Brigadier General Henry Knox to George Washington, 27 March 1781
From Brigadier General Henry Knox
New Windsor 27th March 1781.
Sir,
There being no established principles to govern the appointments to the vacancies of officers in the artillery, some doubts have arisen, since the last regulation of the army,1 whether the right of appointment is in Congress, as generally has been the case, or in the States on which the regiments of artillery are apportioned, as part of their quotas. This uncertainty has operated to the prejudice of the service, by keeping vacant many second lieutenancies which are highly necessary to be filled, as there is a great deficiency of officers of that rank.
The regiments of artillery having different origins, the appointments of course have been derived from different authorities. Colonels Lamb’s and Crane’s regiments were raised, and the officers appointed, by virtue of powers given your Excellency in Dec. 1776.2 Colonel Harrisons regiment was raised and appointed by the State of Virginia, under the authority of Congress.3 Colonel Procters was orginially raised by Pennsylvania, as a state regiment, and afterwards taken upon the Continental establishment by a resolve of Congress.4
The new appointments which have taken place, since the first formation of the regiments, have been made by Congress, in consequence of the request and certificates of the officers commanding regiments, countersigned by the General Officer commanding the Corps.
The promotions have been regimental to and including the rank of captains, and to field officers in the line of the corps at large. It is this principle which connects the regiments of artillery and forms them into one corps, and which, if taken away, will reduce it to so many distinct regiments independent of each other, without cement, or any other quality which will enhance its utility and reputation.
If the States interfere in the appointments, it is apparent the connexion between the different regiments will be destroyed: for the same power which has a right to appoint will claim a right to promote in case of vacancies—one is the consequence of the other—the distinction between the right of appointment and promotion is too nice to be observed, or rather it cannot be made.5
We have the experience of our6 own service, in addition to that of others, that rank is esteemed an unalienable right, and the acquisition of it the highest reward of military virtue. The principles of promotion therefore ought to be fixed and certain, and so clear as not to be liable to be misunderstood.
The artillery being composed of troops from different States, no one state can have the direction of the promotion of the whole, or even a part; as a single promotion must affect the whole line. Congress only, with propriety can make the appointments and promotions.
The qualifications requisite for an officer of artillery being materially different from those for an officer of infantry, great care ought to be taken that none are appointed but such as possess a proper proportion of knowledge of the mathematics, and other necessary abilities for the nature of the service. It is from the talents of the officers of artillery, improved by experience, that America may expect to derive an essential part of her military character.
That the greatest caution should be observed in making the appointments, I would humbly propose, that they should originate with the colonels of the regiments, who shall certify that the person recommended appears possessed of a proper proportion of mathematical knowledge and such other qualifications as to make a good officer of artillery. And that this certificate should be countersigned by the general officer commanding the corps, and by him transmitted to Congress. That the promotions should be regimental to Captains, and to field officers in the line of the corps at large. And that the principles of the appointments and promotions be expressed in the most explicit terms.
I am persuaded that, unless the honorable Congress immediately establish a system for the appointments and promotion of artillery, the corps will soon be involved in the utmost confusion. The best of the officers, seeing the uncertainty of promotion, will be disgusted and leave the service—and the present state of the artillery, which has been the work of years, may be ruined in an hour, by the premature promotion of an individual state.
If Your Excellency should view this matter in the same point of light, I beg You would be pleased to make such a representation to Congress as may prevent the evils apprehended.7 I have the honor to be with the highest respect and esteem, Your Excellency’s most obedient servant
H. Knox Brigr Genl Artillery
LS, DLC:GW; ADf, MHi: Knox Papers; copy, DNA:PCC, item 152. Knox’s draft does not include the final paragraph of the LS. GW’s aide-de-camp Tench Tilghman docketed the LS: “Copy transmitted to Committee of Congress 4th April 1781” (see Remarks on a Congressional Committee Report, 3 April, final paragraph).
1. See n.5 below.
2. See GW to John Hancock, 20 Dec. 1776. Col. John Lamb’s regiment became the 2d Continental Artillery Regiment, and Col. John Crane’s regiment became the 3d Continental Artillery Regiment.
3. Congress directed the formation of this artillery regiment on 26 Nov. 1776, named Col. Charles Harrison its colonel, and elected its other field officers and the captains on 30 Nov. 1776. Congress left the selection of subalterns to the government of Virginia (see , 6:981, 995). The regiment became the 1st Continental Artillery Regiment.
4. Congress had added Col. Thomas Proctor’s artillery regiment to the Continental establishment on 20 June 1777 (see , 8:482–83; see also , 8:551, 564). The formation became the 4th Continental Artillery Regiment.
5. The new organization of the Continental army required one artillery regiment each from Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Those states became responsible for filling them to their full complement of officers and men even though some regiments contained soldiers from multiple states (see General Orders, 1 Nov. 1780).
6. This word is not on the LS but appears in Knox’s draft.
7. GW had requested that Congress establish a uniform regulation for the promotion of officers in the artillery regiments (see GW to Samuel Huntington, 20–26 Dec.). A committee assigned to consider GW’s letter reported to Congress on 8 March 1781, recommending “That Regimental promotions in the Artillery to the rank of Commanding Officer inclusive, shall be in the Line of Artillery at large” (, 19:242–44, quote on 243; see also John Sullivan to GW, 9 March, and GW to Sullivan, 4 April). On 25 May, Congress voted to make the promotions in the artillery corps “regimental to the rank of commanding officer inclusive” (, 20:539–40).