Was Charles Lee a traitor along the lines of Benedict Arnold?
When the American Revolutionary War began the most experienced soldier in North America was Charles Lee. Lee had served with the British Army in America and Europe (including in Portugal under John Burgoyne) and with the Polish Army during the Russo-Turkish War. He found himself in agreement with the Americans in their dispute with the Crown, and settled in Virginia in 1775. He fully expected to be named to command all of the American forces against the Crown in 1776, and when that command went to Washington, Lee was offered second in command, which contributed to his contempt for Washington and his troops.
Lee served, although not with distinction, and with his experience his counsel was considered of value when Washington summoned his officers for their advice. Lee commanded the forces which successfully repelled the British assault on Charleston, South Carolina, early in the war, allowing him to call himself the “hero of Charleston.” After the New York Campaign Lee bombarded sympathetic members of Congress with letters suggesting that Washington be demoted and overall command given to Lee.
Lee withdrew his troops across New Jersey at a plodding pace rather than keeping up with those of his commander, and in December 1776 he was captured at an inn in New Jersey by cavalrymen under Banastre Tarleton. Lee was paroled by the British, but remained in their encampments for a time, until exchanged for captured British general Richard Prescott. After Lee returned to the Continental Army he demanded the command of the attack at the Battle of Monmouth, and so botched it that it nearly became another American rout. Washington assumed personal command and managed to hold off the British counterattacks for a tactical draw.
Washington relieved Lee on the field that day, and a court martial later made his removal permanent. Lee died before the war ended. For several decades speculation over the period of time he spent in British custody – especially as a former British officer – and whether he provided information to the British to aid them has grown. Much of the evidence is circumstantial. Lee was contemptuous of George Washington, contemptuous of American troops, and believed that he was more capable of leading the Continental Army than any other of its officers.
When he returned he did not at first demand the command at Monmouth and in fact turned it down until he learned of its full size, at which time he demanded it as his military due. In the event he did little to push the attack, which had achieved surprise. Whether Lee was a traitor to the American cause, merely incompetent, or what Washington called him on the field of battle – “a damnable poltroon” – remains a mystery.