'1776' and Charles Lee
Gentlemen, I wanted to say how much I’d enjoyed David McCullougch’s 1776; it had been in my ‘books-to-read’ pile for two years! I am very pleased that it finally made it to the top. It is splendidly written stuff, being very good on Knox and Gates, and Lee too, as well as the many events of that turbulent year. There are 94 pages of notes and bibliography! Which is impressive in its own right. Recommended. But, one question remained unanswered... The new (David Bonk) Osprey book on Trenton/Princeton also left the same gap and it was only when I referred back to Christopher Hibbert’s Redcoats and Rebels (which disclosed the, err - cough - :shock: ’exact nature’ of the Tavern at Basking Ridge) that it became clear why Lee chose to place himself overnight so far from the forces under his command... Is this delicacy on the part of American historians? If so, it seems strange given that it concerns Charles Lee, whom - it appears - is not generally well regarded Across-The-Pond... This forum has already discussed The Contemporary-And-Current opinions regarding Bened*ct Ar*nld, but what of Charles Lee? GJ

When Lee was released from captivity in 1778, on his return to the Main Army, he was put up in a spare bedroom in Washington's headquarters and Mr & Mrs GW had to spend the night listening to him "entertaining" a sergeant's wife. Given the "Saint George" Washington fan-boy cabal that seems to rule the American historical circuit, it is somewhat surprising that they haven't been more up-front about what he was actually doing. I've often wondered if old "Ban" wasn't just along for the ride...er...so to speak. The only serious recent biography of Lee is John R Alden's "Charles Lee: Traitor or Patriot" - the Amazon link below is provided more for the very fulsome review by "Wesley", which I would broadly agree with:- http://www.amazon.com/General-Charles-Lee-Traitor-patriot/dp/B0007DVSUG

Rehabilitation...
Don't worry Cornet, it's just part of the attempted rehabilitation of Arnold, Gates, and Lee. Lee screwed the pooch at Monmouth and was relieved for it. Gates 'northern laurels turned to southern sorrows'. Both commanded slackly and paid the price. Arnold, an excellent combat commander, was greedy and already had been court-martialed for graft before his treason. What I have found and teach to my students for the War of the Revolution is that the two indispensable men for the Americans were Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. If people disagree, that's fine, but the Continental Army was formed, disciplined, and trained per Washington's desires and he had an unusual understanding of intelligence work. He was also an excellent practitioner of coalition warfare though he hardly gets the credit. It's very easy for a subordinate, especially an ambitious and/or jealous one to criticize the commander. When put in that place it's a different story-witness Monmouth and Camden. The bottom line is that both Gates and Lee were failed commanders and Arnold turned traitor. Sincerely, G

I dunno. RtL doesn't seem to be rehabilitating Lee, as the review he cites is not flattering. However, the "'Saint George' Washington fan-boy cabal" remark seems uncharacteristically inflammatory for RtL. Generally, he has been a reliable, dispassionate source of fact and cogent argument. Perhaps I am naive or old-fashioned, but G. Washington is a particularly revered hero of mine -- second to none among historical figures.

""Given the "Saint George" Washington fan-boy cabal that seems to rule the American historical circuit"" ................ This is the sort of pompous statement about "MR WASHINGTON" that I would have expected to hear from a group of British Officers sitting around a tavern table in NY in 1777, rather than from someone who I have come to respect for his knowledge on the AWI and for his willingness to share with others. Mike B

I have to confess that the AWI isn't my specialist subject - but my impression of George Washington is that his main claim to greatness ("sainthood"?) was in "simply" keeping his army in being. I'd concur with him being a good "coalition" general but rate him as generally poor to average as a battlefield commander. But I'm more than happy to be corrected....

RtL, I don't think you're wrong per se, but I do believe you may not have a full apprehension of what George Washington means to Americans; and, consequently, why the "the 'Saint George' Washington fan-boy cabal" exists. This is a fairly involved and nuanced topic because Washington's contributions were important, extensive, and enduring. He guided us with a steady hand through 20 turbulent, formative years. Through his exemplary conduct and his unimpeachable character, Washington came to represent for Americans the better side of ourselves and set a standard to which we still strive today. Washington is the embodiment of many of America's highest aspirations and our most cherished ideals -- patriotism, perseverance, mercy, wisdom, et al. We often joke about him and endure endless unfortunate caricatures of him shilling for Presidents' Day sales, but we truly revere him. Lincoln is also widely and deeply beloved. However, 210 years after his death Washington remains as Henry 'Light Horse Harry' Lee eulogized, "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen."

