The brevet rank in military law
Reader GR Gordon is struggling to understand the use of “Brevet” military ranks by several men from a maternal grandfather’s home town in upstate New York, who were members of the Company H, 5th New York Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, in the Civil War.
Because she can’t find those ranks referenced in their official files, she notes, “I’m totally confused by this brevetting system. Would you be able to explain how it worked? Were these true military titles, or perhaps honorific civilian recognitions. Were the underpinnings of the system based on federal or state law, or social custom, or all of the above?”
Great question — and one that the law does answer.
And let’s begin with the technical definition: “In military law. A commission by which an officer is promoted to the next higher rank, but without conferring a right to a corresponding increase of pay.”1
It’s a system inherited from the British, first officially recognized during the Revolutionary War when — in 1778 — the Continental Congress resolved that “no commissioned officer in the Army of the United States, who shall be honored with a brevet commission, shall be entitled, by Virtue of such brevet commission to any higher rank in the regiment, troop, or company to which he belongs, than he before held therein ; such brevet commission giving rank only upon detachments from the line, and in general courts martial ; nor shall such brevet officer be entitled to receive any additional pay in consequence of such brevet promotion.”2
Loosely translated, that meant that the brevet commission was basically honorary: it carried with it no right to command and no extra pay.
In November 1778, Congress declared that brevet commissions were to be reserved for “cases of very eminent services,”3 and in 1779 brevet commissions in the Continental army required the consent of nine of the states.4
The no-extra-pay part was emphasized by Congress in 1783, when it resolved: “That the Secretary of 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.”5
The issue wasn’t significantly addressed again until 1806, when Congress adopted rules for the Army. It provided that officers with brevet ranks could serve according to those ranks in courts martial or on detachment to specific duty, but not otherwise.6 In 1812, it provided that “the President is hereby authorized to confer brevet rank on such officers of the army as shall distinguish themselves by gallant actions or meritorious conduct, or who shall have served ten years in any one grade” but limited the pay and benefits of such rank to cases where the officers were placed in command situations — and only while actually serving in command.7
In 1818, brevet rank was made subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, and again the extra pay of the higher rank was limited to those circumstances where breveted officers were “on duty, and having a command according to their brevet rank.”8
During the Civil War, however, many officers — both Regular Army and Volunteers — received brevet rank, including many who had never seen combat at all. As the war drew to a close in 1865, the War Department compiled long lists of recommended brevet promotions for “faithful and meritorious service” eventually reaching just about every officer who served in Union blue.9
In 1869, Congress responded by making brevet rank far more limited: “commissions by brevet shall only be conferred in time of war, for distinguished conduct and public service in presence of the enemy,”10 and, a year later, provided that “no officer shall be entitled to wear while on duty any uniform other than that of his actual rank, on account of having been brevetted ; nor shall he be addressed in orders or official communications by any title other than that of his actual rank, and to be so addressed.”11
In 1890, brevet rank was made available to those who’d served in the Indian Wars, but made the limits of the rank even clearer: “brevet rank shall be considered strictly honorary and shall confer no privilege of precedence or command not already provided for in the statutes which embody the rules and articles governing the Army of the United States.”12
And by 1922, the brevet rank was history, replaced by the awarding of medals for gallant or meritorious service instead.13
Bottom line: the brevet commission was essentially honorary, a reward for meritorious service, and didn’t carry the pay or perks of the higher rank except when a breveted officer was actually serving in a command position where the rank was important.
Hope this helps!
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “A matter of rank,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 20 June 2019).
SOURCES
- Henry Campbell Black, A Dictionary of Law (St. Paul, Minn. : West, 1891), 153, “brevet.” ↩
- George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence: Continental Congress, April 30, 1778, Resolution on Brevet Commissions; digital image, Library of Congress (https://www.loc.gov/ : accessed 20 June 2019). ↩
- Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1908), 12: 1158; digital images, “A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875,” Library of Congress, American Memory (https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html : accessed 20 June 2019). ↩
- Ibid., 13: 216. ↩
- Ibid., 25: 541. ↩
- Article 61, “An Act for establishing Rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States,” 2 Stat. 359, 367 (10 April 1806). ↩
- §4, “An Act making further provision for the Army of the United States, and for other purposes,” 2 Stat. 784, 785 (6 July 1812). ↩
- “An Act regulating the pay and emoluments of brevet officers,” 3 Stat. 427 (16 Apr 1818). ↩
- See Spencer Tucker, Almanac of American Military History (Santa Barbara, Calif. : ABC-CLIO, 2013), I: 2331. ↩
- §2, An Act to amend the Act of April tenth, eighteen hundred and six, for establishing Rules and Articles for the Government of the Armies of the United States, 15 Stat. 281 (1 Mar 1869). ↩
- §16, “An Act making Appropriations for the Support of the Army for the Year ending June thirty, eighteen hundred and seventy one and for other Purposes,” 16 Stat. 315, 319 (15 July 1870). ↩
- §3, “An act to authorize the President to confer brevet rank on officers of the United States Army for gallant services in Indian campaigns,” 26 Stat. 13, 14 (27 Feb 1890). ↩
- Encyclopaedia Britannica, (https://www.britannica.com/topic/brevet : accessed 20 June 2019), “brevet.” ↩
The Marine Corp had a Brevet Medal that was created in 1921. One of the recipients was Smedley Darlington Butler of “War is a Racket” fame.
