many of their most enterprising officers, such as Captain Patrick Ferguson who led raids into Monmouth County, left to fight in the Carolinas . Loyalist irregulars, including the Associated Loyalists , filled the void—launching numerous small raid s into New Jersey. However, the British Army still made a few large incursions in 1781. One of those large incursions, involving roughly 1,500 British and Loyalist regulars, was launched into Middletown on June 21, 1781. Some locals would subsequently call it “the Battle of the 1,500.” The Battle of the 1500 in Newspaper Reports The most complete narrative of the Battle of the 1500 was printed in the New Jersey Gazette a few days after the incursion. The report noted that “a body consisting of about one thousand new Levies [Loyalists], British and foreign troops, under the command of Cortland Skinner, made an incursion” with the “intention to plunder a place called Pleasant Valley.” Pleasant Valley (present-day Holmdel) was a solidly-Whig neighborhood in western Middletown Township. Alarm spread before the raiders arrived, allowing the locals to engage in “driving off their stock of every kind so that they [the raiders] found little booty.” The outnumbered local militia resisted bravely: The militia of the neighborhood were by this time beginning to collect, and a pretty smart skirmishing was kept up through the remainder of the day, in which we are informed that our people behaved with great spirit. The raiders then withdrew toward the Navesink Highlands, camping on Garrett’s Hill , where a militia party raided the camp of the raiders: “One of our gallant officers made a descent upon them and rescued a number of a stolen sheep.” The next day, the raiders carried off “about 40 cattle and 60 sheep… The loss on our side is one killed and three or four wounded.” Two homes were burned. The report speculated that the raider’s “aim was to have penetrated further into the country” but the spirited militia response forced the raiders to shorten the incursion: The militia of the neighboring counties were called upon, and it was truly surprising to see with what spirit and alacrity they flew to their arms and were crowding down from every quarter to the assistance of their brethren, which accounts for the hasty retreat of the enemy. A report published in the Pennsylvania Gazette on June 27 claimed that 1,200 raiders landed at Shoal Harbor and marched through Middletown to Pleasant Valley “in the course of which he burnt Mr. [John] Stillwell's house, a Quarter Master in the Monmouth militia, also Justice [Peter] Covenhoven's house.” This report also praised “the militia, under Col. [Asher] Holmes, turning out with the greatest alacrity” which “ obliged the raiders “to go with very little plunder.” The report also praised “David Forman, Esq. (formerly General)” for “serving with his countrymen and fellow citizens in the ranks.” As the incursion and skirmishing was occurring, Loyalist irregulars on Sandy Hook took advantage of the local militia responding to the alarm. The Pennsylvania Packet reported a brutal incident that day regarding a Lieutenant Otter, who was clamming on the Shrewsbury shore (the details of which may be exaggerated): A refugee boat commanded by one Insley, formerly of New Jersey, was dispatched from a sloop at some distance in pursuit of him. Lieut. Otter gained the shore and ran a small distance, but having forgot his coat, ran back to recover it, and just as he arrived at the boat, he was killed by a four pound shot, which passed through his body. Insley and some of his crew came on shore, when he deliberately rolled up his sleeves, tore the bowels out of Lieut. Otter and washed his hands and arms in his blood. The wife and children of the unfortunate Lieut. were eyewitness to this monstrous barbarity of this imp of Hell. The Battle of the 1500 in Officer Letters and Other Docs Two of Monmouth County’s militia colonels, Asher Holmes and Samuel Forman, called out their men to combat the British/Loyalist incursion. Holmes reported to Governor William Livingston: They landed this morning about 4 O’clock at Shoal Harbor - reports make them about 1500 or 2000 strong, was marching towards Middletown. I have called out my Regt. and shall march toward the enemy immediately, if they are so numerous as reports make them, [I] must request the assistance of the militia in neighbouring counties. Forman, at Freehold, wrote to Captain John Covenhoven (not the political leader of the same name): There is a number of the enemy landed at Middletown, I order your company to march down to the Court House with all speed -- as they collect their, by 30 or more, as that may happen -- they must march to join those who may be gone... I have 350 ball -- bring down powder to make up what cartridges you have need made. The third Monmouth militia colonel, Daniel Hendrickson, was likely in motion too. But no surviving document proves this. On June 23, Colonel Holmes at Freehold wrote a longer report on the raid to Governor Livingston: They landed at Shoal Harbor about 4 O’clock on the 21st instant, marched up to Middletown and then divided into two parties, the main body took the main road towards Freehold to the upper Baptist meeting house & then turned off for Pleasant Valley, the other party took the road from Middletown to below Middletown, where they lay all night - about eight O’clock yesterday morning, they began their march down to the Highlands, and in the afternoon went on board their vessels in the cove, made sail before night for New York. Holmes concluded that “their number was about 1500; the enemy missed their main object, which was the stock that was mostly drove off.” He reported on the destruction: They have burnt two houses, vizt. Peter Covenhoven, esq., in Middletown, and John Stillwell at Garrett's Hill; the number of horned cattle taken by best account is between thirty & forty, and not above sixty or seventy sheep. On casualties, Holmes reported no more than “four of our men wounded & four missing. The enemy left three of their dead behind & we have taken six prisoners." Holmes reported that he was unable to “get the militia embodied” before the enemy’s arrival, so the “attacks that were made were with small parties.” Holmes also reported that, while his men were called away to battle the raiders, "a party of refugees from Staten Island in boats landed at Shoal Harbor and took eight or ten horses . " Other letters reveal that considerable misinformation clouded the response to the raid. Captain Thomas Beatty of the Continental Army, stationed at Cranbury, initially refused to march his men toward Pleasant Valley. He wrote the Governor on June 22: "We have reason to believe the accounts [of the raid] coming to this place are untrue.” He continued, “several persons have returned and say that the militia of Monmouth County have been discharged from the field alarms.” Beatty reported that Colonel William Scudder (brother of Monmouth County’s Nathaniel Scudder and leader of the Middlesex County militia) also kept his men at Cranbury: “Col Scudder has thought fit to detain his regiment at this place & has dispatched a horseman to Englishtown, or to the Court House if necessary, for more certain intelligence." Interestingly, Scudder’s man returned from Freehold with a great exaggeration: “Genl. [Benedict] Arnold has entered Monmouth County with 3,500 men." A few days after the raid, Nathaniel Scudder, Monmouth County’s leading political figure, wrote Livingston about a false report of a new incursion against Shrewsbury. As a result: An express was immediately dispatched for Monmouth Court House, whence the alarm was spread every way - I was awaked [sic] between five & six o'clock with the pointed information as to their being in force & on their way to Shrewsbury. Scudder went to Cranbury to spread the alarm, but "on my way home, I heard it was a false alarm." False reports continued. On June 25, Colonel Elias Dayton of the New Jersey Line reported to George Washington that: "On the morning of the 21st a body of the enemy, said to amount to fifteen or twenty hundred men landed at shoal harbour near Middletown point.” The wildly exaggerated size of the incursion force compounded an account of the enemy’s intention to stay in Monmouth County: They had taken a position within four miles of Monmouth court-house. By the accounts from New York of their having carried with them tents, baggage &c. I am inclined to believe that it is their intention to establish a post in that country in order to annoy and harass the inhabitants and to collect cattle of all kinds… It appears that they gained very little by their expedition. Following the battle, three wounded men, Privates Philip Walling and Walter Hyer of the Middletown militia, and Private William Hall of the State Troops were granted military pensions for wounds received during the battle. Attending doctors signed certificates like this one from Dr. Thomas Barber: Thomas Barber swears that he attended as a doctor, Walter Hyer, who was wounded while fighting the common enemy, June 21, 1781, in the right fore arm, by a sword or cutlass, by which he lost part of the bone and his hand is rendered almost entirely useless. Hyer later wrote in his veteran’s pension application that he "was severely wounded by a troop of British Light Horse, his arm being wounded and part of one hand cut off… in consequence of his being disabled, he was allowed and received a pension of the sum of sixteen schillings & eight pence per month." The Battle of the 1500 in Veterans’ Pension Applications Including Hyer, the Battle of the 1500 was discussed in eleven Revolutionary War veteran pension applications (Henry Applegate, Samuel Carman, John Leyster, John Schenck, Walter Van Pelt, William Van Pelt, Joseph Walling, Phillip Walling, William Walling, Garrett Wikoff). Among all of Monmouth County’s military clashes, only the Battle of Monmouth is narrated in more pension applications. John Schenck, a militia captain who had co-led a raid against Brooklyn in 1778, was the only officer to narrate the incursion. He recalled being targeted by the raiders: “They attacked the house of the said John Schenck… the British and Tories at New York had offered a reward of twenty five guineas to the man would take or kill him." Schenck was out with the militia and not taken. Phillip Walling was wounded at the battle and depositions were taken to confirm the fact. Samuel Cottrell deposed that Walling “was taken prisoner by the British at the battle, while a prisoner saw Philip Walling lying in a yard between the house and barn of Garret Schenck… Walling was taken from the yard and carried into the barn, & laid on the barn floor- said Walling was lifeless and was very bloody." William Van Pelt deposed that he “took off the hat of the said Walling and examined his wounds, which were on his head and appeared to be sword cuts -- the said Walling was very bloody and almost lifeless -- this deponent spoke to him and received no answer." Other pensioners discussed the route of the raiders and specific skirmishes. Joseph Walling recalled a skirmish "at Monkacunk when a James Hull was killed and Abraham Vanderule was wounded, Garret Hendrickson and Adam Striker were also wounded." (For Hendrickson, it was his second time wounded.} Garrett Wikoff recalled that his militia company “flanked the artillery at the time of the skirmish… near Van Dorn’s Mill.” Samuel Carman was also at Van Dorn’s Mill, where "he had his horse shot thru the neck but made his retreat & escaped." Henry Applegate suggested that the raiders “were marching towards Monmouth Court House and were met and engaged near Colts Neck.” They were “driven back” by militia resistance. John Leyster similarly recalled: “They divided at Middletown, about half going toward Middletown Point & the other division taking the road to Bray's Meeting House.” Leyster recalled that “his company was engaged harassing them during the day of their landing… their attempting to burn and plunder being in most cases rendered wholly ineffectual by the indefatigable exertions of his & other scouting parties." The pension application of Walter Van Pelt (submitted by his widow, Nancy Van Pelt) included telling details about the young couple. Matthis Smith deposed that, "the house of said Walter Pelt was burned by a party of the enemy... they had been married and keeping house for only one year or more, and he remembers that all property and furniture in the house was destroyed, and they did not even save the Bible." Nancy Van Pelt also recalled that after the raid, her husband brought “the coat of a Hessian who had been killed in the battle, and hung it up in her bedroom, and she insisted on her husband removing the coat before she would go into the room." Some of the information in the pension narratives is incorrect. For example, Walter Van Pelt claimed that the Loyalist raiders were under "the command of the celebrated Tory, Colonel [John] Morris.” But Morris was retired from the military by June 1781. Perspective The incursion of June 21, 1781 was a failure. The British had expected to push further into Monmouth County (probably to Freehold), but stubborn resistance from Monmouth militia and state troops convinced the raiders to shorten the incursion. Their haul of about 100 head of livestock was only a little greater than the haul taken by raiding parties one tenth the size. The Battle of the 1500 would be remembered as the day when the men of Monmouth County faced down a larger enemy. While some recollections were romanticized, it was a great day for the Monmouth County militia and a remarkable turnaround from early in the war when the militia usually scattered after exchanging a few shots with the enemy. Related Historic Site : Holmes Hendrickson House Appendix: New Jersey Gazette Account of the Battle of the 1500 "From Monmouth County we learn that on Thursday last a body consisting of about one thousand new Levies, British and foreign troops, under the command of Cortland Skinner, made an incursion into that county: By their conduct it appears that it was their intention to plunder a place called Pleasant Valley, where they arrived about 11 A.M. with little or no interruption; the inhabitants had however exerted themselves in such a manner in driving off their stock of every kind that they found little booty. The militia of the neighborhood were by this time beginning to collect, and a pretty smart skirmishing was kept up through the remainder of the day, in which we informed that our people behaved with great spirit.