Grain Seizure Splits Whig Leadership

As discussed in prior articles, raising forage and provisions from the fertile farms of Monmouth County was a high priority for the Continental Army. It appointed two officers, David Rhea and John Lloyd to purchase supplies in the county. But not all farmers wanted to sell their goods to Rhea and Lloyd. Some were secretly trading with Loyalist middlemen (called “London Traders”) who brought their goods to the British. Other farmers were simply interested in holding onto their goods in order to get a higher price later on. The treatment of one of these farmers was escalated to senior Army generals and New Jersey’s governor. It caused a rift in the county’s leadership.

The Benjamin Van Cleaf Affair

Benjamin Van Cleaf was a comfortable Middletown farmer from an extended family that solidly supported the Revolution and included both militia and local government officers. Van Cleaf was a militia lieutenant who signed a number of pro-Revolutionary petitions and served on grand juries. In January 1779, Peter Forman, the magistrate from neighboring Freehold Township, came to Van Cleaf’s house and ordered his grain to be impounded for the use of the Army. Van Cleaf was compensated at the Army’s standard rate.

General Nathanael Greene was made aware of the controversial seizure. He noted: “This Van Cleaf has had rye in stacks upwards of two years. He has frequently refused to sell it, cloaking his real intentions with the very charitable purpose of reserving it for the poor."  Greene was implying that Van Cleaf was participating in the London Trade, though there is no evidence of that in surviving documents.

According to Greene’s letter, Forman had initially sent Captain Knight [Richard McKnight] to buy the rye, but Van Cleaf refused, claiming he was keeping it for poor relief. Forman then went to Van Cleaf with a party of teamsters, and, under threat of arrest, forced Van Cleaf to sell his rye. Forman appears to have exceeded his authority in two ways: First, he left his own township to impound the goods of a farmer living in another township; second, magistrates were permitted to impound goods from those disaffected from the Revolution or materials likely to fall into enemy hands; there is no evidence that Van Cleaf was disaffected or that his rye was in danger.

Aggrieved, Van Cleaf went to the Middletown magistrate, Peter Schenck, who appeared with his own party and ordered the wagons with Van Cleaf’s rye to be unloaded. On February 4, Schenck wrote Forman: “How could you assume such authority as to supersede my precepts?... Neither the Chief Justice nor Governor Livingston would have presumed to supersede any magistrate without giving him a hearing." Schenck wrote that Forman has "scoffed... at giving him [Van Cleaf] an opportunity in his own defence.” Schenck further stated:

Your conduct I cannot but resent, and resent accordingly. I know not how you should impress the grain after it was made known it was sold for the use of the inhabitants - the legislature reposing confidence in Magistrates as the guardians of the people - gave them authority to impress produce from disaffected persons, but not to take it from the people who would dispose of their produce for the use of the poor... families are dependent on their bread on Mr. Van Cleave, out of the grain you have undertook to seize.

Schenck concluded by insulting Forman with a striking comparison—suggesting that Forman’s actions were even worse than the crimes of the hated Pine Robbers, Jacob Fagan and Thomas Emmons (a.k.a. Burke): “Fagan and Burke, when they robbed, had regard for the poor, they only took out of abundance from those they robbed, but you have endeavored to arrest the bread from the poor."

Schenck’s letter was forwarded to Gen. Greene and the Continental Congress with documents showing the market price of a bushel of rye or corn to be $10, but the Continental Quartermaster paying only $4 and $6 a bushel respectively. With the controversy brewing, the Quartermaster purchasing agent from Monmouth County, David Rhea, wrote a Continental officer, Clement Biddle, on February 12: “The country are all in arms about grain prices; send no more wagons here."

Rhea informed Biddle that he sent Captain McKnight and Forman to Van Cleaf to purchase the rye:

I sent a Magistrate [Forman] with the forage purchase who ordered the brigade [wagon team] to be loaded - paid for the same by taking the receipts without opposition; as soon as they were gone the owner applied to another Magistrate [Schenck] who drove off McKnight with his brigade, nor would he suffer them to take any [of the rye].

Rhea suggested that he would seek to right the situation by gaining Schenck’s support. He apologized for the controversy that he had inadvertently begun: "I am extremely sorry to trouble you about this affair - this much I must say, it is a damnation country to do business with."

The Van Cleaf controversy prompted General Greene to write Governor William Livingston on February 14. Greene sided with Rhea and Forman: "I have enclosed for your Excellency's information copies of several papers… respecting the wickedness and villainy of some Magistrates in Monmouth County.” Greene argued that “the great difference in the price offered by the public purchasers and the private engrossers” was the root cause of the problem. He suggested:

It appears to me a plan concerted with a design either to save the grain in the county or procure for the inhabitants an extravagant price for it. That we are reduced to the necessity to impress the grain by the aid of Magistrates is notorious.

Greene was, in effect, admitting that because of the low price paid by the Continental Army, the Army had to rely on magistrates to take goods from otherwise dutiful citizen farmers at below-market prices.

Livingston responded to Greene three days later. He suggested that some of Monmouth County’s office holders were not sufficiently patriotic and even in league with London Traders.  "Some of them have rendered themselves culpable.  While some are remiss at assisting the Army... others have been oppressive in granting warrants for wood cutting without summoning the owner to try his disaffection, or any proof of his refusal." Monmouth County’s disaffected officeholders is the subject of another article. However, Schenck’s intervention on behalf of Van Cleaf was never reversed.

Perspective

In isolation, the seizure of Van Cleaf’s rye was a small incident in which a local official exceeded his authority by going into a neighboring township to seize goods for the benefit of the Army. The seizure was reversed by the magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction. Continental and state leadership empowered local agents to act aggressively in raising forage for the Army but acquiesced to the rule of law when one of their agents exceeded his authority.

More broadly, the bitter words between the magistrates exposed a growing rift in Monmouth County’s leadership. On one side of the split were “Machiavellian” Whigs (mostly from Freehold and Upper Freehold townships) who took unlawful actions in the interest of better prosecuting the Revolution; other the side, were “Due Process” Whigs (mostly from the Middletown and the Shore Townships) who supported the Revolution, but not at the expense of the rule of law. While this split was evident intermittently before the Van Cleaf controversy (such as the overturned county election of 1777), the Van Cleaf controversy re-aggravated the split and set in motion a string of events that substantially worsened it. Another property seizure by a Captain John Walton of Freehold against a Middletown citizen, Solomon Ketchum, three months later would lead to landmark litigation and further widen the split inside Monmouth County. The split would climax with leaders from the two sides coming to blows at the 1780 county election and splitting into rival associations after that.

Related Historic Site: Howell Living History Farm

Sources: Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 3, pp. 247-8; Peter Schenck to Peter Forman, Papers of the Continental Congress, Letter of Nathanael Greene, vol. 3, p43-4; David Rhea to Clement Biddle, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, M247, I173, Letters from Nathanael Greene, v3, p37; Nathanael Greene to William Livingston, Nathanael Greene, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1976) vol. 3, pp. 247-8; William Livingston to Nathanael Greene, Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 3, pp. 35-6; Michael S. Adelberg,  “The Transformation of Local Governance in Monmouth County, New Jersey during the War of the American Revolution,” Journal of the Early Republic, 2011.