Excellent post; but it is not just within the officer ranks that such can happen; and, it still does happen, even if somewhat more loosely recognized.
In the Marine Corps’ enlisted ranks, you can quickly move from private to private first class to lance corporal. But to move from lance corporal to corporal and become an NCO (non-commissioned officer) may take a long time: there is a “cutting score” continually calculated that has to be achieved before a lance corporal can be promoted to corporal, which factors in performance and conduct, proficiency, time in rank, time in service, the current number of corporals, how many corporals have been promoted to sergeant or have left the service, etc. Many a lance corporal has gone to see what that month’s cutting score is, knowing that having now been in a month longer that they would have a higher score themselves, but would only find that the cutting score had also raised, preventing them from being promoted.
However, certain positions within a company are held by certain designated billets: a fireteam leader should be a corporal, a squad leader should be a sergeant, a platoon sergeant would should actually be a staff sergeant. However, those billets are often held by the next-lower rank, so a fireteam leader would be a lance corporal, a squad leader would be a corporal, the platoon sergeant would be a sergeant, etc. But when a position is vacant, the next-in-line steps up to fill that slot. Thus, I, as a lance corporal, who had not yet surpassed the cutting score to get promoted to corporal, still had to step up into the role of squad leader, and thus was holding an NCO position, serving in a role that should be held by a corporal or sergeant; within the platoon, I was acting as an NCO, but I was still a lance corporal, still wore the same rank, received the same pay… just had the higher responsibilities. Thus, the other squad leaders would refer to me as a brevetted corporal. And this wasn’t ages ago, it was just back in the ’90’s when I was in. It’s nothing that was formally recognized, it’s just a name for a situation where someone is performing in a position that is actually above their designated rank.
It’s only within the officer ranks that the brevet was official and carried actual recognition.
I’d love to read an explanation of your research process when answering questions like this and the time it takes.
Thank you Judy. When it comes explaining the inexplicable in a way that makes everything perfectly clear, “You’re the top,”
( https://youtu.be/njzqv5gWt6k )
I haven’t done the research that you put into this topic but I have a slightly different take on it, and particularly regarding the term “honorary” which I believe minimizes the importance of a brevet rank, particularly during wartime. It is my understanding that the rank was generally considered a “battlefield promotion” subject, and until, made permanent through the official process.
Few in my family have served (I am the only male in my direct line who has since the Revolution). I have, however, a 2g-uncle of German birth who served in the regular Army from 1854 (age 18) until his forced retirement at age 65. He participated in virtually all the important actions of the Army of the Potomac, rising from private to quartermaster sergeant until commissioned as 2nd lieutenant with the infantry in early 1863. As a 1st Lieutenant he was brevetted captain “for gallant and meritorious service in front of Petersburg, Va.” That term seems consistent with your research in this case but my understanding is that he did, in fact, serve in the rank of captain for the duration of the Civil War (fortunately not much longer). The rank subsequently was made permanent but only after several years of additional service – as a captain – in Texas during Reconstruction. The 1869 reorganization of the Army was a major event to reduce the size (and cost) of the military (to 30,000 enllsted men) and the officer corps was culled ruthlessly to reduce the bloated numbers of those who had gained rank during the War when promotions were somewhat freely given, leaving it overburdened with men ill-suited for the role. Ranks were generally reduced at least one grade. My uncle transferred to the 1st Cavalry and remained in service in the permanent rank of captain through the Indian Wars until about 1890, serving in campaigns, including those against the Apache, Modoc, and Nez Perce, and as commander of several posts in California and Nevada but stuck in that rank the entire time. [He is frequently mentioned in news articles of the period and in reminiscences of a number of persons, particularly with regard to his interactions with the feminist “hero,” Sarah Winnimucca. His last post, as Lt. Colonel, was as commander of the Presidio at the beginning of the Spanish War before his forced retirement.]
My intent here, however, is only point out that the use of the brevet was not just as an “honorary” recognition but had real purpose during wartime – at least in the regular Army. As you are likely aware, the volunteer Army was a bit less regimented in its structure (particularly at the beginning of the Civil War) and such rank may have been granted without regard to actual merit.
It was honorary in three senses: (a) it honored the men who received the brevet commission, in many instances for gallant behavior that today would win them medals; (b) it did not carry with it the paycheck or responsibilities of the higher rank unless the brevet commission expressly so provided or unless the soldier was actually assigned to duties requiring the higher rank; and (c) it did not carry over into peacetime unless confirmed by regular promotion.
“….the officer corps was culled ruthlessly to reduce the bloated numbers of those who had gained rank during the War when promotions were somewhat freely given….”
This sounds as if it might be the reason the service records of the men I was studying noted for each of their promotions the name and fate of the officer into whose shoes they would be stepping (“….vice [name], promoted [or died] [date]….”) and the effective date of the commission and increased pay always dovetailed with the date of departure of the predecessor, regardless of the date the commission was actually granted.
I suspect your second point, particularly the qualifier “unless . . . ,” is the relevant point.
Brevets were in use by the British military in the colonial governments before the Revolution. Washington’s great military sponsor, Virginia Governor, Robert Dinwiddie, told G. Washington in 1756 in his letter, that he asked that Washington be awarded “breviate Commissions” as a way to resolve the dispute he was having with Robert Dagworthy. It never happened. See, “To George Washington from Robert Dinwiddie, January 22, 1756, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-02-02-0298
As stated: “It’s a system inherited from the British…”