County Elections Marred by Violence and Voter Intimidation

By 1780, Monmouth County Whigs (supporters of the Revolution) had split into rival factions. “Due Process Whigs” supported the war effort but not to the point of sacrificing individual protections under the law; “Machiavellian Whigs” believed that individual protections under the law could be sacrificed in order to wage war effectively. The two factions argued over impounding goods from farmers and negotiating prisoner exchanges with the enemy. The establishment of the Association for Retaliation—a vigilante society led by the most Machiavellian Whig leader in the county, Colonel David Forman—ratcheted up tensions between leaders of the two factions.

As noted in a prior article, the New Jersey Assembly investigated the Association for Retaliation in September 1780 and issued a scathing report about the group. However, because the report did not explicitly declare the group illegal, James Mott, a Monmouth County Assemblyman, sought to amend the report with a statement that would outlaw the group. Mott’s amendment failed because Monmouth County’s other two delegates would not support it. Just a week later, Mott would stand for re-election at the county’s annual election.

The Tainted 1780 Election

On October 10, at the annual election, three Machiavellian Whig leaders—Nathaniel Scudder, Thomas Henderson, and Thomas Seabrook (all Retaliators) won seats in the Assembly—defeating Mott and Hendrick Smock (Seabrook was re-elected). Elisha Lawrence (cousin of the Loyalist of the same name) replaced John Holmes in the Legislative Council (the legislature’s upper house). Scudder, a former delegate to the Continental Congress, who had stayed out of politics for a year, wrote his son:

I am again, through the importunity of friends and from the imminent dangers threatening the State, on the point of entering public life, having been elected to serve in the General Assembly for the ensuing year... My colleagues are Doctor Henderson and Major Seabrook -- Colo. Elisha Lawrence is our Counselor. The party of Mr. Holmes and Mott were thrown out by a majority of almost three to one, are outraged and threaten to correct the election, but I believe they will find themselves unable.

The “outrage” of Holmes and Mott was expressed in a petition that was waiting for the New Jersey Assembly when it reconvened on October 26. The minutes of the Assembly summarized “a petition and remonstrance from 241 inhabitants of the County of Monmouth, setting forth that at the late election of the 10th instant, they had not a free and fair election.” The petitioners made two arguments. First, the election judges should have held the polls open for a second day to allow for militia—serving on the shore—to vote in shifts over two days:

It was not prudent for the whole of the frontier to leave their habitations all at one time, lest the enemy might take advantage thereof, that a number of the inhabitants of the County were on duty at separate posts, which posts could not prudently be left without a guard – It was therefore proposed that part of said guards should have the opportunity of electing on the first day and the other part on the following day… The judges of elections did close the polls at 7 o'clock in the evening of the same day, though they were earnestly requested not to close the polls that day, but to continue the ensuing day.

Second, the petitioners argued that voters were intimidated when a candidate (Mott) was beaten in front of voters and protesting voters were threatened: “One of the candidates was most shamefully beaten and otherwise ill treated, and orders were made that his aiders should be treated in the same manner.” The petitioners demanded that the election be voided and new elections held.

Another petition came into the Legislative Council from the defeated incumbent, John Holmes, and Colonel Daniel Hendrickson, commanding the Shrewsbury militia. His men were deployed on the Atlantic shore and subject to dramatic fines if they skipped militia service to vote. The petition argued “that the election lately held in said County for representatives was not a free one, and that the election was closed by the Judges on the evening of the first day, before all the voters intending to vote had given their votes, owing to their being on militia duty and other duties." They also called for the election to be voided and new elections held.

These petitions were countered by statements supporting the October 10 election. The Assembly read "a memorial from 244 inhabitants of the County of Monmouth.” The memorialists “do highly approve of the judge's conduct at said election and of the members returned to the Legislature; that they are convinced, from good information, that the election was carried on and closed legally." The Assembly also received "a certificate from 60 inhabitants of said county setting forth that the election was carried on strictly according to the law; and that there were very few votes presented for two hours before the close of the poll."

New Jersey Assembly Considers the County Election

On October 27, the Assembly considered the Monmouth County election controversy.

The House took into consideration the petitions and other papers presented to them relative to the late election for the County of Monmouth, on which a motion was made by Mr. Van Cleave that the petitioners [calling for voiding the election] be heard before the Legislature.

The motion failed 8-15. A motion to hold new elections failed 3-15. The new Monmouth delegates—Scudder, Henderson, and Seabrook—voted against both motions.

