Clarifications & Updates
As the author thinks there are still discoveries to be made in the stories of both New Jersey's privateering and Pine-Robbers, he continues to research the topics in this book. As a result there may be need for either updates or clarifications to the already published material.
A minor modification was completed in January 2026. This has no significant bearing on the overall premise and conclusions in the book. For those readers who purchased the book before that date, the following are offered. The page numbers represent the earlier version. For reference, the page numbers in parentheses are those of the January 2026 version.
Page 20 (20) – Cranberry Inlet was also known as the New Inlet.
Page 189 (190) – The author recognizes his attempt at a statistical analysis of privateering in New Jersey waters is not only brief, but limited. However, in trying to move beyond the legends, he felt some attempt, no matter how rudimentary, must be made.
​
******
​Pages 276 to 277 (277 to 279) Based on additional reading and transcription of New Jersey Admiralty cases, the author felt some clarification was necessary in the historical account of the so called Long Beach Massacre. Therefore, the following text appears in the latest version of the manuscript.
On October 25, 1782 Bacon was involved in what would become his most infamous and perhaps misrepresented incident – the Long Beach Island Massacre.
According to the traditional telling of the story, a cutter ran aground on Barnegat shoals. She was taken possession of by an American galley named Alligator, Captain Andrew Steelman. Her crew sent word to the mainland for help in saving the cutter’s cargo. A party of unarmed men including Joseph Soper and his two sons arrived to provide assistance. After working hard on the salvage, the men became tired, built fires on the beach, and fell asleep. While they were sleeping, one of the locals, Bill Wilson, slyly arose, took a boat, rowed to the mainland, and informed Bacon. He and his men crossed over to the beach and fell on the sleeping men. Captain Steelman, Reuben Soper, and the others were murdered.
However, several aspects of the story raise suspicions as to its accuracy. How and where did it originate? There appear to be no Patriot sources documenting the event. A contemporary account printed in the New York Loyalist newspaper the Royal Gazette on November 2, 1782, appears to be the primary source later historians used when writing about the event. These later writers have added additional details to the story. But how factual are they, and is the article itself accurate? Here is the article:
The cutter from Ostend, bound to St. Thomas’s, mentioned in our last, ran a-ground on Barnegat Shoals the 25th ultimo. The galley Allegator, Captain Stillman, from Cape May, with 25 men, plundered her on Sunday last of a quantity of Hysong tea, and other valuable articles; but was attacked the same night by Captain John Bacon and nine men, in a small boat called the Hero’s Revenge, who killed Stillman, and wounded the first Lieutenant, and all the privates (four only excepted) were either killed or wounded: the latter were sent to a Doctor, with a flag of truce, by the captors, and the galley was brought in here on Wednesday last.
While the article conforms to much in the traditional story, it does not mention Bill Wilson, Reuben Soper, or the murder of all of Steelman’s men. (The same newspaper had earlier reported the cutter was a prize to the Loyalist Privateer Virginia and she carried a very valuable cargo worth £20,000.)
Some of the facts in the newspaper are challenged by testimony given in May 1784 during an unrelated appeal of a prize case originating in the New Jersey Admiralty Court. During the subsequent appeal heard in the Continental Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, Colonel Richard Somers, and Captain David Scull were, for reasons that remain unclear, asked about what happened on Long Beach Island. Richard Somers was a noted Patriot from Great Egg Harbor and Philadelphia, militia commander, and privateer investor. He was part owner of the gunboat involved, but clearly names her the Rainbow, and not the Alligator as reported in the Royal Gazette. David Scull was a privateer officer also from Great Egg Harbor. He was actually the lieutenant of the gunboat, taken prisoner by Bacon, and also names her the Rainbow. Did the Gazette get this fact wrong? To make things even more confusing, in the same edition appears an advertisement for the public auction of a rebel galley, the Alligator. Certainly the description of Rainbow given in testimony matches the description of the Alligator given in the advertisement. She carried a crew of approximately twenty-four men with muskets, and she was armed with swivels; she may also have mounted a short three-pounder in the bow.[1] Did the names somehow get mixed up and how? Certainly Scull and Somers would know the name of their own vessel.