—They began their retreat about sundown, and made no halt till they got to Garret’s Hill, where they continued that night, during the course of which one of our gallant officers made a descent upon them and rescued a number of a stolen sheep; the next day they embarked again, having captured and taken off with them, by the best count, about 40 cattle and 60 sheep, with the loss of one man killed and a number deserted; their loss in wounded is unknown: the loss on our side is one killed and three or four wounded.—They have burned two houses, but it is acknowledged in their favor that they behaved remarkably well to the persons of the people in general. By their coming out in such force it was expected their aim was to have penetrated further into the country, to prevent which the militia of the neighboring counties were called upon, and it was truly surprising to see with what spirit and alacrity they flew to their arms and were crowding down from every quarter to the assistance of their brethren on this occasion, which accounts for the hasty retreat of the enemy and rendered their further services unnecessary." Sources : National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Henry Applegate of Monmouth, www.fold3.com/image/#12036438 ; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - John Schenck; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Walling; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Joseph Walling; National Archives, Misc. Numbered Records, 4019; Pennsylvania Gazette, June 27, 1781; Pennsylvania Packet, June 28, 1781; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Pennsylvania Gazette, June 27, 1781 and July 4, 1781 (CD-ROM at the David Library, #29049, #29075); Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 303; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Walter Hier; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - William Van Pelt; National Archives, Revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Philip Walling; New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 15, June 21, June 23, 1781; To George Washington from Elias Dayton, 25 June 1781,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-06164, ver. 2013-09-28); National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#24475353 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Garret Wikoff of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/# NJ 28142503; William S. Stryker, Official Register of the Officers and Men of New Jersey in the Revolutionary War (Trenton: Naar, Day & Naar, 1872); Forman, Samuel S. Narrative of a Journey down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1789-90 (Cincinnati, R. Clarke and Co., 1888) p 9; William Livingston to Asher Holmes, Monmouth County Historical Association, Cherry Hall Papers, box 14, folder 10; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Walter Van Pelt; Pennsylvania Packet, July 12, 1781; Asher Holmes to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 224-5; Thomas Beatty to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 15, June 22, 1781; Asher Holmes to William Livingston, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 4, pp. 224-5; Nathaniel Scudder to William Livingston, New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 15, June 24, 1781; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Samuel Carman. 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 > Pulaski's Legion and the Osborn Island Massacre by Michael Adelberg Patrick Ferguson was among the most energetic officers of the Revolutionary War. His attack on Pulaski’s Legion was among the most brutal Revolutionary War incidents to occur in New Jersey. - October 1778 - On October 5, 1778, a 1,000-man British-Loyalist raiding party reached Little Egg Harbor (called Egg Harbor at the time), just south of Monmouth County. They blocked the harbor entrance and, with disaffected locals as guides, 300 men in four galleys went upriver to Chestnut Neck, New Jersey’s privateer boomtown . Brief cannon-fire from the boats scattered the local militia from the town. On October 8, the valuable British merchant ship, Venus , and ten other vessels were unloaded and then burned, as were the warehouses and the town’s unarmed fort. Some smaller vessels escaped by upriver, but the success of the attack was near-total. The raiders returned to the mouth of Mullica River at Egg Harbor. One of their larger ships, Granby , grounded in the harbor and this may be why the raiders stayed in Egg Harbor for the next week. During that time, the raiders sent out parties to destroy nearby salt works (a favorite target of Loyalist raiders) and take unwitting privateers entering the harbor. British leader, Edmund Burke, received a report that the raiders then razed “three salt works, and several stores were destroyed. The Raleigh , a fine American frigate was taken.” The British also sent a party to Cranberry Inlet (the entrance to the shore’s second busiest privateering port of Toms River ) to capture another vessel. Even before the raiders razed Chestnut Neck, American forces were moving to defend the area. Thinking the attack would be made against Elizabethtown, Governor William Livingston mistakenly sent militia from several counties in the opposite direction of the attack. However, George Washington had better intelligence and ordered the new Legion of Kasimir Pulaski (officered by Europeans but manned by Americans) and the artillery regiment of Thomas Proctor to defend Egg Harbor. By October 8, a formidable collection of American forces neared the area: 250 men under Pulaski, 220 men in Proctor's Artillery Regiment with cannon, 50 Philadelphia militia, and 300 Monmouth militia under Samuel Forman. But the American forces were uncoordinated—arriving at different times, from different directions. Pulaski left Trenton for Egg Harbor on October 6 and, according to the New Jersey Gazette "marched for that place with all his troops in high spirits and with great alacrity." Lacking the strength to attack the British, Pulaski camped ten miles north of their ships, on Osborn Island—a swampy piece of land at the edge of Egg Harbor and the southern tip of present-day Ocean County. Local histories say they stayed in the homes of John Ridgeway and Jeremiah Ridgeway, members of a disaffected Stafford Township family. Though most of the recruits into Pulaski’s legion were Marylanders and Pennsylvanians, at least one Monmouth Countian enlisted in the Legion as they marched to Osborn Island. Joseph Coward enlisted for eighteen months and probably guided the Legion to its camp, where they arrived no later than October 10. Jonathan Pettit of Egg Harbor would later submit a claim for feeding Pulaski’s men with 40 fowls, 1 barrel of cider, and 2 1/2 yards of new cloth (total value L20 S7) "taken by the men under Genl. Pulaski” on October 10. By October 14, a stalemate of sorts existed at Egg Harbor. The British raiding force was too strong to be attacked, but Proctor and Philadelphia militia had moved up the Mullica River to defend the state’s interior. To the north, Pulaski and the arriving Monmouth militia blocked further raids into Monmouth County. (The activity of the New Jersey militia is discussed in another article.) Pulaski’s position was revealed to the British by Carl Joseph Juliat, an officer under Pulaski who deserted to the British. Local teenagers, Thomas Osborn, and Richard Osborn were compelled to serve guides to the British. Well informed about Pulaski’s vulnerable camp, a British-Loyalist party under Captain Patrick Ferguson determined to row ten miles to attack Pulaski’s Legion at night. The Osborn Island Massacre The reports of Count Pulaski to the Continental Congress and Captain Ferguson to General Henry Clinton describe what happened on Osborn Island: Pulaski reported having his camp revealed to Captain Ferguson: “One Juliat, an officer lately deserted to the enemy, went off with them… with three men whom he debauched and two others whom they forced with them.” Ferguson reported similarly: “A Captain and six men from Pulaski’s Legion defected to us” and provided information on Pulaski’s camp. Ferguson opted to attack because “the winds detained us” at Egg Harbor. Pulaski’s description of the attack: The enemy, no doubt excited by this Juliat, attacked us at three o’clock in the morning with 400 men. They seemed at first to attack our pickets with fury, who lost a few men in retreating. Then the enemy advanced on our infantry. The Lieut. Col. Baron DeBose, who headed these men, fought vigorously, was killed with several bayonet wounds, as well as Lieut. De la Boderie and a small number of soldiers and others were wounded. This slaughter would not have ceased so soon if on the first alarm had I not hastened with my cavalry to support the infantry which then kept up a good countenance; the enemy soon fled in great disorder and left behind a great quantity of arms, accoutrements, hats, blades, etc… We took some prisoners and should have taken many more had it not been for a swamp through which our horses could scarcely walk. Ferguson’s account of the attack differs on key facts: At eleven last night 250 men were embarked and, after rowing ten miles, landed at four in the morning within a mile of a defile, which we happily secured, and leaving thirty men for its defence, pushed forward upon the infantry of the Legion, cantoned in three different houses, who are almost entirely cut to pieces. We numbered among their dead about fifty and several officers among whom we learn are a Lieutenant Colonel, a Captain and Adjutant. It being a night attack, little quarter could, of course, be given; so that there are only five prisoners. Pulaski reported that immediately after the battle, he was unable to “cut off the retreat [desertion] of about 25 men, who retired into the country and the woods.” Given the loss of these men and deaths from the battle, he could not launch a significant counter attack. Pulaski did not report that the arriving Gloucester County militia attacked Ferguson’s raiders during its withdrawal, but was badly defeated. Ferguson also discussed the withdrawal, “The rebels attempted to harass us in our retreat but with great modesty, so that we returned at our leisure, and re-embarked in security.” Ferguson reported his losses at only two dead and two wounded. One Loyalist newspaper claimed that 60 of Pulaski’s men were killed, another stated 53. American newspapers reported Pulaski’s losses “at about 30 men killed or missing.” Subsequent accounts reveal additional information on the so-called Osborn Island Massacre. Ferguson reported that his men spared the homes of James Willett and the Ridgeways, who hosted Pukaski’s men: “as the houses belonged to inoffensive Quakers, who may have already suffered sufficiently in the night's confusion." But Ferguson was also callous about killing Pulaski’s Legion “which is entirely cut to pieces.” He explained, “It being a night attack, little quarter could be given.” With accusations building about the brutality of the attack, Ferguson wrote a second account of the attack ten days after his first report: Capt. Ferguson set off in the night in boats with 250 men, rowed ten miles, landed, marched one mile to a bridge, at which he left fifty men, with the rest he marched a mile farther, surprised and cut to pieces the infantry of Pulaski's legion. Our soldiers were highly irritated against this brutal foreigner, who had given out in public orders to his men, never to give any quarter; in consequence of which our people took only five prisoners, all the rest, were left on the spot, the business being done with the bayonet only. Yet even here Capt. Ferguson had an opportunity of exercising his humanity; the houses in which were the baggage and equipage of Pulaski's legion, belonging to inoffensive Quakers, he left them untouched, rather than distress the innocent inhabitants by burning the quarters. Ferguson further noted his need to strike quickly given that “the rebel Colonel Proctor being within two miles with a corps of artillery." British political