Charles Lee: A Lesson in Leadership-Do Not be Naive With Trust

In my studies on Founding Fathers, I have come to a startling revelation: American Revolutionary General (2nd in Command to General George Washington) was a spy. How did I come to this extraordinary conclusion ? While reading about the provincial government set up in South Carolina as described in Christopher Gadsden and the American Revolution by E. Stanley Godbold, Jr. and Robert H. Woody (a well researched book that took over 40 years to make) and in conjunction with my studies of Founding Fathers and the American Revolution over the last 8 years, I was able to piece together the bizarre and unexplainable actions of General Charles Lee.  George Washington sent Charles Lee to defend the Americans at Charleston as the British headed south. Rather than properly prepare, Lee built an unsatisfactory bridge from Fort Sullivan connecting to the mainland South Carolina that South Carolina officer William Moultrie determined would be more beneficial to the British than the Americans (it was later refortified and built properly by patriot Christopher Gadsden). When the British arrived, Lee determined that a retreat would be in order (allowing the British to take over the American South). Lee's order was overriden by South Carolina's provincial government's President Rutledge. Thanks to the fierceness of William Moultrie, the Americans were able to fend off the British despite the false credit going to Charles Lee.  Lee's actions clearly showed he did not have the American's best interest at heart.  While still in the South, he was "captured" by British officer Banastre Tarleton, known to be the fiercest British officer who spared no mercy. Yet, Lee was kept in ideal conditions (luxurious compared to other prisoners of war), fed like a king, and later released. The proof of his complicity lies herein.  It was during this "prisoner of war" period it was later revealed in 1857 among the private papers of British General William Howe, the military plans Charles Lee had drafted to turn over the American military in defeat to the British. 

There were other telltale signs of a duplicitous heart. In the famous Battle of Monmouth, George Washington sent Lee to capture the British as they planned on leaving Philadelphia to embark for New York. Rather than follow a golden opportunity to capture the British, he led the Americans on a retreat. The Marquis de Lafayette, one of George Washington's most trusted and brilliant military commanders, reported the treacherous behavior directly to Washington. Washington, overwhelmed with anger,  rode to the front lines of Monmouth stopping the retreat. Due to this, General Lee was court martialed. Prior to this, Washington had renamed Fort Constitution  "Fort Lee". Lee managed to give up this fort to the British as well.  At Valley Forge, Washington required all his officers to give an oath of loyalty. Lee refused to do so, hiding his duplicity under a ruse that he held the Prince of Wales in esteem, although not King George.  Even to death, the signs of Lee's disloyalty were evident. He made a request not to be buried in an an American churchyard because "I have kept up such bad company when living, that I do not choose to continue it when dead." Despite this, he is still buried today at the cemetery of Christ Church in Philadelphia. 

Yet schoolchildren to this day study General Charles Lee as a patriotic figure who served alongside General George Washington, while suspecting the laudable patriot Aaron Burr of disloyalty (which recent scholarship on the treason trial once again brings to light the preposterous nature of such a charge for such a proven military hero and statesman). What would George Washington had done if had he been alive to see the traitorous Lee papers discovered  among British General William Howe's effects 95 years later ? Undoubtedly he would have wanted to see a trial and hanging as he wished for Benedict Arnold. Washington was even responsible for a failed attempt at capturing Benedict Arnold to prove a lethal point to possible defectors during the Revolution. So how did this happen ? It was only natural that Washington wanted on his staff - experienced, battle proven military leaders. Charles Lee's resume and experience fit that bill. A resume; however, does not reveal one's heart. Washington served his country insisting on no pay, Lee refused to serve without compensation and managed to get the nearly bankrupt Continental Congress to agree to pay him  $30,000.00. The lesson  of General Charles Lee lies herein,  it is unwise to trust someone based merely on their resume, experience or curriculum vitae. Washington proved that  blindly and naively trusting  a military pedigree does not ensure one's loyalty and good intentions. A person's  heart, values and morals are just as important to their predicted behavior (in this case leadership) as one's qualifications.  One thing is for certain, Washington did not suspect Lee's deception. He even attended Lee's funeral in Philadelphia in 1782. Washington's men of big heart did not suspect Lee of the same good intentions however. Military officer John Laurens,

aid de camp to Washington, injured Lee in a duel, with Alexander Hamilton preventing Laurens from killing him. General "Mad" Anthony Wayne, one of Washington's most courageous officers, also challenged Lee to a duel. 

As the nation ages, and more historical research and documentation comes to light, I do hope that we, as a nation, can put the proper perspective on Charles Lee. Those who command respect must do so deservedly and with truth.  Charles Lee's story is not one our history books properly report (particularly in light of the 1857 discovered spy papers).  Actions do speak louder than words,  and deception speaks the most about one's actions. The wisdom in all of this is, never naively trust. Even the greatest leaders are guilty of this. Lucky for America, we won the revolution in spite of Charles Lee. 

Benedict Arnold- from the Perspective of the Battle of Quebec

Just finished reading Benedict Arnold in the Company of Heroes by Arthur S. Lefkowitz. It was an excellent scholarly work on the lives of the men who went on the ill fated attempt to capture Quebec at the beginning of the American Revolution to prevent the Canadians from joining with the British in fighting the Americans. The turmoil and travails Benedict's men faced on this march to overtake Quebec reads like the challenges Lewis and Clark faced in Undaunted Courage, yet on a grander scale as more men were involved. It is no wonder that these men had to be chosen as the top men of their regiments to participate. It also becomes no wonder that these top men after being released as prisoners of war in Quebec, rose to the cream of the crop upon their return in joining the Continental Army. They were tough, reliable and passionate, all the traits their soldiers needed  to see in their officers' leadership. No doubt,  Benedict Arnold was a courageous and fearless soldier and leader. His main problem was that he possessed a depravity of morals. He was accused of being a thief his whole life. When he was military governor of Pennsylvania he was accused of stealing from the people and merchants to set up his own merchant business aggrandizing himself in the process, making him wealthy. He was accused of the same when as a British officer (after he became a traitor) he was sent to Virginia. These accusations of theft started early in his career and trailed him to his dying days. After the war, he left London and established a business in Canada. His business partner accused him of theft and he was run out of town and fled back to London. For two years and before his wife Peggy Shippen and children joined him from London, he took on a mistress and begat a child while living in Canada. A study of his life would show that central to his character was his inability to avoid theft and profiting at the expense of others. His narcissistic ego and personality caused many rifts with fellow military leaders and politicians that had to deal with him.  In conclusion, Benedict Arnold is a good life lesson in learning that you should not give power to the morally deprived. Had George Washington, who recognized Arnold's military prowess, listened to his fellow Continental Congressmens' well founded suspicions and concerns, Arnold would have never reached the powerful position he did in the American Army jeopardizing the cause. Bottom line, a person's character is far more important an indicator of leadership than just their accomplishments.