WI: Charles Lee named Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army

[VidaLaVida]

(Why yes, I've been replaying Assassin's Creed 3! Why do you ask?)

Before George Washington was named as the leader of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, his biggest rival for the position was Charles Lee, a British-born officer with a distinguished record from the Seven Years' War. He was a sharp contrast to Washington; on one hand, Lee was widely considered to be the superior general, having much more combat experience than Washington and displaying more military talent. On the other hand, Washington was a better politician and statesman, giving off an aura of cool-headedness and sobriety and being able to unite squabling factions behind the common purpose of the army. Lee, in contrast, was hot-tempered, eccentric, unkempt, and wanted to be paid for the position of Commander-in-Chief.

So we had Washington, the lackluster general but the reliable statesman, or Lee, the more talented military leader but the more mercurial personality. What if the Continental Congress had chosen the latter to lead the war effort during the American Revolution?

 

[Elfwine]

Disaster.

I'm going to grant for discussion's sake the idea that Lee was a better general.

The Revolutionary army - and Congress - needed someone with Washington's ability to handle difficult men (including Lee himself, for Washington) without flying off the handle trying to handle it or letting them get out of control.

Plus, could Lee have handled (for example) the issue of the periodic need to rebuild the army as enlistments expired? With his personality, I think he'd be very unlikely to approach that constructively.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Firstly, I am not at all sure that his skills as a general were all that great. Especially compared to how good he thought them.

But, that aside, what the nascent US absolutely needed was someone like Washington. Decent general, but great inspiration and able to negotiate with Congress and soldiers. As Elfwine said.

Given how meanly Congress acted, and the various individual states, it may well be that Washington was the only reason the revolution succeeded.

 

[Doctor Evulz]

Lee being an Englishman rather than being born in the colonies does not help his case. It appears we've had a thread about this: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=67165

 

[Thoresby]

Lee being an Englishman rather than being born in the colonies does not help his case. It appears we've had a thread about this: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=67165

I'm not sure about that, remember the Colonists were initially fighting for their rights as "freeborn Englishmen" and under the Union Jack. It was only after two years that independence took primacy and even then there were an enormous number of first of second generation English settlers on the Patriot side.

 

[Faeelin]

Disaster.

I'm going to grant for discussion's sake the idea that Lee was a better general.

Wow, I agree with Elfwine.

My only caveat is that if you told somebody in 1775 that Washington would take on the role he did by 1781, they might be skeptical. "The hot shot who was the colonel who basically started the 7 Years War in North America? Yea right." Sometimes people grow to fill the roles they're forced into.