leader, Edmund Burke, reading reports from America, wrote that Pulaski’s sleeping men “were almost entirely put to the sword.” Burke also claimed that “Pulaski had given orders that no quarter should be given to our troops." Pulaski’s alleged order to grant no quarter seems unlikely since it was Ferguson who launched the pre-dawn surprise attack. Continental Army General William Heath was outraged by Ferguson’s murderous conduct and the weakness of the “no quarter” excuse: They surprised a part of Pulaski's legion in that neighborhood [Osborn Island], whom they handled very severely. The British pretended that they had heard that Pulaski had instructed his men not to give them quarter; they therefore anticipated retaliation. A British captain, Charles Steadman, clarified the controversy over Pulaski’s alleged “no quarter” order: Captain's Ferguson's soldiers were highly irritated by intelligence immediately before received from the deserters [of Pulaski's Legion] that Count Pulaski had given out in public orders to his Legion, no longer to grant quarter to British troops. This intelligence afterwards appeared false; but in the meantime, Captain Ferguson's soldiers acted under the impression that it was true. Ferguson’s party returned to their ships at 10 a.m. on October 15. The invasion flotilla weighed anchor that afternoon but had to leave behind and burn their flagship, Zebra , which had grounded. They had orders raid along the shore on their back. Ferguson recalled that his men were to "employ ourselves” by “looking into Barnegat and Cranberry Inlets, and destroy and bring off any vessels that may happen to be there, and demolish the saltworks, which are very considerable on the shores of these recesses." Slowed by contrary winds, the British did not return to Sandy Hook until October 22. Back on Osborn Island, a mob took young Thomas and Richard Osborn, who had guided Ferguson’s men. According to local histories, the mob would have hanged the Osborns but one of Pulaski’s officers saved them by arresting them. Pulaski wrote on October 16, “Two men who guided the enemy were taken in that operation, I have ordered them to Trenton, with some prisoners and arms.” The Osborns were charged with treason and acquitted on October 30 (presumably because they were forced to assist Ferguson). As for Pulaski, his Legion was decimated and humiliated. They headed north though poor and disaffected neighborhoods where the locals had no love for either European officers or their out-of-state recruits. Pulaski’s difficult march is the subject of the next article.\ Related Historic Site : Little Egg Harbor Friends Meeting House Sources : Franklin Kemp, A Nest of Rebel Pirates (Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1966) pp 22-4; Wilson, Harold F., The Jersey Shore: A Social and Economic History of the Counties of Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth and Ocean (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1953) pp. vol. 216-217; John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v3, p477; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Franklin Kemp, A Nest of Rebel Pirates (Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1966) pp 3-5, 29-35; Private Correspondence: Jack Fulmer, Personal Map of Egg Harbor; Damages by Americans, Burlington County Ledger, claim #59, New Jersey State Archives; William MacMahon, South Jersey Towns (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1973) p 302; David Fowler, egregious Villains, Wood Rangers, and London Traders (Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University, 1987) p 192; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Joseph Coward; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Jacob Davidson; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I42, Petitions to Congress, v 1, p 214; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; William Livingston to Lord Stirling, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 2, p 457; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 12, pp. 981, 984; New York (Royal) Gazette, October 24, 1778; Edmund Burke, An Impartial History of the War in America (R Faulder, London 1780), p 42-3; Patrick Ferguson’s account in Arthur Pierce, Smugglers' Woods, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960) p 50-1; Franklin Kemp, A Nest of Rebel Pirates (Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1966) pp 124-5; Patrick Ferguson to Henry Clinton, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office, CO 5, v93, reel 2, #420-37; Szymanski, Leszek, Casimir Pulaski: A Hero of the American Revolution, (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1993) pp. 211-2, 214; Richard B Martin, Runaways of Colonial New Jersey (Westminster, MD: Heritage Books, 2007) p307; William Fischer, Biographical Cyclopedia of Ocean County (Philadelphia: A.D. Smith, 1899) p 49; Patrick Ferguson, Report, The Scots Magazine, v43, p 29; Patrick Ferguson to Henry Clinton, Great Britain Public Record Office, CO 5/1089, p 151-3; William Heath, Memoirs of the American War, (Boston: Applewood, 1798), p 208; Franklin Kemp, A Nest of Rebel Pirates (Egg Harbor, NJ: Batsto Citizens Committee, 1966) pp 132-3; Frederick W. Bogert, "Sir Henry Raids a Hen's Roost,'" New Jersey History, vol. 98, n. 3-4 (Fall/Winter 1980), pp. 228-31; Richard Henry Spencer, "Pulaski's Legion," Maryland Historical Magazine, vol. 13 (1918), pp. 215-24; William Livingston to George Washington, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 80-1. Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > Committees Form to Resist British Policies by Michael Adelberg The Continental Association, October 1774, created a national template for resisting British policies—county and township committees were responsible for enforcing it. - June 1774 - To punish the people of Boston for their “Tea Party” and other defiant acts , the British Parliament passed the so-called Intolerable Acts in early 1774. Colonists across the Thirteen Colonies reacted by boycotting British goods. Americans started forming committees to enforce the boycott and coordinate dissent across localities. The citizens of Freehold Township met at Monmouth Court House on June 6, 1774 to consider the state of affairs. According to minutes of the meeting, they agreed “that the cause for which the inhabitants of Boston are now suffering is the common cause of the whole Continent.” They also endorsed "an entire stoppage of importation and exportation from and to Great Britain and the West Indies.” Finally, they appointed a standing committee to “join an association with the several other counties in this province in any measures that may appear best to the weal and safety of North America." The Committee would be comprised of John Anderson, Hendrick Smock, Asher Holmes, Peter Forman, John Forman, John Covenhoven, Nathaniel Scudder – each of whom would go on to hold important leadership positions in the fledgling American government. While the committees that would soon form in other Monmouth townships contained a mix of men who would support and oppose the Revolution, the Freehold committee was full of ardent patriots (they called themselves Whigs). This would distinguish Freehold from the other Monmouth County townships in the years to come . A week later, on June 13, Josiah Holmes, one of Shrewsbury’s leading citizens, received a letter from the Essex County Committee. He responded by meeting with some other leading citizens in Shrewsbury and putting up a public notice which began: The deplorable state of the inhabitants of the great and (until now) flourishing town of Boston is reduced to by means of the late cruel and inhumane act of the British Parliament, for the blocking up their port, is the fatal occasion that thousands are now destitute of employment, and are also destitute of bread; now they have only to depend on the charity of well-disposed Christians. It is therefore proposed to load a vessel with grain and other provisions from this County of Monmouth, to be sent immediately for their relief. Meanwhile, the people of Monmouth County were called on to participate in the selection of delegates for a Provincial Congress, a state body that would operate outside the influence of New Jersey’s Royal Governor. On July 19, citizens from four of Monmouth County’s six townships met at Freehold to establish a county committee (attending: Freehold, Upper Freehold, Middletown, and Dover; Shrewsbury and Stafford did not attend). In addition to selecting delegates to this new Congress, the attendees agreed to raise foodstuffs for the suffering in Boston and establish a county committee. The new Monmouth County committee declared that British taxes were “altogether unprecedented and unconstitutional” but they also declared loyalty to the King: “they do highly esteem and prize the happiness of being governed by so excellent a system of laws as that of Great Britain, doubtless the best in the universe.” The County Committee quickly became the quasi-government of Monmouth County—with help from the township committees of Freehold, Upper Freehold, Middletown and Dover. Shrewsbury and Stafford townships did not establish township committees until 1775. Over the next few months, the committees of Monmouth County enforced the boycott of British goods by advertising boycott violators. They also raised and shipped “1200 bushels of rye, and 50 barrels of rye flour” for the suffering people in Boston. And they resolved to establish a new militia outside of the control of the Royal Governor. Soon, the County Committee would take action against some of the county’s most public Loyalists. All of this was set in motion before the first Continental Congress established the Continental Association in October 1774—calling on all Americans to take the actions that had already occurred in Monmouth County. Related Historical Sites : Monmouth County Historical Association Sources : Edwin Salter, History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties (Bayonne, NJ: E. Gardner and Sons, 1890) p 43-50; Minutes of the Provincial Congress and Council of Safety , 1775-1770 (Trenton: Naar, Day and Naar, 1879) pp. 4-5; Allan Nevins, The American States During and After the Revolution , 1775-1 789 (New York: MacMillan Company, 1 922), p 44; Monmouth County Historical Association, Genealogical Files, folder - Revolutionary War Records of Monmouth County Soldiers ; Proceedings of the Committees of Freehold and Shrewsbury, Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, First Series, 1846, pp. 186-8; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p119-20; Edwin Salter, Old Times in Old Monmouth (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) p 301-2; Pennsylvania Gazette , November 2, 1774 Previous Next

The articles in the collection 250 for the 250th: The American Revolution in Monmouth County represent the most complete history of this topic ever assembled. < 250 Home < Previous pg. Next > New York Tories Find Refuge in Shrewsbury by Michael Adelberg Isaac Lowe served in the 1st Continental Congress and led protests against British policies, but he did not support independence. Fearing for his safety, he left New York for Shrewsbury. - July 1776 - The arrival of the British fleet on June 29 set the Loyalists of New York and New Jersey in motion. In Monmouth County, some Loyalists assembled and joined the British Army on Sandy Hook. However, many other Loyalists, due to age or preference, had no interest in serving in the British Army. They sought a place of safety as they came under increasing scrutiny from the Revolutionary governments of New York and New Jersey. Shrewsbury, where resistance to the Continental cause was well known, was such a place. New Yorkers Hide in Shrewsbury Township The first evidence of New York Loyalists seeking refuge in Shrewsbury is in the minutes of the New York Convention. On July 18, that body recorded “that John L. C. Roome requests that he may be sent a prisoner, on his parole, to Shrewsbury.” It is not recorded whether Roome’s relocation to Shrewsbury was approved, but he was in Shrewsbury, with or without consent, a week later. On July 26, Governor William Livingston wrote to Samuel Tucker, President of the New Jersey Convention: I have authentic information that some of the most malignant New York Tories have seated themselves in Shrewsbury; a very improper place on account of the facility it affords for keeping up a communication with the Enemy. Isaac Lowe and one Roome [John Roome] are particularly mentioned. That same day, Nathaniel Woodhull of New York Convention informed George Washington and the New Jersey Convention that New York Loyalists were seeking refuge in Shrewsbury. Woodhull had deposed Balthazar DeHart, a lawyer who practiced in the Monmouth County courts. He reported: When he [DeHart] left Shrewsbury, far the greater part of that place was inhabited, or rather, infested, with Tories... he has understood that their disaffection has been greatly increased by a number of persons who have gone from New York, and secretly labored to deceive the lower set of people, the higher being almost all disaffected. Woodhull named some of the Loyalists: Isaac Low, William Walton, Anthony Van Damm, John Roome, William Kipping, and [?] Hullet "a dance master." Woodhull