SAMUEL Smith, author of New Jersey’s first published history, was born in 1721 into a prosperous Quaker family of Burlington, one of the colony’s two capital cities. His father Richard Smith was a long-serving member of the provincial Assembly and Council. Samuel was to follow him into both.1 His years of service in these capacities, combined with a quarter century as Treasurer of the Western Division of New Jersey, made Smith a participant in all of the province’s affairs. His intimacy with its political class extended to close friendships with at least three royal governors.2
Through attachments both formal and informal, Smith also enjoyed broad access to dispatches, minutes, letters, laws and other documents concerning New Jersey government before the onset of the Revolution–the beginnings of which he lived to see, for he died just eleven days after the province adopted its first constitution as an independent state, and nine days after the “united colonies” officially severed their ties to the Crown. But imposed upon the work Smith created from those materials, The History of the Colony of Nova-Cæsaria, or New-Jersey, published in 1765, was a somewhat strict limitation: its account of the province’s settlement and progress ended at 1721, the year of his birth; the following pages provided but a résumé of events in his own lifetime. Smith did entertain the thought of continuing the narrative in a second volume, but such was not to be.3
Besides its chronological restriction, one of the text’s great assets is also a defect: its 600 pages overflow with original documents, published verbatim and in their entirety as near as can be determined, but often with little to no commentary. While many can be authenticated by comparison with other print or manuscript copies, some are known only from Smith’s versions of them.4 Apart from occasional reference to the records of the West Jersey proprietors, Smith provides almost no information about his sources or the challenges of collecting them, beyond the statement that many of the papers
were not to be found on record in the publick offices, several were scattered in different provinces, others could not be easily obtained, some tho’ in print formerly were in but few hands, some never made publick, and many in danger of being lost….5
From letters of James Parker of Woodbridge, who traveled to Burlington to print the History, we know that Smith had been at work on it for more than seven years. In his preface, the author confessed its appearance was delayed “much longer than was expected.”6 No evidence has surfaced that Smith had any official endorsement or financial assistance to complete the volume, and he seems to have borne the expense of printing it himself.7 But the result was apparently well received, if we may trust a reference of former governor Francis Bernard to “his Ingenious Book, whose only Fault is that there is not more of it,” or the favor of the sitting governor William Franklin, who later brought it to the attention of the Colonial Secretary in London, and sent along a copy.8
To William A. Whitehead as he embarked, toward the middle of the next century, upon his own historical enterprise, Smith’s work proved an essential sourcebook for which no student of New Jersey’s past “could withhold the expression of his thanks….” Despite its usefulness as a convenient compendium, however, Whitehead found it deficient in the “minute information” required “for the proper elucidation of many important periods in our early history.” While valuable on many counts, it was neither complete nor “devoid of error.”9
Still, Whitehead could not have remained untouched by Smith’s humility, his attention to detail, his recognition of the volume’s limitations and desire to expand and improve it in the future. The work was undertaken, its author said, “with hopes of service to the province, and if found but in a small degree contributing to that, the end is so far answered….” Whitehead’s modest claims for his own efforts were not dissimilar. Far from dismissing Smith, he defended him on occasion against imputations of error from other historians.10
As Smith’s interests and affinities were concentrated in the Western part of the province, Whitehead found the History unequal to the task of unraveling East Jersey’s maddeningly complex proprietary period. Even for the West, though, Whitehead felt there was much still to be done.11 And he was puzzled at the inclusion in Smith’s volume of very early documents for East Jersey, clearly taken without attribution from The Model of the Government of the Province of East-New-Jersey in America by George Scot, a 1685 treatise that for some time remained out of Whitehead’s reach.12
One could wish that Smith’s abundant offerings on the original peoples of New Jersey and their encounters with Europeans had been more useful to Whitehead. But as the eighteenth-century chronicler dwelled on the generally more peaceable relations and more enduring presence of the Lenape in West Jersey, these fell largely outside the East Jersey historian’s scope. Smith’s characterizations of the indigenous inhabitants, although colored by his descent from colonizers and his Quaker faith, are remarkable not least for their implicit contrast with the ways of his own race:
Among a people so immediately necessary to each other, where property was little, and the anxiety of increasing it less; the intercourse naturally became free and unfettered with ceremony: Hence every one had his eye upon his neighbour; misunderstandings and mistakes were easily rectified. … A life of dissipation and ease, of uncertainty and want, of appetite, satiety, indolence and sleep, seemed to be the sum of the character, and chief that they aim’d at.13
Indians along the Delaware, confronted with a foreign element destined to surpass its Swedish, Finnish and Dutch forerunners in power and permanence, reacted without hostility: they “manifested,” says Smith, “an open hospitable disposition to the English, and were in the general, far from any designs to their prejudice.”14
Smith, in turn, was deeply concerned with the welfare of the Lenape. It was a concern not unrelated to his government service. The coming of the Seven Years’ War in the 1750s imperilled neighborly relations that had lasted for “nigh a century” between the natives and the English. In a bid to keep hostilities away from New Jersey’s frontiers, Smith with two others met Lenape representatives at Crosswicks in 1756 to hear their grievances. These were then brought to the legislature. The remedies enacted included a grant of money to settle Indian land claims within the province, and to lay out a settlement in West Jersey for the Lenape, “whereon they might reside, raise the necessary subsistence, and have always in view the consideration they had received for the remainder of their lands….”15
Successive conferences, as Whitehead says, “resulted in quieting all claims and causes of complaint on the part of the Indians, to the great advantage of New Jersey.” Among the commissioners present at these later meetings, Smith’s name does not appear, but the treaty minutes are “preserved at length” in his History.16 He is also regarded as an originator of the Indian settlement where the few Lenape who remained in the province could have “their usual means of living very convenient….” This reservation was, by Whitehead’s time, no more: its affecting name of Brotherton had likewise “disappeared from the map of the State, although its associations should have led to its retention.”17 But even Smith, who wouldn’t live to see the end of the experiment, felt betrayed by the “perfidy and cruelty” of frontier tribes–the so-called “back Indians”–that had seemed to erase many years of “cordiality and friendship,” and to doom the promise of “better things….”18
What seems to have resonated with Smith as much as the Indians’ hospitable conduct toward the first settlers was their attitude to governance. They honored their more distinguished chiefs, who were called “kings,” but “the respect paid them was voluntary, and not exacted or looked for, nor the omission regarded….”
Liberty in its fullest extent, was their ruling passion; to this every other consideration was subservient; their children were train’d up so as to cherish this disposition to the utmost; … they seemed to abhor a slavish motive to action, as inconsistent with their notions of freedom and independency; … They dreaded slavery more than death….19
In his survey of colonial governance, too, Smith paid homage to those for whom liberty was paramount, who honored the privileges of the settlers or fought to preserve or restore them. He held a patently negative view of arbitrary rule, as when customs duties, levied by the proprietary government on shipping in the Delaware River and Bay nearly a century before, had “introduced a similarity of taxation, which in time proved intolerable grievances.”20 The British historian James Grahame, referring to an early written protest against such exactions inserted in Smith’s work, doubted that there could be found “a more impressive or magnanimous effort for the preservation of liberty, than is evinced in this first successful vindication of the rights of New Jersey.” Whitehead concurred with Grahame’s evaluation of this “most spirited and well written document….”21
Samuel Smith asserted that his History was “principally intended to consist of a plain state of facts, … that through the whole, the strictest impartiality has been attended to….”22 But where it emphasized colonists’ privileges, and their rights to seek a redress of grievances, his narrative was not unconnected to the times in which he lived. In 1751, Smith’s first nomination to the provincial Council was blocked because of insinuations that he had sided with antiproprietary rioters.23 When finally admitted to William Franklin’s Council in 1763, he would witness first-hand the unravelling of ties between colony and mother country, principally over new taxes and the want of means to pay them.
