New Jersey Legislature Investigates the Retaliators

On July 1, 1780, a public meeting was held at the Monmouth County Courthouse to officially establish the Association for Retaliation. 435 men signed the articles that established the group—more signatures than compiled on any other Revolutionary Era Monmouth County document. The Retaliators established a nine-man board of directors chaired by Colonel David Forman—a man who was already known for 1.) being a zealous supporter of the Revolution based on senior-level military commissions and civil offices, and 2.) exceeding the authority of those offices.

The Retaliators promised eye-for-an-eye retaliation for every act committed against a member. Largely unable to strike at their real enemies (Loyalist raiders sheltered behind lines), the Retaliators looked at the kin of Loyalists within Monmouth County as befitting targets of retaliation. From the moment of their founding, the clique of Freehold leaders who led the group—including Forman, Nathaniel Scudder, and Thomas Henderson—faced accusations that the group’s extra-legal punishments were illegal. They sought to insulate themselves with a law that would authorize their activity.

Monmouth Countians Petition the New Jersey Legislature

On September 23, 1780, Scudder and Henderson petitioned the New Jersey Legislature for the opportunity to address the Assembly "on matters of the moment in the County of Monmouth." They were admitted and presented a memorial, "praying that a law may be passed to authorize the well-affected inhabitants to retaliate upon the property of the disaffected of said county; and also a copy of an association lately formed and entered into by a number of inhabitants of said county." The Assembly established a committee to consider their request and investigate the Retaliators.

However, just two days later, Joseph Salter, a squire from Dover Township, petitioned the Assembly:

Setting forth that Captain Green [James Green], with a number of armed men under his command, had forcibly seized and carried away sundry articles of furniture belonging to the said petitioner and John Hartshorne of the same county, under pretense of retaliation; that he had sought redress through the medium of the law without effect, and praying relief.

Joseph Salter had participated in the December 1776 Loyalist insurrections. For this, he was brought before General Israel Putnam who decided not to punish him. Later, Salter was brought before the New Jersey Council of Safety—he took a loyalty oath to the New Jersey government and was released. Salter sold off tracts of land along the shore to start saltworks, and was a creditor to the ill-fated Pennsylvania Salt Works. His son, William Salter, however, was a Loyalist living in New York.

John Hartshorne was one of the leading Quakers in Monmouth County; as a pacifist, he played no role in the war. He freed his slaves in 1776 and hosted the French Admiral, Charles Henri D’Estaing, when he came ashore in July 1778. Members of his large family were supporters of the Revolution (Richard Hartshorne was the Monmouth Militia’s Paymaster), but other family members were Loyalists (Lawrence Hartshorne was a merchant in New York) or disaffected (Esek Hartshorne refused loyalty oaths to the New Jersey government).

There is no evidence that either Joseph Salter or John Hartshorne had committed any crimes; rather, their “crime” in the eyes of the Retaliators was having Loyalist kin. Salter’s petition demonstrated that the Retaliators were practicing extra-legal property confiscations while concurrently petitioning the legislature for a law that would authorize acts already taken.

Committee Report on the Retaliators

On September 29, the committee established to study the Retaliators presented a scathing report about the group. The report offered six findings. The first four concerned Monmouth County’s defenses. First, the committee expressed sympathy for the people of Monmouth County:

The exposed and dangerous situation on the frontiers of Monmouth County, liable to the continual depredations of the enemy, and the great numbers of well affected inhabitants lately captured by them in that quarter are matters highly worthy of the attention of government.

Second, the Committee observed that Monmouth County’s best defense was the county’s own militia supplemented by militia from other counties:

A prudent disposition of militia force, together with the occasional aid of militia adjoining the frontiers would, with proper and spirited execution, in a great measure, if not entirely, have afforded protection & security to that part of the country.

Third, the Committee singled out the need to prevent militia delinquency to strengthen the county’s defenses (Monmouth County was in the midst of a crackdown on militia delinquency):

Delinquency of the officers and classes in some of the counties in procuring and forwarding men for that directed service has greatly contravened the good intentions of the legislature, and burdened the militia in that quarter with an over-proportion of the duty.

Fourth, the committee called on Governor William Livingston to call out militia from other counties to assist Monmouth County when necessary.

The report’s last two findings focused specifically on the Retaliators. Fifth, the Committee declared that:

The Association for Retaliation, referred to in the said memorial, is 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 and government.

And, finally, the committee suggested that:

The exertions of the associators regularly to enforce laws in that county, and to defend the frontiers against the predatory incursions of the enemy's parties, would have had a much more evident tendency to have produced security for the said county, and safety to the well-affected inhabitants, than any illegal combination whatever.

The report was a stinging rebuke of the vigilante acts of the Retaliators. However, the report never explicitly banned the Retaliators. For this reason, James Mott, a Monmouth County Assemblyman (recently exchanged home from capture and an in-law to Joseph Salter) offered an amendment to the report on October 2. Mott sought to add the following sentence: "that the association referred to in the memorial ought to be discountenanced by the legislature as illegal and contrary to the laws of this state."

The Assembly declined to add Mott’s language by an 11-14 vote. Monmouth County’s other two Assemblymen, Hendrick Smock and Thomas Seabrook, voted against the new language. Both men had signed the Articles of Association for Retaliation. Had Smock and Seabrook voted with Mott, the resolution would have passed 13-12.  The defeat of Mott’s amendment allowed the Retaliators to maintain that the Assembly had only frowned on their group. Their vigilante acts would grow bolder in 1781.

Related Historic Site: Shrewsbury Quaker Meeting House

Sources: Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, September 23 - October 2, 1780, pp. 270-282; The New Jersey Legislature’s rebuke of the Retaliators is in Larry Gerlach, New Jersey in the American Revolution 1763-1783 A Documentary History (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1975) p. 399 note 4; Michael Adelberg, Biographical File, unpublished, Monmouth County Historical Association.