In 1865, at the close of the Civil War, 1,367 men were breveted as a major or a brigadier general by the United States Senate. These honorary promotions were in addition to 583 who were already serving as generals, many in a brevet rank. Confusion abounded. As an example, at the war’s close, Ranald S. Mackenzie was a full brigadier general of volunteers, a major general of volunteers by brevet, and a regular army brevet brigadier general, while his actual regular rank was captain.[1] This muddle carried over to the post war frontier army, George A. Custer being another example, and was essentially phased out by the end of the nineteenth century, with the last brevet commission being awarded in 1918. Although mentioned in Confederate Army regulations, it appears that brevets were employed on a very limited basis in that army.[2] Brevets were used in the British army during the American Revolution. While brevets were awarded by the Continental Army during the American Revolution, the numbers were far smaller.
Many authors are either lax in their fact checking of officers’ ranks or perhaps simply confused by the system of brevet ranks. The more limited range of enlisted ranks—essentially private, corporal, and sergeant—does not seem to present a problem; brevets applied only to officers. But commissioned officers are regularly misidentified, with a rank either higher or lower than correct. Perhaps the problem is one of timing, with writers often using a higher rank that was obtained later in the war, rather than the one appropriate to the time being chronicled. This seems to be especially true for Continental general officers, who are regularly rated as major general rather than brigadier general.
In his 1877 The History And Legal Effect Of Brevets In The Armies of Great Britain And The United States From Their Origin In 1692 To The Present Time, James B Fry, Assistant Adjutant General of the U. S. Army, defines brevets thusly:
A brevet under the existing laws affecting the regular military service of the United States may be defined as a commission conferring upon an officer a grade in the army additional to and higher than that which, at the time it is bestowed, he holds by virtue of his commission in a particular corps of the legally established military organization. It makes him eligible, with the rank it confers, for assignment to duty by the President in the army at large, but not in his own corps.[3]
Brevets were in effect a specialized promotion, often temporary, for a specific purpose, with no impact in the officer’s own unit. Brevets could either be in the army in general or specific to a branch—artillery, dragoons, foot, etc.[4]
On June 20, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted the first Articles of War, revising them on September 20, 1776. Both of these versions, essentially carry overs from the British army system, referenced brevets in a rather non-specific manner. It appears that they were just considered a predefined given, “Without any formal resolution specifically authorizing brevet rank.”[5]
Further, Congress was very specific and protective of its right to promote. “The Congress has hitherto exercised and ought to retain the power of promoting officers in the continental service according to their merit; and no promotion or succession shall take place upon any vacancy without the authority of a Continental Commission.”[6]
Eventually the Congress decided that a brevet commission would require approval of nine states, instead of the regular majority of seven. And no pay increase was included. A resolution of September 10, 1783 directed, “That the Secretary at War inform the paymaster general that brevet commissions do not entitle to pay or emoluments, unless the same be expressed in the resolution granting such commissions.”[7] Almost all brevet resolutions contained some explanation for the award.
A November 19, 1777 Congressional resolution seemed to reign in what had become a rather common occurrence: “That no brevets for the future be granted, except to officers in the line or in case of very eminent services.”[8] This, however, did not seem to curtail the practice.
Brevets were not awarded in order to elevate an officer who was commanding a unit above his rank. For example, many colonels commanded brigades, but none were breveted to reflect that assignment.
The first Congressional brevet went to a French volunteer with no actual rank in the army. Jacques Antoine de Franchessin became a brevet lieutenant colonel on July 20, 1776, assigned to the Flying Camp.[9] The first American officer to be so honored was Maj. Walter Stewart, becoming a lieutenant colonel by brevet on November 19, 1777.[10]
By the end of the American Revolution, seventy-eight men had been appointed as generals, with four declining the offered commission. On September 30, 1783, the Continental Congress resolved “That the Secretary at War issue to all officers in the army, under the rank of major general, who hold the same rank now that they held in the year 1777, a brevet commission one grade higher than their present rank, having respect to their seniority.”[11]
Eleven current brigadier generals were advanced to major general—James Clinton, Lachlan McIntosh, John Paterson, Anthony Wayne, John Philip DeHaas, Peter Muhlenberg, George Clinton, Edward Hand, Charles Scott, Jedediah Huntington, and John Stark. Twenty-six colonels became brigadier generals.[12]
As the legislation states, nothing was done for the eight major generals appointed in 1777 or prior—Horatio Gates, William Heath, Nathanael Greene, Arthur St Clair, Benjamin Lincoln, Marquis de Lafayette, Robert Howe, and Alexander McDougall. Promotion for this group would mean creation of the rank of lieutenant general, a grade that Congress had twice rejected, despite Washington’s repeated entreaties.[13]
On November 3, 1783, Congress breveted five additional colonels as brigadier general—Thaddeus Kosciusko, Stephen Moylan, Samuel Elbert, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and William Russell. As all of these men were eligible for advancement based on the September legislation, the delay in promotion remains a mystery. Perhaps this was simply a clerical oversight, omitting the five from the first list.
Prior to 1783, three men had been breveted as brigadier generals. These three men are interesting cases, as they did not fit the norm.