An 1849 gift to the New Jersey Historical Society reawakened Whitehead’s interest in Smith’s History. As described to a meeting of the Society that year, the donation included a draft manuscript entitled “The History of the Colonies of New Jersey and Pennsilvania in America.” It showed that Smith’s original design, which he regarded as “so far complete that he had written a preface and title page,” had been to combine two provinces’ histories in a single work. “Undertaken at the desire of the Yearly Meeting of the people called Quakers of the said Colonies,” the project was to emphasize the presence and importance of the Society of Friends on both sides of the Delaware. During Smith’s lifetime, however, only the New Jersey portions appeared in print, subject, according to Whitehead, to much revision and rearrangement “in the hands of the proof reader.”24
A few years after the gift of Smith’s papers, a request came from the Historical Society of Pennsylvania for a transfer of those portions having to do with New Jersey’s sister colony. The Jerseymen rejected the appeal, Whitehead being convinced of the papers’ “indivisibility without detriment,” but they assured their neighbors that “every facility will be afforded … to make copies of such portions of the Smith papers as may be desired.” (At the same time, Whitehead also inquired as to whether more New Jersey material might be found in Smith’s papers already in the Pennsylvanians’ possession.25) Sections of the manuscripts omitted from the published History soon appeared in issues of the Jersey society’s Proceedings, most of them having to do with the early West Jersey colony.26
References to Smith’s History by Whitehead and others had helped to make the volume a desirable acquisition, but one hundred years and more from its publication copies were exceedingly scarce. In 1877, Trenton publisher William S. Sharp executed a quasi-facsimile reprint of the 1765 edition, set line-by-line in new type.27 Although in possession of a copy of the original, and aware that the reprint incorporated no additions from Smith’s manuscript, Whitehead was glad to be counted a subscriber. “It contains much valuable matter not readily obtainable elsewhere,” he wrote in his endorsement to the publisher, “and I hope your enterprise will meet with abundant compensation.”28
Copyright © 2026 Gregory J. Guderian
Last revised 2026.05.18
[1] Samuel Smith, born “12th Mo., 13, 1720” (i.e. 13 March 1721, new style), represented the City of Burlington in the General Assembly until 1763, when he joined the Council of Governor William Franklin. He resigned from that body in 1775 “on Account of his Age & Infirmities,” and died 13 July 1776, aged 55. [The] Votes and proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey … (Philadelphia [1752-1756], Woodbridge, N.J. 1754-1764, 1766-1767, Burlington 1765) passim; Frederick W. Ricord and William Nelson, edd. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey, 9. Administrations of President John Reading, Lieutenant-Governor Thomas Pownall, Governor Francis Bernard, Governor Thomas Boone, Governor Josiah Hardy, and part of the administration of Governor William Franklin. 1757–1767 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 9. Newark 1885. Hereafter “NJA ser. 1, 9”) 394-396; Frederick W. Ricord and William Nelson, edd. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey, 10. Administration of Governor William Franklin. 1767–1776 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 10. Newark 1886. Hereafter “NJA ser. 1, 10”) 665.
[2] Jonathan Belcher, governor of New Jersey 1747–1757, who was “stricken with the palsy” in 1750, made Smith his intermediary for shipment of an electrical apparatus Benjamin Franklin used in the experimental treatment of nervous disorders (Pennsylvania statesman and scholar James Logan, the father-in-law of Smith’s brother John, was another of Franklin’s subjects), but the equipment met with an unfortunate mishap on the road from Burlington to Perth Amboy. Jonathan Belcher, Elizabeth Town 18 and 25 November, 18 December 1751, to Benjamin Franklin, in Jonathan Belcher letterbooks, 1723–1755, Massachusetts Historical Society Ms. N-2106 (hereafter “Jonathan Belcher letterbooks”) 9:265, 268-269, 312; Leonard W. Labaree et al., edd. The papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven and London 1959–. Hereafter “Benjamin Franklin papers”) 4:209-212, 216 and cf. 255-256; see also William A. Whitehead, ed. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey, 8. Completing the administration of Governor Jonathan Belcher. 1751–1757 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 8. Newark 1885. Hereafter “NJA ser. 1, 8”) 7-8; Stanley Finger, Doctor Franklin’s medicine (Philadelphia 2006) 91-95. There was an exchange of concerned letters between Belcher and Smith, after a severe earthquake off the New England coast was felt across New Jersey, and Smith reserved some of his highest praise for the governor after his death: Jonathan Belcher, Elizabeth Town 27 November 1755, to “Mr. Smith,” Jonathan Belcher letterbooks 11:479; Smith, History 438. Francis Bernard, who followed him as governor of New Jersey and later of Massachusetts, addressed Smith from the latter post: “I am very glad to hear from my good friends in Jersey who still preserve a considerable share in my affections.” Francis Bernard, Boston 20 February 1761, to Samuel Smith, Francis Bernard Papers, 1758–1773, MS Sparks 4, Houghton Library, Harvard College Library (hereafter “Francis Bernard Papers”), 2:100. Naming Smith to his Council in 1763, William Franklin described him as a man “long in publick Offices within this Province, & a leading Member of the Assembly where he has always exerted himself in promoting His Majesty’s Measures. He has I think been before recommended by Governor Barnard [sic] & Govr [Josiah] Hardy.” NJA ser. 1, 9:387. Franklin wrote to his father: “Our Friend Saml. Smith [emphasis mine] of this Town says that he thinks all the Provinces in North America ought to join to make it worth your while to reside in England as long as you live.” William Franklin, Burlington 10 June 1767, to Benjamin Franklin, in NJA ser. 1, 9:625; Benjamin Franklin papers 14:(175-179) 176.