Later historians have characterized the event as a "massacre." The Gazette’s article does not say so; there were both wounded and unwounded survivors. David Scull giving testimony in an 1784 court case was obviously a survivor. Richard Somers testified that just Captain Steelman and one other crew member were killed, David Scull wounded, and the rest of the crew made prisoner. Again there is no mention of the death of Reuben Soper. The important thing to note is neither Scull nor Somers mention a massacre.
Both Scull and Somers do confirm key parts of the story. A cutter was ashore, and Steelman and his crew were engaged in saving the cargo. Assistance was requested from inhabitants on the mainland, and some of these “hired hands” had informed Bacon. Joining him they went to the beach, shot Steelman and one of his crew dead, and wounded Lieutenant Scull while they were lying at a fire some distance from the Rainbow. But again, neither man claims there was a massacre of Rainbow’s crew.
In his testimony Colonel Somers does explain one thing – how was it possible a small galley like Rainbow could chase down and force ashore a speedy well-armed cutter. He confirms it was not the work of Rainbow, but some larger, more powerful vessel. This confirms, at least partially, the Gazette’s story about the involvement of the Loyalist privateer Virginia.[2]
​
******
​Page 278 (281) - After further analysis of the handwriting in the original court documents, the author has determined the correct spelling of the surname of the individual forced to accompany the Refugees should be Gunnel and not Grimmel.
******
​Pages 328 to 330 (331 to 334) – In the latest manuscript update the author has made an attempt to clarify New Jersey’s laws concerning illegal trading. Here is the relevant passage:
Early on the Continental Congress had recommended to the states they ban the exportation of provisions to British-held New York, and New Jersey's Whig government had been quick to follow up.[3] Various laws passed from 1778 through 1781 dealing with passports and the movement of New Jersey residents in and out of enemy lines were not only measures against treason and espionage, but also designed to combat illegal trade. By the end of 1780 Whig leaders were forced to admit their previous efforts had proved ineffectual. The legislature was forced to take further action and on December 22 they passed an Act entitled An Act more effectually to prevent the Inhabitants of this State from trading with the Enemy, or going within their Lines, and for other Purpose therein mentioned. The preamble read in part, “Whereas the Laws now in Force are found insufficient to prevent the Inhabitants of this State from sending Provisions within the Lines of the Enemy, and carrying on a commercial Intercourse with them …” Now, those found guilty by “any Court of Justice holding Jurisdiction in criminal Causes” were subject to any number of harsh penalties. These included forfeiture of their personal and real estate, forfeiture of their legal rights, removal to a place remote from enemy lines, and disfranchisement. They could also be imprisoned, whipped, pilloried, cropped (cutting off an ear) or forced to serve aboard a Continental Navy vessel. Those apprehending offenders could be given an award of between £10 and £100, and they could receive a share of the captured goods’ value. The burden of proof was with the defendant. For prisoners so convicted the writ of habeas corpus was suspended.
However, on June 24, 1782 the above law was repealed as was the earlier laws dealing with passports, coming and going from enemy lines, illegal trade, etc. On that date the legislature replaced them with An Act for preventing an illicit Trade and Intercourse between the Subjects of this State and the Enemy. The stated reason for doing so was to remedy the confusion caused by the hodge-podge of laws dealing with the problem.
The new law seemed to tone down the punishments for those found guilty by “any Court where the same [offenses] may be cognizable.” For those found guilty, first time offenders could be charged a fine of £1000 or suffer “corporal Punishment (excepting Imprisonment) not extending to Life or Member.” Repeat offenders were liable to confiscation of all real and personal property. Holding a passport could not shield a person from being charged with trading with the enemy. Accomplices to the crime could be fined up to £500. Any person found in the possession of illegally traded goods could be fined the value of the merchandize. Three justices of the peace from the county where the seizure was made were to sit as a court to hear allegations and evidence. All goods condemned by the court, along with wagons, horses, or craft used to convey them, were to be sold, and after costs had been deducted half of the proceeds were to go the state, and the other half to the captors or informers. As part of the same law, any state militia officer commanding posts along the lines "...is hereby authorized and directed to take under his immediate Charge all Boats, Skiffs, Flats, or other Watercraft belonging to any Person or Persons whomsoever,..." Owners could only use their boat if they had written orders to do so. Boat owners who refused to comply were to be fined six pounds for each offense. Convicted offenders were also disfranchised. Minors and slaves found guilty were to “…receive any Number of Lashes, not exceeding thirty-nine, on his bare Back…”
While the act stipulated that the burden of proof shall lie with the defendant or defendants, there seems to have been an effort to safeguard against abuses. Either libellants or claimants could request the case be heard before a jury of twelve. Search warrants were now to be used where contraband was expected to be hid in houses. The Judge of the county's Court of Common Pleas could issue search warrants, but searches could only be conducted during daylight hours. Only the county sheriff or coroner, accompanied by two freeholders not connected with the seizure, could conduct the search, the exception being if the suspect was armed. The militia could be fined up to £1000 for plundering, in contrast to actual confiscation of contraband.