also reported on the activities of Shrewsbury Loyalists: Joseph Wardell, John Corlies, and George Allen, went the week before last, or last week, to General Howe's camp, on Staten-Island, after, as they pretended, two negroes, who had run away from William Kipping and the said John Corlies; that they stayed some time there. The “negroes were delivered to them by Howe's order” which Woodhull took as proof that the Shrewsbury residents had pledged themselves Loyal to the British King (a prior British order said that slaves of rebels who agreed to serve the British cause would be freed, but slaves of Loyalists would not be freed. This might have increased unrest in Shrewsbury’s Black community). Dealing with New Yorkers in Shrewsbury Township On August 5, the New York Government sought to stop the further migration of Loyalists to New Jersey. It issued a public notice banning unauthorized travel: "No person whatsoever, either male or female, above the age of 14 will be permitted to pass to the State of New Jersey without a proper pass." The notice was not only printed in New York newspapers, it was also printed in Philadelphia papers. In 1776, New Jersey had no newspaper. Calls were made to the New Jersey government to take action against the New York Loyalists in Shrewsbury and the disaffected providing refuge to those Loyalists. On August 7, an anonymous New Yorker wrote Governor Livingston: I have received repeated information that a number of persons known to be inimical to the cause of the United States, or of suspicious character, have lately removed from this place [New York] into the County of Monmouth in New Jersey, with intent, no doubt, of communicating with and aiding our enemies. That same day, George Washington wrote the New Jersey Legislature a very similar letter (suggesting collaboration between the New Yorker and Washington’s aide-de-camp): I have received repeated information that a number of persons known to be inimical to the cause of the American States or of suspicious character have lately removed from this and other places to the County of Monmouth with the intent, no doubt... of communicating with and aiding the enemy. I must urge the necessity of your Congress of adopting the same measure [for arresting Loyalists] in all those parts of the Province that are contiguous to the enemy. Nine days later, George Washington wrote to the Councils of Safety of New York and New Jersey: I am informed, that in Consequence of my Letter acquainting you that a number of Persons deemed unfriendly to the Interests of America, were suspected of holding a Correspondence with the Enemy from Shrewsbury and its Neighborhood; Mr. Isaac Low late of this City has been apprehended, and is now detained under some kind of Confinement. Isaac Lowe was arrested, but released three days later. Without a sheriff [sheriff Elisha Lawrence was with the British] or functioning courts, it fell to the Monmouth County Committee to take action against the New York Loyalists in Shrewsbury and their local collaborators. On August 24, John Holmes of the Shrewsbury Township Committee sent a lengthy letter to Woodhull summarizing the Committee’s actions. Holmes broadly agreed with Woodhull’s characterization of disaffection in Shrewsbury: “Many parts of the County are exceedingly infested with Tories of the most inveterate disposition, owing in great measure to the malign influence of our late Attorney General.” This was reference to Courtland Skinner, the Attorney General under the Royal government, who was courting Loyalists to join the New Jersey Volunteers , of which he was named its Brigadier General. Holmes further suggested that the Shrewsbury township committee was, itself, disaffected and not to be trusted. As a result, the County Committee “constituted a sub-committee from our body, who are authorized to cite every inhabitant of New York within the Township of Shrewsbury to appear before them, and show cause why they not be immediately removed." John Holmes also discussed the three disaffected Shrewsbury residents who had visited the British Army on Staten Island to retrieve the runaway slaves: “They went under Col. [George] Taylor's permission, who granted them a flag [permission]; they had not been qualified. We have put them under oath, and have not been able to make any very important discoveries." Holmes discussed attempts to curb illegal trade with the British: A number of armed vessels have frequently been at anchor and hovering near the coast, and we have no doubt have had frequent intercourse with and supplies from the disaffected from this County... Our guards are now on the spot, and we have given orders that all stock be immediately driven from all beaches, we flatter ourselves that the enemy will be disappointed in any future attempt to procure provisions. Holmes claimed that "Gen. [Hugh] Mercer has arrived with a Continental guard at Shrewsbury, who have orders to seize and detain all craft belonging to said shores, and to apprehend such suspicious persons ...several arrests have been made." Continental Army records mention Continental guards in Shrewsbury but do not document General Mercer being at Shrewsbury.) However, Holmes’s account of driving livestock from the shore is corroborated by the records of the New Jersey Convention which, on July 23, recorded: Unanimously resolved and directed that the County Committee of Monmouth proceed, without delay, to remove all stock on their coast which may be in danger of falling into the hands of the enemy, back into the country. Holmes concluded that the events in Shrewsbury were exhausting the County Committee: "We have spent more time and undergone more vexation and fatigue than any other Committee of this State." The Monmouth County Committee likely uncovered some of the New Yorkers, but did not root out all of them. On December 3, 1776, Robert Bowne of Queens, New York, sent a letter from Shrewsbury to his brother in New York. Bowne summarized his status “in this time of great calamity,” he wrote: I have endeavored to avoid giving offence to any, have associated with very few, which I have found to be much the safest as there are many warm persons near us that are scratching at everything they can take the least advantage of to distress those who do not approve of their violent and unjust proceedings. He also discussed other New Yorkers still hiding in Shrewsbury. “The New Yorkers have all been threatened that they should be drove away from this quarter, tho' they [Whigs] have never put it in execution; many that was here have returned to New York.” The disaffection in Shrewsbury revealed in the letters of Woodhull and Holmes would soon be corroborated by the actions of a large association of Loyalists at Long Branch. Historic Site : Christ Church Sources : New York Committee of Safety, July 18, 1776, Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the state of New-York : 1775-1777, 2 vols., (Albany : Thurlow Weed, printer to the State, 1842) v. 1, item 541; Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, p 107; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 602-3; The Library Company, Pennslyvania Ledger, vol. 1, Jan. 1775-Nov. 1776; Paul Burgess, A Colonial Scrapbook; the Southern New Jersey Coast, 1675-1783 (New York, Carlton Press, 1971) pp 109; John Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1932) vol. 5, p 388; Selections from the Correspondence of the Executive of New Jersey, From 1776 to 1786 (Newark, NJ: Newark Daily Advertiser, 1848) p 7; New Jersey Convention resolve, Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 6, p 1651; Library of Congress, George Wahsington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw050383)) ; Peter Force, American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Clerk's Office, 1853), 5th Series, vol. 1, p 1534-5; Rutgers University Special Collections, Robert Bowne, AC 1246. 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 > Joshua Huddy's State Troops Stationed at Toms River by Michael Adelberg In February 1782, twenty State Troops went to Toms River to defend the village. They lacked provisions and their small fort, the Block House, lacked cannon. Loyalists would defeat them in March. - January 1782 - As discussed in prior articles, by 1781, much of Dover and Stafford townships in southern Monmouth County (present-day Ocean County) was disaffected by 1780—to the point that they were electing disaffected men into important local offices. Shore residents were tied into a profitable illegal trade between Monmouth County and British buyers at Sandy Hook and New York, the so-called London Trade. Active Loyalist irregulars, confederated into Pine Robber gangs allied with London Traders. The most prominent Whig enclave on the Monmouth shore (Whigs were people who supported the Revolution) was the port village of Toms River. The village and its port were tied into a privateering economy built on New England and Philadelphia vessels preying on British shipping going to and from New York. Privateers used Toms River to provision their ships and deposit prize vessels. In late 1780, residents of Toms River petitioned for a guard to help protect the village; a 30-man company of New Jersey State Troops under Lieutenant David Imlay was stationed there for a year, and then renewed for a second year. Throughout 1781, Pine Robber gangs in Stafford Township and Little Egg Harbor Township (in neighboring Burlington County) grew bolder. They routed the Stafford Township militia at Manahawkin in early December. In Toms River, locals were convinced that these Pine Robbers—25 miles to the south—posed a dire threat to the village. They sent a series of letters and petitions to Governor William Livingston and New Jersey legislators complaining of their danger. A December 10 petition signed by the leaders of Toms River and several county militia officers called for a new State Troop guard under Captain Joshua Huddy to protect Toms River: It was necessary for the protection of the good citizens of this State that a guard, consisting of twenty-five men, should be stationed at Toms River, and as the time of the present guard is nearly expired, we recommend to your Excellency and Honors Captain Joshua Huddy as a proper person to raise & command a guard to succeed the present, for the ensuing year. Huddy was a controversial figure in Monmouth County. On the one hand, he was a strong supporter of the Revolution and a brave soldier. In 1777, he raised a State Troops artillery company that marched from Colts Neck to Pennsylvania to fight at the Battle of Germantown . During the Battle of Monmouth, Huddy led a brash (and doomed) cavalry attack on the British baggage train. Huddy was also one of several Monmouth County officers who tried his hand at privateering , and managed a tavern at Colts Neck at a time when the village was the center of a campaign to crackdown on militia delinquents . On the other hand, Huddy had a knack for trouble. In 1779, he had a falling out with his wife, Catherine Hart (born Catherine Applegate), that resulted in his having to post an extraordinary bond of £15,000, to be cashed if he sold off any of her possessions. He had also cast out Catherine’s children "by means of threats or blows" and prevented the children "from living & continuing with him, the said Joshua, and Catherine." Huddy was hated by Loyalists for his role in the extra-legal hanging of the captured Loyalist, Stephen Edwards. He was also twice convicted of assault in the Monmouth County courts and was a frequent litigant for other reasons. Huddy was involved in the impressment and confiscation of goods from disaffected Monmouth Countians and joined the Association for Retaliation , a vigilante society established in July 1780. In August 1780, Huddy was the target of a Loyalist raid that temporarily captured him. The raiders were pursued by militia to Rumson, where a skirmish ensued as the raiders were loading themselves and their booty onto boats. Huddy was shot in the thigh (likely friendly fire), but was still able to swim to shore and narrowly escape capture. Raising Huddy’s Toms River Guard Out of respect for the concerns raised from Toms River residents, the New Jersey Legislature approved re-raising a company of State Troops for the defense of Toms River, with service to begin on January 1, 1782. As before, Asher Holmes would be the Colonel of the larger state troop regiment for all of Monmouth County. The captain of record would be John Walton, based in far-off Freehold Township. Huddy, through previously a captain, was now commissioned a Lieutenant reporting to Walton. Recruiting was slow—the regiment raised only 11 enlisted men in January—42 more men in February and 13 more men in March. Half the men were from Freehold Township—the home of Holmes and Walton. A third of the recruits were 21 years old or younger. It appears that Huddy arrived at Toms River with his guard sometime in February. A February 28 troop return provides information on the State Troops guarding Toms River. Nine of Huddy’s men enlisted in January, ten more enlisted in February. One man, William Case, had a term to begin on March 1. The guard was five men short of its full complement. The term of enlistment for all of the men ran through December 15. Problems with Huddy’s Company The State Troops were