The best way I can explain what George Washington means to Americans,is roughly how the British feel about Nelson.Once it's viewed in this light it helps add perspective and some forgivable toleration of Americans not wanting to delve to deep into his flaws. :)

The best way I can explain what George Washington means to Americans,is roughly how the British feel about Nelson.Once it's viewed in this light it helps add perspective and some forgivable toleration of Americans not wanting to delve to deep into his flaws. As for Lincoln he was arguably our greatest President and his strength of mind kept this country together. My personal favorite figure in American history is Robert E. Lee.I admire his generalship and character.I know that the inclusion of him is not completely on topic,but of note for myself. :)

For the benefit of those who didn't read my post properly (and whose replies to some extent proved my point), I was not referring to the man himself, but to the attitude of those HISTORIANS who don't seem quite as keen to discuss GW's personal character flaws as they are to list those of his "competitors". ............ It's not my job to defend American Scholarship. But your statement is absolutely untrue. I have several histories about Washington. All point out his many personal as well as military weaknesses, personality issues, his attitude towards slaves and his role as a slave owner. A recent History channel special about Washington had a lot (if not too much) focus on the darker-side of his character. Your comment about Washington was, IMHO, meant to provoke. In that it did succeed. Speaking of Washington; might I suggest "This Glorious Struggle", Edward G. Lengel Associate Editor. This book is a collection of General Washington's war letters. I find it very interesting and enlightening to read Washington's own words. His conflicts with both Gates and Lee come up in several of his letters. I am also reading "Washington's General" by Terry Golway. This is the story of General Nathanael Greene. It is an interesting history of the war as seen through the career of General Greene. NY is about to fall to the British. I understand his wife, Caty, was quite the woman! :) Mike B

@Mikeb It helps if you tell us who you are addressing in particular. :)

Axebreaker, mikeb et al: The Washington/Nelson comparison is interesting in that it is not really possible to conduct any study of Horatio Nelson( 8) ) without discussing his human frailties – there were so many of them! But his undoubted greatness as a historical figure was obtained and maintained regardless of this. His overseeing of the brutal repression against the Neapolitan rebels is not surprising as it has to be seen in its historical context, and revolution is comparable to mutiny so... ought to be punished with similar severity. This also assists comprehension of Mr Washington’s apparent Slavery/Liberty dichotomy. To retrospectively apply 21st century ideas, concepts and morals to historical figures is fairly pointless... I would not want to attempt to exonerate Charles Lee from claims that he was ‘self serving’ or ‘mediocre’ (as per Wesley’s review), that he had his own interests at heart is quite apparent. But; Following the string of setbacks in summer/autumn of 1776 it is possible to see why Lee may genuinely have had no confidence in Mr Washington’s prospects. Indeed he would not have been alone; G Washington’s most valued ADC – Joseph Reed – had privately written to Lee to express his dissatisfaction with indecision and serial wrong-decisions, Mr Washington’s reputation was in a bit of a trough at this time. And It is quite plausible that Lee fully expected Howe to catch and destroy Washington’s depleted force. If this had been the case, to stay out of the way would obviously have left Lee in a prime position as successor, but would also have ensured that his own forces were not in the same snare so that there WAS an army left in the field... I don’t claim this was Lee’s main motivation or even that it featured in his thinking at all, or that he would have been an adequate commander in chief - merely that even self serving people can inadvertently do something that may turn out to be of service to others, and that outcomes are often more important than the reasons for actions where reputations are concerned... Returning to Mr W's predicament; once the ‘somewhat’ awkward Lee had accidentally removed himself from the equation I can see why on finding Benedict Arnold had turned up with the northern reinforcements he was immediately despatched out of the way by Washington. Having Lee AND Arnold as your subordinates is a bit much... As an aside, in David McC's ‘1776’ the 16th LD Cornet at the tavern-raid has been a presumable ‘spell-check’ victim in that his name has mutated into Bannister Tarleton... I feel certain that he would rail against this... (groan) But, to get back to the original question, I do find it peculiar that the reason for ‘Lee’s night out’ is not widely mentioned... given that his reputation is not high and has nothing to lose by this disclosure... and without knowing that it makes no sense why he was there!!!! GJ

The Washington/Nelson comparison is interesting in that it is not really possible to conduct any study of Horatio Nelson( 8) ) without discussing his human frailties – there were so many of them! But his undoubted greatness as a historical figure was obtained and maintained regardless of this. His overseeing of the brutal repression against the Neapolitan rebels is not surprising as it has to be seen in its historical context, and revolution is comparable to mutiny so... ought to be punished with similar severity. This also assists comprehension of Mr Washington’s apparent Slavery/Liberty dichotomy. To retrospectively apply 21st century ideas, concepts and morals to historical figures is fairly pointless... Please keep in mind it is easier to talk about what were Nelson's short comings in comparison to Washington's.In this PC world of today and it's morals then Washington's short comings are without doubt looked more down on.Some,even take pride in Nelson's short comings as rather charming,so the fact that the British take his failings in stride is not a surprise.If he had Washington's past,then I doubt they would enjoy those failings being so readily pointed out. I used Washington and Nelson only on a basis of esteem to have a relative comparison to help bring into focus our regard for him. :)