[3] “Having now gone through the accounts proposed to the limited period,” wrote Smith, “what follows are partly matters incidental; the rest tho’ not a regular course of events, nor perhaps more important than others omitted, may nevertheless assist in a future Volume, and in the mean time possibly be of some historical service here.” Samuel Smith, The history of the colony of Nova-Cæsaria, or New-Jersey: containing, an account of its first settlement, progressive improvements, the original and present constitution, and other events, to the year 1721. With some particulars since; and a short view of its present state (Burlington 1765; hereafter “Smith, History”) 419.
[4] A pair of tracts published in London in 1682 by the Scots proprietors of East Jersey, “now only to be met with in Smith’s History,” were reprinted in William A. Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietary governments: a narrative of events connected with the settlement and progress of the province, until the surrender of the government to the Crown in 1702 [1703] (Collections of the New Jersey Historical Society, 1. Hereafter “Whitehead, East Jersey”) ([New York] 18461) 207-214, (Newark 18752) 314-322. The two works appear together as Appendix III of Smith, History 539-546. They are entitled: A brief account of the province of East-Jersey in America. Published by the present proprietors thereof … For information of all such persons who are or may be inclined to setle themselves, families, and servants in that country; and Proposals by the Proprietors of East-Jersey in America, for the building of a tovvn on Ambo-Point, and for the disposition of lands in that province and also for encouragement of artificers and labourers that shall transport themselves thither out of England, Scotland and Ireland.
[5] Smith, History xi. The West Jersey proprietary records are cited at Smith, History 95 note l and 164 note a. “Where are the despatches of the Proprietary Governors?” asked William A. Whitehead. “With the exception of three or four preserved in Smiths’ History, (where obtained he does not say) and one in his own possession, the writer is not aware that any are to be found in America.” G. P., “Grahame and Bancroft, on the early history of East Jersey, No. III,” Newark (N.J.) daily advertiser 23 March 1840 2:1-2 note ‡.
[6] James Parker, Woodbridge 22 March and Burlington 25 April 1765, to Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin papers 12:(86-91) 87, (111-113) 112; Smith, History xiii. Parker used a press and type belonging to Franklin that was kept in New York. The equipment went by sloop from there to Burlington where it remained, as did Parker, until the year after the History’s completion. The press was then delivered to Philadelphia and the printer returned to Woodbridge. An assertion that Smith was slow to provide Parker with copy appears to be without foundation. Beverly McAnear, “James Parker versus John Holt,” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society n.s. 59:2-3 (April-July 1941) (77-95, 198-212) 87. Misled by a statement of antiquarian Isaiah Thomas, William A. Whitehead concluded that Parker “moved his press from Woodbridge to Burlington, for the accommodation of the author of the History of New Jersey, (Smith), but on the completion of the work it was returned to the former place.” Many since Whitehead have repeated this “pretty story,” as it was termed by William Nelson, who disproved it. Isaiah Thomas, The history of printing in America. With a biography of printers, and an account of newspapers. To which is prefixed a concise view of the discovery and progress of the art in other parts of the world (2 vols. Worcester 18101) 2:121, (2 vols. Albany 18742) 1:315; G. P., “First periodical, editor, and printer in New Jersey,” Newark daily advertiser 10 September 1839 2:1-2; William A. Whitehead, Contributions to the early history of Perth Amboy and adjoining country, with sketches of men and events in New Jersey during the provincial era (New York 1856; hereafter “Whitehead, Contributions”) 376; William Nelson, “Some New Jersey printers and printing in the eighteenth century,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society n.s. 21 (1911) (15-56) 24-27.
