STATE FIELD-OFFICERS.

4I

the officers, and after four more postponements Congress elected them. This was a substantial victory for those favoring local appointments, for a precedent was thus set from which it was difficult to depart. Accordingly, a little later, Congress requested the committees of safety of Pennsylvania and Delaware to recommend field-officers; 2 and, in general, Congress appears to have elected field-officers who had already been designated by the colonies.

Even the right of Congress to make promotions out of the ordinary course, or at least the propriety of their doing so, was challenged; but for once Congress clung to their authority. A letter from General Lord Stirling, remonstrating against the appointment of Lieutenant-Colonel Ogden to a New Jersey battalion, was answered by the passage of a resolution declaring that Congress had "reserved and frequently exercised the right of promoting men of distinguished merit."3 The officers were inclined to consider succession by seniority an absolute right; Washington recommended that this supposed right be denied, or at least that a clear declaration be made, settling the matter one way or the other. Congress thereupon asserted full control over the subject, resolving that "no promotion or succession shall take place upon any vacancy, without the authority of a Continental commission."4

This announcement seems to have caused some discontent in camp; and both General Greene and General Parsons wrote to Adams, objecting to such a rule. Greene acknowledged that the principle of special promotion was right in theory; but he said. that mistakes in applying it would give great offence, and that Congress should exercise this power in those cases only where the officers themselves would acknowledge the favor shown to be the just reward of exceptional services.5 Adams replied, defending the action of Congress. He admitted that special

1 Stryker, Official Register of the Officers and Men of New Jersey, 12.

2 Journals of Congress, i. 294, December 15, 1775.

3 Ibid. ii. 157, May 3, 1776.

Washington to President of Congress, May 5, 1776, Washington, Writings (Ford), iv. 64; Journals of Congress, ii. 166, May 10, 1776. Greene to Adams, June 2, 1776, Greene, Greene, ii. 423-424.

promotion was liable to abuse; but he claimed that it was necessary, and that there would be less danger to public liberty in vesting the power in an assembly than in giving it to a general. Moreover in an assembly, he said, various interests would counterbalance each other and furnish a check to partiality, a safeguard which is impossible where authority is intrusted to a single person. He pointed out that the extensive area over which the war was waged rendered absolute succession by seniority impracticable, that it would not do to leave a vacancy in New Hampshire unfilled until the officer next in rank could be fetched from South Carolina.1

Several generals had been recently appointed from the Middle and Southern States and Greene complained that New England was slighted. Adams gave a number of explanations for this seeming partiality, some of which are rather curious. Merit in civil and political affairs, and even family and fortune, were among the causes he assigned for the appointments referred He also said that the South was unwarlike, and that it was necessary to awaken her military ardor by a full share of commands. Adams gave as another reason for the treatment of the New England colonels that the most deserving among them were juniors, and that their promotion would have given offence.2

to.

But the discrimination, if such existed, was quickly removed. The day after Adams's letter was written, Washington asked Congress to increase the number of generals. Two days later he wrote at more length, admitting the serious embarrassments in making a choice, but urging the need of action.3 Congress promptly elected four major-generals and six brigadier-generals.1 All of the former and half of the latter were New England

men.

When, in the fall of 1776, arrangements were made for again enlisting an army, the appointment of officers and the filling of

1 Adams to Greene, and to Parsons, June 22, 1776, John Adams, Works, ix. 402-407.

2 Adams to Greene, August 4, 1776, Ibid. i. 251-253.

* Washington to President of Congress, August 5 and 7, 1776, Washington, Writings (Ford), iv. 320-323.

4 Journals of Congress, ii. 303, August 9, 1776.

STATE PROMOTIONS.

43

vacancies below the rank of general were left to the States.1 Knox was displeased, and Adams wrote to him: "You complain of the popular plan of raising the new army. But if you make the plan as unpopular as you please, you will not mend the matter." Adams said that the State legislatures were best fitted for the work of selection, that the defects of the American officers were due, not to bad appointments, but to lack of training; and he asked Knox to send him a plan for a military academy.2 Adams's professed confidence in the legislatures was scarcely justified by the result. Washington wrote to his brother: "The different States, without regard to the qualifications of an officer, [are] quarrelling about the appointments, and nominating such as are not fit to be shoe-blacks, from the local attachments of this or that member of assembly." Gerry wrote to Gates in a similar tone. "If some extra measures are not adopted," he said, "we shall have such a corps of officers as the army have been hitherto encumbered with."4