short on supplies, prompting Walton to complain to Azariah Dunham, the commissary officer for New Jersey, on March 10. Walton wrote that his men and militia responding to alarms (including a February raid against Pleasant Valley) "have some time past been without the rations due them.” Walton continued: There will be a great need of your Honor or some other Gentlemen to come down [to Monmouth to purchase provisions], whom you should appoint to fix someone to contract for us, as Mr. [John] Lloyd has been contracting for some time past without any orders from you, and says he has no money in hand. Dunham arrived at Freehold on March 19 and sought to hire John Covenhoven or Thomas Henderson as the new county contractor to replace Lloyd. Dunham acknowledged the low wages paid to the contractor but appealed to Covenhoven and Henderson’s sense of patriotism as the “militia and troops are now destitute." Covenhoven and Henderson acknowledged “our peculiar and dangerous situation,” but declined to serve as the county’s contractor for supplying the troops. They concluded: We would therefore request that you contract with some person of reputation in the county (if you can) to supply the troops and militia on the best terms that you can until the meeting of the legislature in order to save the county from ruin by the incursions of the enemy. In March 1782, Huddy’s guard at Toms River was undersized and lacking provisions. The men had only been together for a few weeks and their training and discipline was likely minimal. The State Troops had constructed a small fort (called “the block house”) to defend Toms River, but the emplacements for small artillery were empty. They were led by a brave but rash officer who was despised by the enemy. Huddy was so notorious to the enemy that his presence at Toms River might have drawn the attention of vengeful Loyalist leaders with the ability to direct raids. On March 24, a 100-man party of Associated Loyalists attacked Toms River . They likely outnumbered the State Troops and local militia by two-to-one. The Loyalists were also guided by William Dillon, a local boatman with a long list of grievances against the residents of Toms River. The Loyalists overwhelmed the State Troops, captured Huddy and many of his men, and razed the village. The attack on Toms River is the subject of another article, as is the terrible fate that befell Huddy after his capture. Related Historic Site : Joshua Huddy Park Sources : Monmouth County Petition, December 10, 1781, Library of Congress, MMC - Monmouth, NJ - Oversize, cabinet 2, drawer 7; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #3852, 3856A; Certificate, New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #5915; State Troop Return, National Archives, Collection 881, R 644; Joshua Huddy’s bond, Monmouth County Court of Common Pleas, Catalog of the Exhibition: Joshua Huddy and the American Revolution, Monmouth County Library Headquarters, October 2004John Walton to Azariah Dunham, Monmouth County Historical Association, Haskell Collection, box 1, folder 8; Azariah Dunham to Thomas Henderson and John Covenhoven, Monmouth County Historical Association, Haskell Collection, box 1, folder 8; Thomas Henderson and John Covenhoven to Azariah Dunham, in National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of of NJ, www.fold3.com/image/#23877643 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 Retaliators Outlast the War by Michael Adelberg The New Jersey Legislature met in different places during the Revolution, including Nassau Hall. In September 1782, the legislature censured Judge David Forman but did not remove him from office. - September 1782 - Founded in the summer of 1780, the Association for Retaliation , was established to exact eye-for-an-eye revenge against Loyalist enemies of the Monmouth County Whigs who joined the association. Over the next two years, the Retaliators would become an active vigilante society denounced by the New Jersey Legislature as: An illegal and dangerous combination, utterly subversive to the law, highly dangerous to the government, immediately tending to create disunion among the inhabitants, directly leading toward anarchy and confusion, and tending to the dissolution of the constitution. However, while the legislature clearly stated its distaste for the Retaliators, it stopped short of forcing a confrontation with the group by declaring it illegal. The Retaliators in 1782 The Retaliators entered 1782 unbowed. Their original chairman and most strident leader, David Forman, was now a judge of the Monmouth County Court of Common Pleas . He stepped down as Chairman of the Retaliators but, according to a subsequent deposition, Forman handpicked his successors at a February meeting of the Retaliators held at the county courthouse: Genl. Forman rose and address’d the people and said he had gone through a great many hardships and dangers, but now he would go through no more; and all that was said to the people was said by Forman whilst he was by, and received over a list of persons in nomination for Retaliators that Judge Forman recommended to the people to choose sd. Committee. The new Chairman, Kenneth Hankinson, had co-invested with Forman on a salt works at Barnegat that became the center of scandal. Hankinson was also at the center of scandalous Loyalist estate auctions in 1779. In January 1782, Hankinson advertised a public meeting of the Retaliators to occur at the county court house on February 16, 1782 to select a new committee to lead the group: Every associator is expected to attend without fail, as the Committee wishes to know the Associators; Should any of the inhabitants who are not yet associators choose to join, we wish their attendance to sign the Association, and have their names accepted. The outrage in Monmouth County following the April 12 hanging of Joshua Huddy by Loyalists likely spiked a wave of vigilante activity from the Retaliators. This led a series of complaints about them to the New Jersey Legislature. On May 25, the New Jersey Assembly recorded reading “several petitions from sd County setting forth the destruction and ravages committed on the property of persons there, by a set of men who call themselves Retaliators, with several papers respecting the same." The Assembly was unmoved, voting 23-8 on May 31 to send the anti-Retaliator petitioners to the courts for redress. There is no record of Retaliator activity through the spring and summer of 1782. Throughout their existence, they were secretive about their acts. But they remained active. The New Jersey Legislature Considers David Forman and the Retaliators Again On September 12, Guy Carleton, the British Commander in Chief in America, wrote George Washington about continued “cruelties in the Jersies.” This was likely a reference to the acts of Retaliators. Carleton wrote about a “suspension of hostilities” that he thought “sufficient to have prevented those cruelties in the Jersies which I have had occasion to mention more than once.” He had drydocked Loyalist raiders and he called on Washington for a “mutual agreement” to restrain extralegal violence. Carleton called for a truce: “I disapprove of all hostilities, both by land and sea, as they only tend to multiply the miseries of individuals, when the public can reap no advantage by success." The same month, the New Jersey Legislature received another set of petitions complaining of the Retaliators. The upper house of the legislature, the Legislative Council, recorded on September 23, receiving a petition from Monmouth County residents "setting forth that they have been very much injured by order of a body of men who style themselves Associators for Retaliation." It does not appear that the Council acted on the petition. Two days later, the Assembly recorded reading "sundry petitions from a number of inhabitants of the County of Monmouth, complaining of the conduct of David Forman, first Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Monmouth, accompanied by an affidavit and two impressment warrants , and praying a hearing." One of these anti-Forman, anti-Retaliator petitions has survived. It is excerpted below: Your petitioners are peaceable inhabitants of this state, who have always contributed their proportion to the support of government, and are, at all times amenable to the laws. that your petitioners have been in a wanton & cruel manner, spoiled of their property by order of a body of men, who title themselves "the association for retaliation" - our doors have been forced open, our houses rifled of our beds & other furniture - our stock drove away, and our teams totally broke up. - we have been deprived of the means of tilling our land - and many of us, who lived in a degree of affluence, now find it difficult to procure sustenance for our families. The petitioners claimed the Retaliators corrupted “good government” and deprived them of legal due process: We have no form of tryal - if any crimes are laid to our charge, we have no chance of defending ourselves, nor any account of how our property, thus torn away, is disposed of. Tho’ diverse of us have been imprisoned, and one [John Taylor] for months, confined in the common gaol, in the course of which time a court of Oyer & Terminer was sitting over his head. Writs of habeas corpus have been disregarded by the Sheriff. In short, every attempt for relief by course of law has been of no effect, owing, as we firmly believe, to the prevailing influence of said association. that the first judge of the court of common pleas, David Forman, esq., has been at the head of the said association. The petitions were referred to the next session. The Assembly reconvened and considered Forman and the Retaliators again on October 29. It re-read "the petitions from Monmouth, complaining of the conduct of David Forman, Esq., of said county, in his official character… ordered, that the petitioners be heard with their evidences before the House." The hearings were held November 18-20: That Forman, first Judge of the Court of Common Pleas has been at the head of the Association for Retaliation, Chairman of their committee, and has signed orders whereby some of the petitioners have been plundered of their property and their person imprisoned; that he still continues as an aider and encourager of the said Associators; and also that he has in several instances granted impress warrants contrary to law. The transcript of Forman’s hearing before the Assembly has survived. Eighteen Monmouth Countians testified. Deponents focused on two allegations against Forman: 1.) That he was “partial” in his role of settling the accounts of a wealthy farmer, Joshua Anderson, whose horse Forman ordered taken; 2.) That Forman, while judge, acted with the Retaliators to extra-legally seize and sell the horses of disaffected county residents, with particular impunity shown toward William Taylor. Four other men who lost horses testified. Hugh Newell recalled appealing to Forman who told him that if he “would come and pay the money he gave for the mare, he should have it.” Taylor lost three horses, he testified that: He applied to said Forman for the creatures & said he would give security for the money, but said Forman said the creatures should not go out of the yard without the creatures being paid for. He [Taylor] said all he wanted was a fair hearing. William Morton testified that Forman accused him of being among “a parcel of traders and wished they were hanging so high that the birds could not smell them.” Morton was permitted to take back his livestock by “giving a bond of fifty five pounds for them” but Forman “blamed the Committee” for its leniency. A fourth man, Garrett Schenck, from a solid Whig family, testified that “Forman ordered a horse pressed” from him, but the horse was returned. Others testified that Forman was active in selling the seized horses at a public auction in Freehold. However, several witnesses testified that Forman was a strong patriot and William Taylor, in particular, was of “bad character.” James Mott, who had been assaulted by Forman at the 1780 county election and was an opponent of the Retaliators, declined to testify against Forman. Mott stated that “he knows nothing against Judge Forman” and called Taylor “a disaffected person ” (which was true). Other witnesses stated that Forman, whatever his outside conduct, had never “withheld justice” or “done injustice” while serving on the bench. The unnamed compiler of the hearing transcript concluded that “I have heard no evidence to convince me that things are sufficient to ground an impeachment.” On November 21, the Assembly concluded: "having taken into consideration the testimony so offered to support the several charges contained in the affidavits and petitions of Joshua Anderson against David Forman" votes were taken regarding Forman and his conduct: 1. Affirming Anderson's petition and the charges against Forman – vote passed "nem. con." (without dissent); 2. On whether to censure Forman for "diverse orders whereby sundry persons have been plundered of their property, and their persons imprisoned, and he still continues an aider and encourager of said Retaliators" -- vote passed 16-13 despite all three Monmouth delegates (Thomas Henderson, Thomas Seabrook, John Covenhoven voting against the censure); 3. On whether to impeach