But just six months later the legislature was forced to amend the act, admitting, "...great Quantities of Provisions and Produce of this and the neighboring States, are, through the Arts of the Disaffected, constantly conveyed to the Enemy, to the great Injury of the common Cause, and Dishonour of the State;..." One stipulation now made livestock, provisions, and naval stores found under conveyance either toward the enemy lines or after dark in the counties of Bergen, Essex, Middlesex, or Monmouth liable to seizure and condemnation along with the horses, wagons, or water-craft used to carry them. Similarly, "...every Article or Thing, of whatever Nature or Kind, the Produce, Growth or Manufacture of this or of the United States, which shall be found passing through the Counties of Bergen, Essex, Middlesex and Monmouth, towards the Lines of the Enemy, or through the Township of Little-Egg-Harbour, in the County of Burlington, or the Township of Galloway, in the County of Gloucester, towards the Shore, shall on due Suspicion that the same were intended to be conveyed to the Enemy, be liable to Seizure,..." Goods so seized were to be brought to trial before a justice or justices of the peace. Those discovered transporting suspected goods had to prove they were not being carried to the enemy. Vessels or wagons found carrying goods beyond the inhabited areas of the state were to be considered guilty of carrying those goods to the enemy. Those caught participating in the illicit trade while armed were to be declared guilty of a felony, and on being convicted were to be put to death. Any person taking part in the seizure could now be admitted as a witness providing they signed a "Release of Interest" the reason being "...the Secrecy with which this unlawful and ruinous Trade is carried on, renders it in most Cases impossible to obtain any Proof but from the Parties concerned in the Seizure..." Finally the amendment provided for fines to be levied on those refusing to appear as either witnesses or jurors.
******
​Page 336 (340) – The author has recently clarified the sequence of bills of libel filed in the New Jersey Admiralty cases concerning the Dolphin and Diamond:
On December 16, 1782 twin bills were presented to the New Jersey Admiralty Court concerning the capture of the schooner Dolphin and sloop Diamond. They had, according to the bills, been taken by Captain Nathan Jackson, commander of the armed boat Greyhound. …
… Before the court could take action on Jackson’s bill a flurry of claims were filed. General David Forman of Freehold filed one on December 31st. Privateer Captain Alexander Dickey filed his on January 1, 1783. This was followed by one filed on January 22nd by Joseph Ball of Batsto. The Admiralty trial was scheduled for January 31, 1783 at the house of Thomas Witt, Inn-holder, in Trenton.
Page 344 (348) – After further analysis of the handwriting in the original court documents, the author has determined the correct spelling of the surname for one of the witnesses should be Fulsome and not Tulsome.
Page 350 (354) – Captain Abraham Davis was a key figure in the dual admiralty cases of the schooner Dolphin and sloop Diamond, as well as the earlier 1781 case of the sloop Hannah. Given his contrasting roles in these different cases, the author originally thought it was two different people with the same name. However, he now believes it is indeed the same person.
Today we are inclined to think of the main combatants of the Revolutionary War as the blue coated patriots and the red coated British. Actually, those fighting for independence were more apt to refer to themselves as “Whigs” after the British opposition party. Along the New Jersey coast Whigs were more likely to be fighting fellow Americans rather than Redcoats. These were known as Loyalists, Tories, Refugees, and Pine-Robbers. Those Loyalists serving in the regular British army were often referred to as “Greens” after the color of their regimental coats.
[1] Testimonies of Richard Somers and David Scull, "Jackson v. The Dolphin & The Diamond, Forman, Claimant;” Revolutionary War Prize Cases 91 & 92.
[2] Ibid.
[3] As early as February 1777 the New Jersey legislature passed a number of measures banning the exportation of bacon, salted beef, soap, and candles. Shortly thereafter naval stores including pitch, tar, and turpentine were added to the list.