So...I was reading some Conceived in Liberty by Rothbard, and I liked his opinion on Charles Lee. He basically depicted him as the chief revolutionary leader -- a libertarian and English soldier of fortune -- who used guerrilla tactics to help win the war. By contrast, Rothbard depicted Washington as either detrimental or simply non-influential as a military leader. He supports this account with their military records: Washington only having won two of his battles, and only truly won one of these two. I'm referring to Yorktown -- where Greene and Lafayette already set the victory up for him -- and Trenton-Princeton, where he stooped to using guerrilla tactics. (He did not understand the concept of a people's war and tried to battle in the fashion of a State military, so he lost almost all of his other battles).
All well and good. But then I look up some more information about Lee online and...there's a book on him being a traitor? Is there any substance in this? I haven't got a chance to read the book yet, obviously, but I was wondering if there is any truth in the claim. For I was starting to really admire the fellow, especially being an anglophile myself, and he seemed rather heroic. Briefly skimming the book, I noticed that the author (George H. Moore) was an admirer of Washington. And Washington himself, of course, often endeavoured to discredit Charles Lee. So, to say the least, I'm very sceptical of Moore's claim.
Could anyone shed any light on this? While no one is perfect, I'd at least hope that this man -- who seemed a rather excellent leader against the State -- wasn't a traitor to Liberty. But if Moore's giving the truth, I guess it would be something I have to accept.
***Here's the book about Lee being a traitor for reference: http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924032737342#page/n11/mode/2up
This is an excellent topic/question in my opinion. I would guess it's true because George Washington actually wasn't an excellent leader against the state (in addition to the fact that the Revolutionary War took so long to win). He used conscription to crush the Whiskey Rebellion (in which the rebels didn't harm any civilians while the state did), signed into the law the first patents, the first fugitive slave act, spent too much (especially on a military), supported the Jay Treaty, and started the 2nd central bank and affirmed that this would be a nation using paper money. He may have supported invasion of Rhode Island. He also raised the tariff several times.
Regarding Charles Lee and his allegations of being a traitor, there is another work on the subject called, "Charles Lee: Traitor or Patriot?". The author, John Richard Alden, even mentions scepticism of Moore's claim in his preface:
This is an attempt to tell the history of an extraordinary individual, of an Englishman who played a major role as an American leader in the drama of the American Revolution. It is not the first book to be devoted to a study of the career of Charles Lee. Four works concerning Lee, by Edward Langworthy, Sir Henry Bunbury, Jared Sparks, and George H. Moore, were published between 1792 and 1860. Of these, the biography written by Sparks is the only one of any considerable value. The others are brief, and that by Moore is permeated by strong prejudice against its subject. Although large quantities of data concerning the American Revolution-- and Lee--have become available since 1860, no full-length study of Lee has hitherto appeared. This circumstance is probably ex-plained in part by the fact that Lee became a bitter enemy of George Washington and ipso facto a sinister figure in the minds of many persons, including even historians; and it undoubtedly proceeds in part from a suspicion that Lee was a traitor to the American cause. Nevertheless, Lee was one of the fathers of the American Republic, and his career obviously deserves serious examination. The present writer has tried to set aside national, partisan, and personal prejudices and to relate objectively his story upon the basis of the evidence now available. The Lee who appears herein is, in all likelihood, not the Lee the reader has known, but it is hoped that he bears strong resemblance to the original. If the writer's judgments of Lee seem too favorable, they do not proceed from a desire to set up an idol nor from a wish to destroy one, but from the bias which the author of a biographical study commonly develops toward his subject.
So here's Alden's work on the subject.
I figured it would be useful to provide some more resources on the subject:
The Life and Memoirs of the Late Major General Charles Lee
The Lee Papers
Knight Errant of Liberty; The Triumph and Tragedy of General Charles Lee, by Samuel White Patterson
"Traitor of the Revolution", by Benton J. Lossing
"Exchange of Major General Charles Lee", by Elias Boudinot (NOTE: I have no clue what this one's about yet)
"Correspondance between Major General Charles Lee and George Washington"
More Rothbard on Charles Lee (ctrl-f "Lee")
George Washington's Generals and Opponents: Their Exploits and Leadership (it has John W. Shy's essay on Lee which Rothbard cited!)
Washington and His Generals (Lee essay on page 126-, by J.T. Headley).
The Life of Charles Lee, by Jared Sparks
For easy reference, here are the sources I listed above again:
The Treason of Charles Lee, by George H. Moore
General Charles Lee: Traitor or Patriot?, by John Richard Alden