Forman and remove him from the Bench – vote fails 12-17 (all three Monmouth delegates voting against the impeachment). One source claims that an initial vote to impeach and remove Forman passed by a 18-15 but this vote was reversed after Governor William Livingston and some members of the Council came into the Assembly to argue in favor of Forman. At the end of 1782, David Forman had narrowly survived an impeachment hearing and the Retaliators, with whom he was allied, remained intact. The Retaliators’ chairman, Kenneth Hankinson, felt secure enough to advertise the selection of their new board of directors in the New Jersey Gazette , the state’s official newspaper, twice in March 1783: Whereas the time of the Committee of Associators for Retaliation of the County of Monmouth expires, and it being necessary for a new Board to be chosen as there remains some business unsettled: The Associators are requested to meet at the Court House on March 15 to determine on said business and to be prepared for future depredations. Warfare Ends, But the Retaliators Continue By summer 1783, warfare in Monmouth County was finally over. John Bacon, the last active Pine Robber leader, was dead and the other Pine Robbers were scattered. Loyalist refugees, who raided the county with impunity, were disarmed and leaving for Canada . In July 1783, Monmouth County was at peace for the first time in seven years. Forman and the Retaliators, however, remained hostile. On July 11, 1783, Lieutenant John White of the sloop-of-war Vixen , the British guardship at Sandy Hook, took the unusual step of writing directly to David Forman: Yesterday morning, at eleven o'clock, I sent three men in a small boat for a cask of water, near the watering place, near Mr. Stout's at the Highlands; on their arrival they were made prisoners by a party of armed men, one of the men has been liberated and is since on board, who informs me that he has been beat most unmercifully, indeed his bruises are sufficiently conspicuous; what has become of the other two I cannot learn, I have therefore taken the liberty of acquainting you with the matter. White then flattered and threatened Forman concurrently: I am confident you would never give sanction to such an affair, and in the fullest hope that you will take the proper methods to bring the offenders to punishment, and to prevent the retaliating that might be the consequence of such unwarrantable proceedings. Meanwhile, animosities within the county’s Whig leadership continued. Asher Holmes, a political rival of Forman and Hankinson, had invested with them in a salt works on the Jersey shore early in the war. Now, he and Hankinson argued over a business relationship gone bad. Holmes heatedly wrote: I have never had title or anything to show for my share of the salt works built on the plantation formerly of [Trevor] Newland, nor could obtain salt sufficient to salt my porage, except what I paid a dear rate for, and you and company have had the total use of said works. I now demand interest of my money, or rent for a share, with a proper acct of how my money was laid out; if not, pay me my money with interest due thereon, as I have undoubted right. We do not know exactly when the extralegal violence and scandals of the Retaliators finally ceased. As discussed in another article, isolated instances of violence against Loyalists and disaffected continued into the post-war period. So did the animosities between Machiavellian and Due Process Whigs. These activities would go on at least into fall 1785 when violence and voter intimidation again rocked the county’s annual election (as it had in 1777 , 1780 , and 1781 ). Related Historic Site : Nassau Hall Sources : Guy Carleton to George Washington, G. Robinson, The New Annual Register, or General Repository of History, Politics and Literature, London, 1782, p160-1; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1782) p29; Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, September 25, 1782; The petition complaining about David Forman is in Leonard Lundin, Cockpit of the Revolution the War for Independence in New Jersey (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) p 292; Petition, New Jersey State Archives, Collective Series, Revolutionary War documents, #32; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 29, 1782, p 13; Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 19 and 21, 1782; New Jersey Assembly Hearing Transcript, Rutgers University Special Collections, Uncataloged Manuscript, David Forman; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; New Jersey Gazette, March 12, 1783; New Jersey Gazette, April 16, 1783; John White to David Forman, David Library of the American Revolution, Great Britain Public Records Office, British Headquarters Papers, #8405; Asher Holmes to Kenneth Hankinson, John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, 4 vols, Genealogical Publishing Co, 1970, v3, p341. 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 > Burying the Dead and Recovering the Wounded after the Battle of Monmouth by Michael Adelberg The Battle of Monmouth raged around the Tennent Church in Manalapan. The church became an impromptu hospital as wounded were brought there throughout and after the battle. - June 1778 - When the British Army withdrew from Freehold and headed for Middletown following the Battle of Monmouth, the Continental Army was left in possession of the battlefield. By European military tradition, possession of the battlefield gave the Continental Army the honor of claiming victory. With this honor came responsibility for considering the damages of the battle and cleaning up a battlefield strewn with the bodies of hundreds of dead and dying men. Burying the Dead George Washington called upon Lt. Colonel Cornelius Van Dyke to coordinate the grim task of locating and burying the dead. Early on June 29, the Army’s general orders included this notice: "a party of 200 men to parade immediately & bury the slain of both armies." Van Dyke divided the men into thirteen burial parties. After two days of burial duty, he compiled "A Report of the British and American Troops Fallen in the Action near Monmouth & Buried Under Care of Coll. Van Dyke and Different Officers.” The report indicated his parties buried 190 British and 29 Continental bodies; 27 more British were buried "by different inhabitants." Van Dyke noted that additional British soldiers were buried by the enemy before it left Freehold and were not included in his tally. According to the British “Inventory of Losses by the British Army” compiled immediately after the battle, that was another 60 men. Combined, these sources suggest that 304 men were buried on the battlefield. This does not include men who died elsewhere during the Monmouth campaign, or wounded who died shortly after the battle. Other Continental accounts offer similar, but not the same number, as Van Dyke’s 304 buried bodies. Continental Army Officer, Persefor Frazer, wrote that "258 have been buried by a party sent from our Army for that purpose.” Frazer also noted that “a great number were buried by” the British before they left Freehold “and numbers more have been interred by the Country people." Continental Army Officer James Chambers wrote on June 30 that the previous day "our fatigue parties were collecting the dead in piles and burying them." Chambers wrote that the parties buried 200 British and 30 Americans. A few days after the battle, Gen. Joseph Cilley wrote that “left on the field, about three hundred of the enemy's dead, with several officers.” George Washington’s Secretary, James McHenry, wrote on June 30: “As we remained masters of the ground, of course the burying of the dead became our duty, the returns of the parties employed for that purpose amount to 233 killed.” All but 52 of the bodies were from the British Army. In addition to the battlefield dead, McHenry said that 30-40 British soldiers died from skirmishing during the Monmouth Campaign and 100 more British died from heat stroke during the march. Washington, in his report to Congress about the battle, avoided providing a precise figure: “By accounts from Monmouth more of the Enemy's dead have been found. It is said the number buried by us and the Inhabitants exceeds three Hundred." Two accounts suggest a much larger body count. Dr. Samuel Adams of the New Jersey Line suggested that 300 British fell during the battle and 200 more Continentals. John Chittendon of Connecticut claimed that he "he helped berry [sic] 500 dead bodies." It is possible that Adams and Chittendon offered higher figures because they included the apparently large number of bodies found after Van Dyke’s burial parties quit the field. Sgt. Enos Barnes wrote of being sent to gather up the dead on June 29: "Our next business was to gather the dead together in order to bury them, which we did, going about in wagons, loading them up, bringing them together and burying about twelve or fourteen a hole." Captain John Nice, wrote about finding dead bodies "on the field and strewn through the woods; more was found afterwards by the country people when they began to smell." Dr. William Read wrote about dead soldiers left in a bog, “mired to the waist and probably shot." The “country people” of Freehold Township spent several days burying the dead. Richard Kidder Meade, a Continental officer, wrote from the Continental camp Englishtown on June 29 that "many of their dead have been buried by the country people, and other bodies since found." General Anthony Wayne wrote that while Continental burial parties “remained on the ground for two or three days after the action to bury the dead” the country people “discovered more bodies every day in the woods." And, as noted above, Persefor Frazer noted that many additional dead “interred by the Country people.” Recovering and Caring for the Wounded The British left, according to General James Pattison, 45 wounded men when they retreated from Freehold . They did so, because "we were under necessity of leaving a great part of our wounded officers and men behind, for want of a sufficiency of wagons to bring them off." David Griffith of Virginia offered a slightly more detailed account on the British wounded left behind. They [the British Army] retreated in a great hurry in the night, leaving behind them at Monmouth Court House, four Captains & forty-nine Privates and Sergeants, with a surgeon to take care of them. These were all too badly wounded to be moved. They left behind all the officers & prisoners they had taken in their march, which consisted chiefly of militia & people they had taken from their houses. James McHenry noted that other British wounded were recovered beyond those left at the Court House. McHenry wrote, "they left at Monmouth Court House 45 of their own, we found several others in the field… near some little brooks, we found a dozen of their soldiers.” The French officer Chevalier de Pontigibaud left Englishtown for Freehold and saw several corpses from heatstroke: "We found many soldiers dead without having received a wound.” On reaching Freehold, he wrote: “The enemy had left some of his baggage behind and his wounded; they were to be found in every house and in the [St. Peter’s] church." Dr. William Read wrote vividly about finding wounded on the field. Read came upon a British officer in his final minutes: Saw an officer lying a few yards from the morass, nearly cut in two by cannon shot; he was alive and spoke, implored Dr Read to lift him to a tree which stood near, alleging he had been all night trying to do so 'so that he might die easy'. The clotted blood was piled up several inches on his front and it had ceased to flow... they placed him against a tree, the blood now began to flow precipitately and in all probability terminated his life. He came upon another British soldier calling for water and "uttering the most dreadful and severe imprecations of the rebels.” He brought water to this man and others. While helping the wounded, "some country people and Negroes coming to the field of carnage, Dr. Read enlisted their feelings, and hired them to assist in turning these wounded men, and at length in procuring wagons and straw to remove them to the Court House.” The wounded were generally taken to two improvised hospitals at the Tennent Church in Manalapan and the county courthouse in Freehold. Captain John Shreve wrote about the activity at the Tennent Church on June 29: I halted at the Presbyterian Meeting House & barn, both filled with wounded men of the American and the English; the surgeons of both armies (the enemy had left several), after having been twenty-four hours dressing the wounded, had not got through. Dr. Read, as noted above, spent June 29 bringing 21 men from the battlefield to the county courthouse. He tended to the wounded, "aided by lint and bandages" supplied by locals. "Dr Read continued to dwell in the Court House, sleeping in the Judge's bench" and serving the wounded "at his own expense." Read continued to tend to the wounded at the courthouse until July 4 when he was relieved by two surgeons from New York. Continental doctors stayed at Freehold into August. Dr. Samuel Adams of Continental Army worried that in the summer heat, the wounded were in "no very agreeable situation, the ground being rather low, and the air confined by