The Legislative Council considered voiding the Monmouth election on November 10: A resolution to hold an investigation failed by a 3-4 vote; a resolution to hold hearings only if the Council supported the complaining petitions passed by a 4-3 vote; and a resolution to dismiss the complaining petition passed by 4-3 vote. Monmouth's Elisha Lawrence abstained on each of these votes.

The geography of Monmouth County greatly favored the Machiavellian Whigs—who were clustered around Freehold, the county seat. Here, the large Presbyterian congregation, combined with a few dozen families forced to move inland for their safety created a powerful voting bloc of strident Whig voters proximate to the polling site. Due Process Whigs—though almost certainly more numerous—generally lived in Middletown and the Atlantic shore townships. Their election-day strength was diluted by distance from the polling site, particularly when election judges refused to hold the polls open a second day.

While the New Jersey Legislature was willing to void the county’s 1777 election when Forman and followers intimidated voters, it was unwilling to do so in 1780 when Forman’s conduct escalated to assaulting a candidate and threatening voters. Perhaps, after the three years of war, legislators were more tolerant of Machiavellian behavior. Perhaps legislators believed that men like Forman—whatever their excesses—were needed to win the war. The tainted election was allowed to stand.

After the Election

James Mott would gain a small measure of satisfaction in the courts. Mott hired one of New Jersey’s most prominent attorneys, William Paterson, and sued Forman in the New Jersey Supreme Court. In the court’s filing, Mott claimed that Forman "made an assault on the said James… then and there did beat, wound and evilly treated, so that his life was greatly disdained of and other enormities.". Mott sought £1,000 in damages—roughly the value of a small farmstead.

While documentation is not conclusive, it appears that the case of Mott v Forman was not heard by the Supreme Court but was heard in the Monmouth County Court of Quarterly Sessions instead. Forman pled guilty to the assault charge, admitting that he did “beat, wound, and ill-treat” Mott. Forman’s fine is not listed, but £20—the value of a good horse—was the upper limit for an assault charge in other cases where the outcome is known. This was only one-twentieth of the amount sought by Mott. Meanwhile, the vigilantism of Forman’s Retaliators grew more aggressive. Far from ostracized, Forman was appointed a judge of the Monmouth Court of Common Pleas.

Given the inaction following the 1780 election, it is not surprising that violence would again mar Monmouth County’s 1781 election. Petitioners recorded:

At the late election, when a number of men (some in arms) appeared in a hostile manner, threatening all such persons at they called Tories and [London] Traders, if they should vote; A writing was put up at the Court House to the same effect; several persons were inhumanly beaten, some of them after they had voted, and some of them drove away who were legally entitled to vote, and went away without voting, not thinking themselves safe, as they did not confine their abuse to people they judged disaffected, but beat and abused several… and at the close of the election, one of the inspectors was attacked going down the stairs, and most barbarously beaten.

In October 1782, the New Jersey Legislature passed an election reform law. The purpose of the law was to limit the power of "internal enemies" who engage in "clandestine practices and secret combinations." In some elections, blocs of disaffected voters supported "corrupt and disaffected candidates." (This was the case in Monmouth County’s lower shore townships of Dover and Stafford.) The annual elections for state office would now be "viva voice,” so that anyone voting for a disaffected person could be identified. The vote was also taken away from those "on parole, or persons against whom inquisitions and indictments for aiding and adhering to enemies of the State hath been found." The law was part of a broader range of activities at war’s end to “oppose the return of Tories.”

One provision of the law spoke to a condition in Monmouth County that tainted the annual elections. Under the law, counties now could have more than one polling place. Six New Jersey counties established second polling sites; curiously, Monmouth County did not establish a second polling site (though voting would be moved to the townships in the early 1800s). Perhaps Monmouth’s Machiavellian Whig officeholders blocked establishing a second polling place that would favor their political opponents. The law did not address voter intimidation as carried out by Forman and his followers.

Related Historic Site: Museum of the American Revolution

Sources: The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 26-27, 1780, p 1-8; Nathaniel Scudder to John Scudder, New Jersey Historical Society, Letters: Nathaniel Scudder; Journals of the Legislative Council of New Jersey (Isaac Collins: State of New Jersey, 1780) p1-9; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, October 26-27, 1780, p 1-8; Court Docket, Monmouth County Archives, Court of Quarterly Sessions, folder: 1780; Mott v Forman, New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Records, #25199; Larry Gerlach, New Jersey in the American Revolution 1763-1783 A Documentary History (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1975) pp. 397-9; New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #10948 and 11036, and Collective Series, Revolutionary War, document #114; Library of Congress, Early American Newspaper, New Jersey Gazette, October 1782, reel 1930.