[7] Smith ordered 600 copies of the History, at a final cost of £164:5:0. The work was advertised for sale from Smith himself in Burlington, from Parker in New York, and from David Hall in Philadelphia. James Parker, Philadelphia 14 June 1765, to Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin papers 12:(174-176) 175; [Joseph J. Felcone,] New Jersey books 1694–1900. A descriptive catalogue of the Joseph J. Felcone Collection (2 vols. Princeton 2023) 2:655.
[8] Francis Bernard, Boston 8 December 1767, to Charles Read, Francis Bernard papers, 5:250. William Franklin, Burlington 28 March 1774, to the Earl of Dartmouth, NJA ser. 1, 10:(433-451) 434.
[9] G. P., “Grahame and Bancroft, on the early history of East Jersey. No. I,” Newark daily advertiser 12 March 1840 2:4; Whitehead, East Jersey (18461, 18752) v. Comparing Smith’s printing of the 1702 surrender of the right of government with the texts of a draft and an official copy of the surrender obtained from London, Whitehead pronounced Smith’s list of the proprietors’ names “incorrect in several instances, both in arrangement and orthography.” However he added from Smith’s text the names of those present at Queen Anne’s ratification of the surrender, which were missing from the London copies. Smith, History 211-220; William A. Whitehead, ed. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey, 2. 1687–1703 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 2. Newark 1881) 452-462, 452 n1, 459 n1, 462 n1.
[10] Smith, History xiii-xiv and cf. 419. See G. P., “Grahame and Bancroft, No. I,” note †; G. P., “Grahame and Bancroft, on the early history of East Jersey. No. II,” Newark daily advertiser 19 March 1840 2:3-4 note *; G. P., “East Jersey history,” Newark daily advertiser 21 April 1841 2:2, and cf. Whitehead, East Jersey (18752) 121 n1.
[11] Whitehead, East Jersey (18461) 68 n99, (18752) 88 n1.
[12] For background to Scot’s work, which was reprinted as an appendix in Whitehead, East Jersey (18461) 231-333, (18752) 357-475, see my previous post 053–Scot’s Model. Smith “or some one in his behalf,” Whitehead determined, “must have had access to the book; as his history contains three or four letters and (in part) a description of the Province as it was in 1680, which were evidently extracted from it, although it is not alluded to in any way by him.” Whitehead, East Jersey (18461) 233 and cf. 94 n11, (18752) 359 and cf. 124 n1. The letters and accounts from Scot’s Model occupy Chapter X of Smith, History 166-189, while the “Account of the settled Towns” in Scot, Model 128-142, is strikingly similar to Smith, History 157-161.
[13] Smith, History 146-148.
[14] Smith, History 52.
[15] Frederick W. Ricord, ed. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey, 16. Journal of the Governor and Council. 4. 1748–1755 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 16. Trenton 1891) 585; Smith, History 440-442.
[16] Smith, History 446-483; G. P., “Francis Bernard,” Newark daily advertiser 24 October 1843 2:1-2; Whitehead, Contributions 172. Cf. G. P., “Glimpses of the past in New Jersey. No. XIII–The Indians,” Newark daily advertiser 26 April 1842 2:1.
[17] Smith, History 483; William A. Whitehead, ed. An analytical index to the colonial documents of New Jersey, in the state paper offices of England. Compiled by Henry Stevens (Collections of the New Jersey Historical Society, 5. New York 1858) 353; NJA ser. 1, 9:175 n1.
[18] Smith, History 145, 484.
[19] Smith, History 144.
[20] Smith, History 56. Smith’s revulsion at attempts, once the proprietors had surrendered the right of government, to curtail the civil and religious privileges of New Jersey’s inhabitants is nowhere more apparent than in his “observations” on the government of Lord Cornbury, comprising Chapter XIV: see Smith, History 261-274, and cf. 275 for an assessment of Cornbury’s character.