surrounding woods, which makes fever and ague flourish here." It is unknown exactly how many men successfully convalesced and how many died in Freehold in the summer of 1778, but at least two men died. Matthew Roads, a musician in the New Jersey Line, died at Englishtown shortly after the Battle of Monmouth (having fallen from heatstroke). Private John Sayre of the Essex County Militia, wounded in battle, fell into a coma on the 29th and died ten days later. Others recovered. Moses Etsey of Middlesex County recalled having a “wound that bled very freely, but not dangerously.” He received encouraging words from George Washington: Whilst bleeding, General Washington rode up to him, inquired very kindly by the nature & entry of his wound, directing that he should be carried to a place where his wound could be dressed, enjoining him to be very careful of infection until his recovery. Joseph Kelly of Middletown (serving in the Pennsylvania Line) recalled being wounded in the battle: He [I] was wounded while at the cannon, two bullets or ounce balls entered into the sides of the calf of his leg and the big toe on the left foot, tore off, the balls were taken out afterwards, but a buckshot he received in his right knee is still in the joint of the knee, which has never been entreated. This deponent, after being wounded, was taken to a house near the battleground, where his wounds were dressed, he was then carried to the meeting house where the wounded was taken, and staid [sic] there until he was able to join the army. Cannot remember the date he returned to the army. Joel Bower of New York was also wounded that day. He spent the night on the battlefield before being rescued: "The next day we were conveyed a few miles to a barn which was used as a kind of temporary hospital. From this place, we were sent to Morristown." Following the battle, different parties carried the wounded to hospitals in Princeton, Hightstown, and Morristown. June 29 Army orders noted that “A sergeant & 12 men from Genl. Maxwell's Brigade to guard the sick to Princeton." A party of Monmouth militia was sent “"to Hightstown with four wounded men, who were to be conveyed to the hospital." Mark Lender and Garry Stone, in their exhaustive study of the Battle of Monmouth, noted that most of the wounded were transported to permanent hospitals in Princeton and Morristown, but the men who were too wounded to move stayed in Monmouth County, where they were cared for in private homes. The British Army assisted by sending two surgeons to Englishtown on June 30 and two more surgeons, along with a wagon of medical supplies, a few days later. Indeed, General Henry Clinton "thanked Gen Washington by flag for his humane and generous treatment of the wounded and for the honors of war paid Col. [Henry] Monckton and other officers who were killed and left on the field of action." A letter published in the London Gazette also praised the Continental Army’s treatment of wounded British soldiers: We have accounts from Freehold that the four wounded officers of the Royal Army left with the soldiery, the flag, the surgeons, are as well as can be expected and are treated in a manner that does much honor to the American gentlemen whose protection and care they are under. The humanity shown to British soldiers in July would not be reciprocated the next time British and Continental troops clashed near Monmouth County. In a nighttime attack in October, British and Loyalist regulars would slaughter dozens of Continentals camped on Osborn Island at the southern tip of present-day Ocean County. That is the subject of a different article. Related Historic Site : Old Tennent Church Sources : Ritchie, Carson I. A. “A New York Diary of the Revolutionary War.” in Narratives of the Revolution in New York (New York: New-York Historical Society, 1975) pp. 239-41; Jedidiah Huntington’s Orderly Book, New York Historical Society, Orderly Books Collection, reel 5, #60-61; Henry Lee, Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United States. (New York: University Publishing Co., 1869), p 113; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p 508; British Army Return, Monmouth County Historical Association, Collections Alphabetical, Revolution folder 1; Persifor Fraser, General Persifor Fraser (1907), pp. 182-3; Joseph Cilley’s letter in Elliott Cogswell, History of Nottingham, Deerfield and Northwood (Manchester: John Clarke, 1878) p 181; George Washington to Congress, July 7, 1778, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw120194)) ; Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application of John Chittendon of CT, National Archives, p5; Sgt. Enoch Barnes Diary, Monmouth Battlefield State Park, Battle of Monmouth files: folder - James Kochan; Albert Venderveer’s account in Three Generations from the Battle of Monmouth, Journal of the NY State Historical Association, vol. 9, n 3, July 1928, p 279-84; Report of Troops Fallen at Monmouth, Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, series 4, roll 50, transcribed by Garry Wheeler Stone; John Thompson, Revolutionary Letters, The Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 28, April 1859, p 298; Robert Douglas, The Chevalier de Pontgibaud, a French Volunteer of the War of Independence (New York: Leopold Classic Library, 2015) p 56; Garrard, L. H., Chambersburg in the Colony and in the Revolution (Philadelphia, 1856) pp. 51-2; William Read’s account in 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, p 32-3; Frederic Kidder, History of the First New Hampshire Regiment in the War of the Revolution (Albany, NY: Joel Munsell, 1868) pp. 42-3; The Battle of Monmouth, as Described by Dr. James McHenry, Secretary to Gen. Washington, with notes by Thomas H. Montgomery, Magazine of American History, June 1879, pp. 355-60; Copy: Letter of Capt. John Shreve, David Library, Battle of Monmouth Collection, #5; Robert Morris to Mr. Cooper, Monmouth County Historical Association, J. Amory Haskell Collection, folder "Battle of Monmouth"; Anthony Wayne, The Life and Services of Gen. Anthony Wayne (Philadelphia, 1845), p. 64; David Griffith to Hannah Griffith, Monmouth County Historical Association, J. Amory Haskell Collection, folder "Battle of Monmouth"; Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p199; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Joseph Kelley of PA, www.fold3.com/image/# 26180227; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Joel Bower of New York, www.fold3.com/image/#11092848 ; Orderly Book of the 8th Massachusetts Regt., Book 2, June-August 1778, Huntington Library, HM 719; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Samuel Burke; Samuel Adams to Sally Adams, letter, July 2, 1778; NYHS, Gilder-Lehrman Collection; Samuel Adams to Sally Adams, letter, David Library of the American Revolution, Sol Feinstone Collection, reel 1, #28-30; Return of Dead Bodies, Correspondence File: letter from The Friends of the Monmouth Battlefield; "Notes on the Battle of Monmouth" (orginally published in the London Gazette, September 17, 1778), reprinted in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Volume 14, 1890, pp. 46-47. 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 > David Forman and the Continental Army Red Coats by Michael Adelberg Re-enactors in the blue-coated uniforms of the 3rd New Jersey Continental Regiment. David Forman’s Monmouth County regiment, in contrast, wore red coats taken from the British. - April 1777 - The Continental Army was faced with many problems, particularly early in the war. Among them was the inability to provide uniforms to its troops. When David Forman started raising his Additional Regiment of the Continental Army in January 1777, there were no uniforms available. George Washington was aware that Forman’s men needed uniforms. On April 17, he wrote James Mease, the Army’s Clothier General, about “a sufficient quantity [of uniforms] for Colo. Forman's Regiment of which they are in immediate want.” But the uniforms that were available were thick wool and ill-suited for the spring. Washington “directed the Colo. to have the heavy woolen linings taken out of the Coats… as they will be too warm for summer.” What is most interesting about these uniforms is that they were red; they had been taken from the British Army. David Forman’s regiment would be unformed as British soldiers. This concerned George Washington, who instructed his aide, George Johnston, to write Forman on May 9: "His Excellency conceives of the disadvantages and dangers that must attend our troops being clothed in scarlet; desires that you would have those drawn dyed some other color." Forman’s men spent the summer of 1777 in a salt marsh near on the shore building a salt works co-owned by their Colonel. The men grew sick and lacked provisions. Desertions resulted. In July and August 1777, two Pennsylvania newspapers advertised desertions from David Forman's Additional Regiment. One noted the deserter was in a uniform described as "scarlet and buff with pewter buttons." The second newspaper account described the deserter's uniform as "red coat with buff-colored facings, with woolen jacket, buff breeches and wool hat cocked up." A shore resident and militiaman, Samuel Lippincott, recalled meeting Captain John Burrowes of Forman’s regiment "who commanded a company which were termed Red Coats from the color of their outer garments." Forman’s red-coated Continentals participated in the Battle of Germantown , where Colonel Asher Holmes, leading the Monmouth militia, referred to them as “the Red Coats under Gen. Forman.” General Alexander MacDougall of the Continental Army also described that “Forman's Red Coats stood firm and advanced upon the British Red Coats." It is known that the Battle of Germantown was fought in poor visibility (due to fog and smoke from gunpowder filling the air). The Continental Army held firm at first, but broke lines amidst confusion about British positions. There was friendly fire between Continental units. Koert Schenck of Monmouth County recalled that Forman’s men “who all wore red coats and were fired at by some of our troops by mistake.” The origin of these uniforms is briefly discussed by Rachel Henderson, wife of Dr. Thomas Henderson, a friend of Forman’s. In a statement provided in Daniel Applegate’s postwar veteran’s pension, she wrote of Forman’s regiment “in regular uniform red coats, the said red coats having been taken by the Militia of Monmouth County from a British vessel captured in Raritan Bay.” Henderson’s account is corroborated by Abraham Melat’s testimony in his postwar veteran’s pension application: He was with a number of others, marched to Freehold and then put under the command of Col David Forman & company, consisting of about 30 under the command of Capt. John Burrowes, marched to the Monmouth shore to protect it, while there, a British vessel was wrecked, from which he took a large quantity of clothing and all the company, when he returned to headquarters were dressed in clothes we took from the British ship. Finally, Daniel Hygate’s testimony in Thomas Henderson’s pension application further corroborates that Forman’s regiment wore uniforms taken from the British: "said men raised & under drill & in regular uniforms, in red coats, the said red coats having been taken by the militia of Monmouth County from a British vessel captured in Raritan Bay." It is also known that David Forman used his own money to clothe his men. On March 1, 1778, as Forman was losing command of his regiment as a result of a dispute with the New Jersey Legislature , he submitted a £467 bill for clothing them over the course of "18 days of purchasing." The Continental Army’s account books also list $10,000 owed Forman in December 1778 for expenses incurred for equipping and clothing his men. As late as 1781, the New Jersey State Treasurer was carrying a line item for £961 in bounties and clothing expenses owed to Forman for his Additional Regiment. It is unknown whether Forman had to purchase the captured British uniforms for his men or if the uniforms were condemned to him as a prize of war with the captured vessel. Either way, Forman faced additional expenses in clothing his men beyond their uniforms. For example, shoes were an expensive necessity also in short supply. It is a fascinating irony that the regiment of Continentals raised to defend Monmouth County from British attacks wore British uniforms. This serves as a good reminder that the early Continental Army was truly a threadbare operation. Related Historic Site : Cliveden (The Chew House) Sources : Geore Washington to James Mease, John Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington, US Govt Printing Office, Washington DC, 1932, vol 7, 420-2; George Johnson to David Forman, Neilson Family Papers, box 1, folder: Rutgersania, Rutgers University Special Collections Charles Lefferts, Uniforms of American, British, French & German Armies in the Revolution (New York: 1926) p 78; Asher Holmes, Letter Concerning the Battle at Germantown, 1777, Proceedings of the NJHS, vol 7, 1922, p34-5; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Treasury, Auditor's Acct. Books, Book B, Ledger A, reel 181, #35-6; Account List, Clothier General, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I59, Miscellaneous Papers, v 2, p 143; Thomas Henderson (W426), Forman’s Regiment and Monmouth County militia, Supplementary deposition of Daniel Applegate, 21 April 1837, transcribed by John U. Rees; Forman, Samuel S. Narrative of a Journey down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1789-90 (Cincinnati, R. Clarke and Co., 1888) p 9-10. Franklin Ellis, The History of Monmouth County (R.T. Peck: Philadelphia, 1885), p 735; National Archives, revolutionary War veterans Pension Applications, New Jersey - Samuel Lippincott; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Abraham Melat of Mercer Co, www.fold3.com/image/#23397176 ; National Archives, Revolutionary War Veterans' Pension Application, Thomas Henderson of New Jersey, www.fold3.com/image/#23877525 The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, June 1781, p 71-72. 