Thomas Bullitt
United States soldier and pioneer
Thomas Bullitt (1730 – February 1778) was a United States military officer, and surveyor from Prince William County, Virginia and frontiersman.
Early and family life
Thomas was born to Benjamin and Sarah (Harrison) Bullitt in 1730 in Prince William County, then in the Province of Virginia. Active in the local militia as a youth, he became interested in western exploration and development. By 1754 he was a captain of the county's militia, and participated in a number of attempts to secure western Virginia and Pennsylvania from the French. His younger brother Cuthbert Bullitt studied to become an attorney, became a planter in Prince William County and represented it in the Virginia House of Delegates, mostly after this man's death.
French and Indian War
Thomas Bullitt served as a cadet in Lt. Colonel Washington's expedition in 1754 that ended with defeat at the Battle of Great Meadows. The next year Captain Bullitt and his men again marched against Fort Duquesne, this time with the Braddock Expedition, and again failed, at the Battle of Monogahela on July 9, 1755.
The third try in 1758 also started badly, but ended victoriously. Bullitt commanded a militia company in the Forbes Expedition.
“Thomas Bullitt” enters the record as united States soldier and pioneer. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Thomas, Bullitt and United can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Thomas Bullitt” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Thomas, Bullitt and United provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 6, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7788020. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1730, 1778, 1754 and 1755.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Thomas Bullitt”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Thomas Bullitt primary sources, Thomas Bullitt archive and Thomas research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Thomas Bullitt”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Thomas Bullitt” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.