Durk wrote:Traitor or not, Lee had some talents as a general, just as Arnold does.
Lee might need a value which does not allow him to work with Washington, but maybe he is a bit better than the values he has in the game.
I am not defending his actions, just saying, in the game it would be interesting if he posed an actual alternative to Washington. History can be such a harsh judge.
Yes, both Lee and Arnold had qualities that were in their favor. Arnold actually had a good reason to think he was being snubbed and set out to pasture. His actions at Ticonderoga and Saratoga, then the credit going to Allen and 'Granny' Gates, then him not getting any credit for it would have made most any commander develop a grudge.
Then when the Brits evaced Philly and Arnold was given command as the military governor led to the next slight to him. When the Pennsilvania Governor began submitting stories to the papers that Arnold was war profiteering Got him in hot water. Then when Washington lambasted him for that, it was the last straw for him.
Although, at the time he did not know that the Gov of Penn had blackmailed Washington to relieve him and censure Arnold or he would withdraw his state's support for the war. So Washington had no choice but to give in to the blackmail.
Where I fault Arnold is after Washington offered him command of the left wing of the Continental Army he continued his treason. That's where Arnold made his mistake.
Now, as for Lee, I feel he was just a gloryhound out for himself. So when he was taken prisoner he provided a plan to the British with data on the Continental Army and ways to defeat it.
Then when he was returned in a prisoner exchange he did nothing but whine and say the US could never beat England.
Then at Monmouth his treason was made known to everyone. He initially refused command of the forward portion of the army, but when he found out Washington was going to give command to Lafayette he immediatly demanded command from Washington.
And we all know how that turned out. He ordered a retreat when he was ordered to attack. He was relieved of command and courts-martialed for insubordination.
So he continued his vendetta against Washington where he was disgraced and retired to Pennsylvania. I think the only reason he was not hung was that his passing of intel to the British was not known at that time.
A lot of people, me included, believe the retreat at Monmouth was treason from the get-go. Heck, The British plan for the battle was in Lee's own handwriting and was found in the Howe family archives in 1857.
But to say Lee is a viable replacement for Washington as commander in chief is not defensible. I feel if Lee would have been CiC he would have done everything in his power to help the British.
As far as I am concerned, Lee was a bigger traitor than Arnold. Arnold turned bad, but at least he really did try to help his nation. Lee was nothing but a drag on the war effort from the get-go.
History has been too kind to Charles Lee.
Sorry to ramble, but my disdain for Charles Lee knows no bounds.
Stryder