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 Privateering of Captain Yelverton Taylor on the Jersey Shore by Michael Adelberg In small, fast ships like the Mars, Yelverton Taylor emerged as the most successful privateer captain to operate along the Monmouth shore during the Revolutionary War. - September 1778 - While the capture of the Venus in August 1778 by privateers David Stevens and Micajah Smith was the first capture of a great British ship along the Jersey shore, Philadelphia’s Yelverton Taylor was the first great privateer captain of the Jersey shore. Taylor operated out of Little Egg Harbor, at the junction of Gloucester, Burlington and Monmouth counties. Historian Donald Shomette described Little Egg Harbor and its inland village of Chestnut Neck at the start of the Revolution. The harbor was shallow, unmarked, and “perforated” with sand bars. The Mullica River which connected the harbor with the village, was thirty feet deep in stretches but twisted by sharp meanders and shifting shoals. Only local pilots could bring a ship upriver without it grounding. Chestnut Neck "could not be a considered a town," consisting of only a dozen dwellings and a tavern. Philadelphia ships used Little Egg Harbor in the winter when the Delaware River froze, and ships began using the port year-round when the British blockaded Delaware Bay and patrolled the Jersey Shore in spring 1776. The increased ship traffic provoked a British attack in June 1777 when a three-ship flotilla entered the Mullica River and took two vessels, and then took three more while departing. This attack led to the construction of a fort at the Fox Burrows of the Mullica River, but the cannon were never put into the fort. They were likely used by a privateer. By summer 1778, Little Egg Harbor was a booming port town. By summer 1778, Little Egg Harbor was the epicenter of Jersey Shore privateering. On July 6, British Admiral James Gambier wrote about these privateers. He called for more “20-gun ships coppered, sloops, cutters, and small vessels” but worried that even with more ships “the rebels can now muster threescore sail from their different ports.” He further worried “we have such a range of coast and… numberless difficulties” protecting British supply lines. In July 1778, with a powerful French fleet forcing the British into a defensive posture, privateering on the Jersey Shore truly blossomed. This is evidenced by establishment of regular admiralty courts to adjudicate the prizes. From Philadelphia, Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress, observed the rise of privateering at Little Egg Harbor. He wrote on July 22: “I am told no less than 12 Prizes lately taken are advertised for sale on Tuesday next at Egg Harbour.” It was from this boomtown that Yelverton Taylor emerged. His success is demonstrated by the upward progression of ships that he captained out of Little Egg Harbor. With his successes, he gained prize money necessary to put to sea in ever larger ships. By 1779, he was attacking vessels that he would have evaded in his first vessel. First Known Date / Taylor’s Vessel / Number of Guns / Crew Size June 27, 1778 Comet # of guns: 4 Crew: 25 September 30, 1778 Mars # of guns: 8 Crew : 35 July 29, 1779 Mars # of guns: 14 Crew: 60 Note: Taylor captained two different vessels named Mars . It is likely that Taylor first put to sea as a privateer captain on June 27, 1778, just days after British naval vessels completed their evacuation of Philadelphia. He would have waited for the British fleet to clear the Delaware Bay (June 30) and sail for Sandy Hook before putting himself into the sea lane along the Monmouth shore in search of smaller and unescorted vessels bound for New York. Early Captures On July 27, the New Jersey Gazette reported Taylor’s first captures, each of which was deposited at Little Egg Harbor (called Egg Harbor at the time). His first two prizes were the schooner Carolina Packet (under Capt. Walter Belts) with cargo of 16,000 bushels of salt and the sloop Lucy (Capt. Thomas Grandle) with cargo of rice and indigo. While these were small ships, they were fully loaded with goods in great demand. The vessels were sold at auction at Egg Harbor on September 11. Taylor’s next two documented prizes are recorded in the Maryland Journal , on September 8: "The privateer sloop Comet , Capt. Taylor of Egg Harbour, has brought into a safe port, a brig from Jamaica bound for New York, laden with rum, sugar, coffee and molasses--also a schooner from France, retaken with dry goods." The interest of a Baltimore newspaper in Taylor’s prizes is revealed by a Pennsylvania Evening Post report on September 19 about Taylor’s next prize. The Philadelphia newspaper reported that Taylor had arrived in the city with "the schooner, Smallwood , belonging to Maryland, taken on her passage to Curacao by a British tender, and retaken by Captain Taylor of Egg Harbor." A few days later, the New Jersey Gazette advertised an admiralty court to be held in Allentown on October 10 to hear Taylor’s claims on 1.) the schooner Fame against former Captain Francis Coffin, 2.) the schooner Good Intent against the former Captain Robsy, and 3.) the schooner Caroline [captain unknown].” The Smallwood , brought into Philadelphia, was outside the jurisdiction of New Jersey’s admiralty court. The Fame was not condemned to Taylor by the New Jersey admiralty court. An October 20 note in the papers of the Continental Congress infers that an out-of-state counter-claimant emerged. A second note about Fame from February 26, 1779, suggests that the rightful owner of Fame was still being determined six months after Taylor took it. A decision on a second vessel was also held up. In 1780, the New Jersey admiralty court retried another one of Taylor’s early captures. The delays in gaining access to his prizes may have prompted Taylor to bring other prizes into less regulated ports than Egg Harbor and Philadelphia (where port marshals impounded the vessel until a court condemned the prize to the capturing captain). There is no record of Taylor bringing another prize into either port for the next nine months. Later Captures Legal frustrations aside, Taylor remained active. By summer 1779, he was sailing in a larger ship and set his sights on bigger prizes. Joseph Reed of Philadelphia wrote of one such prize on August 18: Capt. Taylor in a privateer from this port on Thursday last took the Falmouth Packet bound to New York & was fortunate to secure the mail, not being able to bring in the vessel as the wind was contrary & he was chased by a frigate, he abandoned the prize, bringing off the mail & all the prisoners, which was landed at Egg Harbor. The New Jersey Gazette , reported that Taylor, in the schooner Mars , was "off Sandy Hook, fell in with a snow mounting 14 carriage guns, which he boarded and took.” The report continued: She proved to be a packet from Falmouth for New York. Captain Taylor took the mail and the prisoners, 45 in number, and stood for Egg Harbor; but on Saturday morning last, he fell in with a fleet of 23 sail, under convoy of a frigate, when the frigate gave chase & re-took her. Additional details were reported in the Morristown-based New Jersey Journal . The snow was the British vessel, Dashound , carrying the mail from New York to London. Nearing capture, the crew threw the mail into the sea, but it was recovered by Taylor’s men. A later article on the incident published in the Loyalist New York Gazette claimed the mail was "irrefutably sunk." This report is likely incorrect. Antiquarian sources complete the narrative. The Mars and Dashound fought a brutal hour-long battle (45 minutes in original accounts). The Dashound lost the battle when it grounded off the Monmouth shore during the fight. Once grounded, oar-powered gunboats from Toms River joined the fight. The Dashound surrendered when its masts were shot down. The gunboats ferried prisoners to Toms River and the Mars started towing the Dashound for Egg Harbor. However, Taylor had to cut the prize loose when the British frigate, Perseus , came after him. Taylor brought the British mail into Egg Harbor—a giant intelligence win for the Continental cause. Perseus towed the beaten Dashound back to Sandy Hook. A week later, Taylor was again at sea. He took a sloop named Active on September 1, but there is no record of this vessel being condemned in admiralty court so he likely did not bring it into Egg Harbor. He probably brought it to Philadelphia. At month’s end, Taylor was cruising along the Monmouth shore when he came upon his most spectacular opportunity. On September 14, the transport vessel, Triton , filled with troops, left Sandy Hook for the Carolinas as part of a convoy. Triton then separated from the convoy during a storm. The wounded vessel moved slowly off the Monmouth shore. The next day, according to a German Officer on board, “the wind was good, we therefore made our course northeast to get clear of the land and, if possible, out of the sight of the privateers cruising around there.” However, the transport was unable to get into deep water quickly. The officer recorded what happened at dawn on September 26 they spotted two privateers. It was a “sad and unhappy day.” The transport surrendered without a fight because “we were in such miserable condition that we could not escape nor make evasive procedures away from another ship. The wounded transport was larger than the two privateers, but had to surrender without a fight. Predictably, towing the bigger vessel was difficult; one of the privateers (Taylor in the Mars ) grounded and overset in the surf outside Egg Harbor. After a few days at the mouth of the harbor, the prisoners were rowed upriver to the privateer village of Chestnut Neck. They then walked under guard to Philadelphia, where they arrived ten days later. Another article discusses the capture of the Triton in greater detail. There is no record of Taylor remaining an active privateer after the capture of the Triton , though the Mars remained an active vessel under a Captain Geddes. Taylor likely had the wealth to retire. Having captured a British military mail packet and hundreds of soldiers, he knew he would be killed if ever taken by the British. Privateering was risky and he was now notorious. Before the war, Taylor worked as a pilot guiding ships between Cape May and Philadelphia—perhaps he retired to one of these places. Other privateer captains, mostly New Englanders , filled the void left by his retirement. Related Historic Site : New Jersey Maritime Museum Sources : Charles H. Lincoln, Naval Records of the American Revolution, 1775–1788 (Washington, D.C., 1906), pp. 254, 386; Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Hessian, Waldeck and British Prisoner Records, 1776-9, "List of Marine Department Prisoners: Officers Taken" and "Captures Made by Pennsylvania State Navy", coll. 875; Donald Shomette, Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast (Shiffer: Atglen, PA, 2015); James Gambier to Earl of Sandwich, Sandwich Papers, 2: 295–301. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress, to Governor Richard Caswell of North Carolina, July 22, 1778, ScHi, Henry Laurens Letter Book. Accessed via https://navydocs.org/ ; Paul Burgess, A Colonial Scrapbook; the Southern New Jersey Coast, 1675-1783 (New York, Carlton Press, 1971) pp 126-7; J.A. McManemin, Captains of Privateers. (Spring Lake, N.J. : Ho-Ho-Kus Pub. Co., 1994), pp. 341-4; Maryland Journal, September 8, 1778; Archives of the State of New Jersey, Extracts from American Newspapers Relating to New Jersey (Paterson, NJ: Call Printing, 1903) vol. 2, p 3395-6; The Library Company, Pennsylvania Evening Post; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, reel 1930; Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 12, p 1024 and vol. 13, p 188; Valentine C. Hubbs, Hessian Journals: Unpublished Documents of the American Revolution (London: Camden House, 1980) pp. 81-3; National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I69, State Papers - PA, v 2, p 137; J.A. McManemin, Captains of Privateers. (Spring Lake, N.J. : Ho-Ho-Kus Pub. Co., 1994), pp. 341-4; Library of Congress, Rivington's New York Gazette, reel 2906; Committee of Appeals Decision, Paul Smith, et al, Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1970) vol. 14, p 377-8; Information on Taylor’s work as a pilot is in: “Revolutionary War Delaware River and Bay Pilots” (https://continentalnavy.com/archives/2018/revolutionary-war-delaware-river-and-bay-pilots/). Previous Next