Congress endeavored to remedy these defects by advising the States to consult the generals in making promotions, and hereafter to appoint "men of honor and known abilities, without a particular regard to their having before been in service." 5 Early in November, Congress authorized Washington, after consulting with such of his generals as he could conveniently assemble, to appoint officers himself when the States had not sent commissioners to camp for that purpose.6

A little later the serious condition of affairs induced the commander-in-chief to take steps for raising troops without any clear authority to warrant the proceeding. He wrote to Congress, explaining how matters stood, and made numerous requests, one of which was for an increase of power. This

1 Journals of Congress, ii. 358, September 16, 1776.

2 Adams to Knox, September, 1776, John Adams, Works, i. 257.

8 Washington to John Augustine Washington, November 19, 1776, Washington, Writings (Ford), v. 40.

4

* September 27, 1776, Force, American Archives, 5th series, ii. 572.

5 Journals of Congress, ii. 403-404, October 8, 1776.

Ibid. 443, November 4, 1776.

7 Washington to President of Congress, December 20, 1776, Washington, Writings (Ford), v. 112-122.

letter, together with one from General Greene, testifying to the danger of the country and to the moderation and fidelity of Washington, was read December 26.1 The reply was the socalled "vote for a dictator." By this vote, Congress declared that "The unjust, but determined purpose of the British court to enslave these free States, obvious through every delusive insinuation to the contrary, having placed things in such a situation that the very existence of civil liberty now depends upon the right execution of military powers, and the vigorous, decisive conduct of these being impossible to distant, numerous, and deliberative bodies:

"This Congress, having maturely considered the present crisis, and having perfect reliance on the wisdom, vigor, and uprightness of General Washington; do hereby

"Resolve" that, unless the authority be sooner revoked, he have for six months certain extraordinary powers, including the raising of additional troops, the naming of their officers, and the right "to displace and appoint all officers under the rank of brigadiergeneral, and to fill up all vacancies in every other department in the American armies."2 Washington was also requested to fix upon a system of promotion which, in his own opinion and that of his generals, would be satisfactory. Congress suggested that field-officers might rise in State lines, those of lower grades only regimentally. This plan was afterwards recommended to the States, but proved less successful than had been anticipated.5

3

In his letter asking for an increase of power, Washington made a proposition which has an interest quite apart from the special point at issue. "I have labored," he said, "ever since I have been in the service, to discourage all kinds of local attachments and distinctions of country, denominating the whole by 1 Greene to President of Congress, December 21, 1776, Greene, Greene, i. 289-291.

2 Journals of Congress, ii. 515, December 27, 1776.

3 The troops of a State, on the Continental establishment, were called the "line" of that State; and the infantry regiments in general, as distinct from the cavalry and from the artillery, were sometimes called the "line of the army."

4 Journals of Congress, ii. 514, December 27, 1776.

5 Ibid. iv. 674-675, November 24, 1778.

RULES OF PROMOTION.

45

the greater name of AMERICAN, but I have found it impossible to overcome prejudices; and, under the new establishment, I conceive it best to stir up an emulation; in order to do which, would it not be better for each State to furnish, though not to appoint, their own brigadiers?"1

Military titles were dealt out with a lavish hand. "My blacksmith is a captain," wrote Kalb. Assistant quartermasters and the like were colonels; according to Kalb, it was safe to give the title to every one who addressed you with familiarity.2 Congress at last woke to the evil of making rank cheap, and resolved that hereafter it should not be conferred upon any one on the civil staff of the army.3

In 1780 Washington again brought the matter of promotion before Congress. General Sullivan, who was then a member of that body, had asked him for certain information on that subject. Washington replied: “If in all cases ours was one army, or thirteen armies allied for the common defence, there would be no difficulty in solving your question; but we are occasionally both, and I should not be much out if I were to say, that we are sometimes neither, but a compound of both." To the president of Congress Washington now wrote, advising that, as the best means of satisfying the claims of the States, of the Continent, and of individuals, promotions below the rank of brigadier should be by State lines rather than by regiments; under the old system a sergeant in one regiment might be raised over the head of a lieutenant in another. The artillery and cavalry had been treated as separate lines, and Washington advised retaining this arrangement. Some States did not furnish enough men to make a brigade, and their colonels were therefore excluded from promotion. Washington proposed that they be made generals whenever they became the senior colonels of the whole army, and that they be employed on extra service, as in com

1 Washington to President of Congress, December 20, 1776, Washington, Writings (Ford), v. 117–118.

2 Kalb to Broglie, December 25, 1777, Kapp, Kalb, 141.

& Journals of Congress, iv. 320, May 29, 1778.

Washington to Sullivan, December 17, 1780, Washington, Writings (Ford), ix. 63-64.