The first, on November 6, 1777, was the scoundrel James Wilkinson, who was breveted a brigadier general at the request of Horatio Gates, as a reward for delivering the news of the Saratoga victory to Congress. This set off an immediate firestorm, with forty-seven more senior colonels protesting the advancement. Maj, Gen, Nathanael Greene wrote to his brother Jacob that, “The congress have lately appointed Colonel Wilkinson to the rank of a brigadier and Brigadier General Conway to the rank of major general. Both these appointments are exceedingly disgusting to the army; the first to the colonels, the last to the brigadiers. The army is exceedingly convulsed by these appointments, and God knows what will be the issue.”[14] Conway’s promotion was a regular one, not a brevet. Wilkinson resigned on March 6, 1778, then served with the Board of War and as Clothier General of the army before resigning from both positions. He later returned to the army, eventually becoming both commanding general and a Spanish agent. His is one of the most interesting stories of the early republic.[15]
The Chevalier de la Neuville became a brevet brigadier general on August 14, 1778, the second one so appointed. One historian claims that this French volunteer’s proper family name was Louis-Pierre Penot Lombart, while another identifies him as Neuville, his honorary title. He served as inspector general of the Northern Army under Gates, before retiring and returning to France in January 1779. This brevet appears to be in response to a previous promise of promotion.[16]
The Canadian Col. Moses Hazen was advanced on June 29, 1781, after several unsuccessful attempts in Congress. This may simply have been a recognition of his good work, as there certainly were not enough Canadian troops to warrant a general officer. Even Washington seemed to be uncertain about this promotion, writing that “Congress would seem to contradict their own principles.”[17] Hazen served as a brigade commander at Yorktown. Perhaps again this was more of a thank you.[18]
In addition to the brevets of September 1783, the Continental Congress awarded a total of eighty-seven brevets to eighty-two other officers, from 1775 until 1784. Five men were granted two brevets. The majority of them went to foreign officers, many of whom were serving as engineers or aides to foreign generals. Apparently this was viewed as a method to thank these officers for their service, without actually granting them regular army rank.[19] Finally, all other eligible, lower-ranked Continental Army officers also benefitted from the September 1783 legislation.[20]
For practical purposes, all brevets appear to have expired when the army was disbanded in 1783. However, all of these officers then had the honor of being addressed by the higher rank for the remainder of their lives. Thus, brevets were, at least, a small recognition and thank you for their critical service. But they remain potentially confusing.
[1] Ezra J. Warner, Generals in Blue: Lives of the Union Commanders (Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press, 1964), xvii and 581-595.
[2] Patricia L. Faust, ed, Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War (New York: Harper and Row, 1986), 79.
[3] James B. Fry, The History And Legal Effect Of Brevets In The Armies Of Great Britain And The United States From Their Origin In 1692 To The Present Time (New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1877), 1.
[4] Ibid., 54.
[5] Ibid., 51.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 60.
[8] Ibid., 55.
[9] Ibid., 52.
[10] Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register Of Officers Of The Continental Army During The War Of The Revolution, April, 1775 To December, 1783 (Washington, DC: The Rare Book Shop Publishing Company, Inc, 1914), 520.
[11] Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774 -1789 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1922), 25:632.
[12] Lynn Montross, Rag, Tag, and Bobtail: The Story of the Continental Army, 1775 – 1783 (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1952), 470 and 472. While Montross lists both John Glover and George Weedon as being breveted to major general, Heitman lists neither, as both resigned before the September 1783 resolution. Boatner agrees with Montross, but neither of the generals’ biographers, Billias and Ward, mention a brevet. Given the limited and inconsistent role of Phiilip DeHaas, his promotion is something of a mystery.
[13] William M. Welsch, “Continental Army Lieutenant Generals: The Rank That Never Was,” Journal of the American Revolution, July 19, 2018, allthingsliberty.com/2018/07/continental-army-lieutenant-generals-the-rank-that-never-was/.
[14] Richard K. Snowman, ed, The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 2:243.
[15] Andro Linklater, An Artist in Treason: The Extraordinary Double Life of General James Wilkinson (New York: The Walker Publishing Company, 2009).
[16] Mark M. Boatner, Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (New York: David McKay Company, 1975), 779 and 852; Heitman, Historical Register, 411.
[17] George Washington to Elias Dayton, 28 June 1781, Founders Online
[18] Allan S. Everest, Moses Hazen and the Canadian Refugees in the American Revolution (Syracuse; Syracuse University Press, 1976), 90—91.
[19] Fry, The History And Legal Effect Of Brevets, 279-291.
[20] This author has no idea as to the number of officers so advanced. Heitman seems to list some of the 1783 brevets. An accounting would seem like a worthwhile project for a future researcher.
5 Comments
Bill,
Tough topic, well done. As you know, military promotions, to this day are special occasions for the individual, peers, unit, service and nation.
When politics creeps into the promotion formula, someone, other than the promote, will be affected. This is particularly true the more senior the individual, as promotions become more competitive.
Curious if these brevet promotions had any impact on land grants. In reviewing pension and land grant records, soldiers and descendants were always looking for more land, the one thing the nation could offer with tangible value post war.
Pat,
Thanks for the kind words. As to land grants, a great question for which I have no information. The topic never was mentioned in my research. Nor have I ever heard any connection. I did a bit more looking and still found nothing. Perhaps there was more of an impact on pension awards, where a higher rank might have been taken into consideration. But I’m just sharing my ignorance. Sorry.
Bill, I thoroughly enjoyed your article and learning more about Congress’s use of brevet ranks. As to Moses Hazen, I surmise that Congress bestowed the brevet rank to quiet the Colonel’s incessant petitions to Congress for pay and promotion for him and his Canadian Regiment. There were at least two colonels with more seniority than Hazen, which would have created a firestorm if Hazen received a regular promotion. In addition to Congress, Hazen had many disputes with fellow officers, and despite being a thorn in the side, Washington kept him around due to his effectiveness, as you indicated.
Gene, Thanks for the kind comment. Sorry to not reply sooner. I think that you’re correct about Hazen. Your rational for the brevet makes sense. Given Washington’s apparent surprise with the Congressional decision, it does seem like a good way to keep Hazen quiet, as Congress, and not a state was responsible for the Canadian regiments. Congress’s Own.
Bill – Nice article. Thanks for bringing some clarity to a confusing array of ranks.