[21] Smith, History 116-124; James Grahame, The history of [the rise and progress of] the United States of North America, till the British revolution in 1688 (2 vols. London 18271, London and Boston 18332) 2:348. Whitehead’s footnote refers to the expanded 1837 version of Grahame’s history, where different wording appears. See Whitehead, East Jersey (18461) 69 and n101, 80-82 and 82 n123, (18752) 89 and n2, 99-101 and cf. 101 n1. In advocating for government support of an index of provincial records kept in England, Whitehead referred to the protest recorded in Smith, and wrote: “I am not a West Jerseyman, but were I so I should be proud … to trace back the sentiments so widely disseminated at the revolution, to those interested in West Jersey in the earliest stages of its settlement.” In such early anti-authoritarian statements could be found “the seeds of that political liberty of which we are now gathering the matured fruit.” G. P., “Colonial records,” The sheet anchor of democracy (Trenton, N.J.) 27 January 1844 2:3-4. For Whitehead’s appreciation of James Grahame see my earlier post 085–Light sufficient.
[22] Smith, History xiii.
[23] Jonathan Belcher’s appointments of Smith and William Morris were thwarted, he believed, by the machinations of Council member Robert Hunter Morris, causing the Lords of Trade in London to declare both candidates “disaffected to His Majesty’s Government….” For the nominations and subsequent controversy, see Jonathan Belcher letterbooks 9:84-87, 129-134, 137-146, 154-157. Some of this correspondence was printed in William A. Whitehead, ed. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey, 7. Part of administration of Gov. Jonathan Belcher. 1746–1751 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 7. Newark 1883. Hereafter “NJA ser. 1, 7”) 585-586, 600-601, 607-610 and cf. 614-615, 628-629. Historian Carl Prince argued that the rejection of Smith’s first nomination engendered in him an “unrelenting hostility toward British colonial control,” an antipathy that went on to inform Smith’s History; that, particularly in his critique of Lord Cornbury’s administration, Smith “directed his animosity against the empire backward into time,” while the History as a whole became little short of a revolutionary text: “disenchantment with overseas control of colonial fortunes … is the key to the book.” If true, the verdict of the Lords of Trade was prescient, however unjustified. Prince didn’t account for the positive opinions of Smith’s work expressed by two contemporary governors (above, note 8). Carl E. Prince, “Samuel Smith’s History of Nova-Caesaria,” in Lawrence H. Leder, ed. The colonial legacy. Volume II. Some eighteenth-century commentators (New York 1971) (163-180) 163, 176.
[24] The draft history forms part of Manuscript Group 41, Samuel Smith Papers, New Jersey Historical Society. Whitehead reported the donation and delivered comments on the manuscript at the Society’s September meeting: Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society [ser. 1] 4:3 (1849) 101-102 and cf. 117.
[25] Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society [ser. 1] 7:3 (1854) 85, 88; William A. Whitehead, Newark 19 May 1854, to Charles M. Morris, General Correspondence, 1854, Institutional Archives, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Box I-4-1.
[26] These extracts are presented in Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society [ser. 1] 8:2 (1856) 40-48, 8:3 (1858) 126-136, and 9:1 (1860) 15-22. The second group of selections includes an extended treatment of George Keith and his defection from the Quakers to the Church of England.
[27] Addressing the New Jersey Historical Society in May 1860 about the life and work of Samuel Smith’s grandson Samuel J. Smith, “the poet of Hickory Grove,” a kinsman said of Smith’s History, “So rare has his book become, that it now invariably commands a very high price, when a bookseller is so fortunate as to possess a copy for sale. … Though later research has brought to light and digested facts that are of great interest, it is still referred to by all as a volume of undisputed truth.” John Jay Smith, “A brief memoir of one of New Jersey’s neglected sons, Samuel J. Smith, ‘A lost poet;’ with some reminiscences of Burlington, by a sexagenarian,” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society [ser. 1] 9:1 (1860) 39-54. The same descendant provided a short biographical sketch of the historian for the 1877 reprint: Smith, History v-vi.
[28] W. A. Whitehead, Newark 5 June 1877, to Wm. S. Sharp, in printed circular “Smith’s History of New Jersey. Testimonials.” DC011 Hamill Family Papers, Stephan Archives Collections, Bunn Library, The Lawrenceville School (Lawrenceville, N.J.), Box 2/13. In order “to provide for the preservation of the early history of the colony of New Jersey,” the state legislature appropriated $4,000 to purchase copies of an expanded reprint of the History, also by Sharp, for every public school in the state, every college and library incorporated under state law, and numerous other institutions, including reform schools, lunatic asylums and the state prison. Act of 12 May 1890, ch. 204, 1890 N.J. Laws 332-333.