Renegade Revolutionary: The Life of General Charles Lee by Phillip Papas

Abstract

Reviewed by: Renegade Revolutionary: The Life of General Charles Lee by Phillip Papas James J. Schaefer Renegade Revolutionary: The Life of General Charles Lee. By Phillip Papas. New York: New York University Press, 2014, 410 pages, $40.00 Cloth. In the last three years, more works have been published highlighting Major-General Charles Lee than in the past century. Phillip Papas’ Renegade Revolutionary: The Life of General Charles Lee, the most recent account in a revival of interest, illuminates this misunderstood gentleman whose character has been the target for many biographers. There are four standard historical interpretations of Lee and his actions during the era of the American War for Independence: he was a disrespectful and contemptuous gentleman; he was a traitor and a coward; he was an inept military commander; or he was a scapegoat who received unwarranted censure. The first three interpretations resonate more of partisan politics than fair evaluation, typically revolving around Lee’s uncouth social [End Page 159] behavior or, more appropriately, his ill-treatment of George Washington and his supporters. Unlike many of the previous histories and biographies on Lee, Papas subscribes to the fourth interpretation that Lee received repeated criticism. Renegade Revolutionary, however, does not focus on Lee’s behavioral shortcomings. Rather than judging him by his narcissism and insolence, the author instead highlights his contributions as a military strategist and literary propagandist to the American cause. An extensive bibliography of primary and secondary sources is used to great effect to explain the ebb of Lee’s popularity and illustrate his genius as a strategist and advocate. Lee’s story not only explores how social, political, and military institutions are brought together to create a new nation, but also how changes within these institutions altered the original concepts of democracy. Where histories and biographies have portrayed Lee’s relationship with Washington as a conflict of personalities based on the concepts of honor and reputation, Papas argues that the chasm between the two men was based on differences of military theory, and, by extension, political considerations. One of the main themes of this book is the difference in military ideas between Washington and his supporters and those of Lee. Papas shows how Lee wanted to work within the confines of a democracy, which meant citizen-soldiers filling the ranks of a national militia. A standing army, Lee maintained, was the bane of a democratic society as it posed the greatest threat to liberty. By advocating a petite guerre strategy, Lee promoted a national militia divided into smaller detachments, specializing in light infantry tactics. This approach was consistent with a colonial mindset and would allow the revolutionaries an increase in mobility and better logistical support. By moving the action to the western theatre of operations, farther from British ports of strength, the American forces would be able to exploit a thin British supply line and interrupt communications. Dividing a national militia into divisions allowed the colonies, or states, to maintain local control and responsibility over their own forces, allaying any fears that a national government might have tyrannical motives. This war of attrition had a further political upside: the war would eventually lose popular support in England and weaken the King’s, and Parliament’s, resolve. Lee’s experience and education dictated practices that best fit a colonial-style of warfare while remaining true to his thoughts on democracy. [End Page 160] Washington’s ideas on the use of the militia were much different. He envisioned a Continental Army, reminiscent of a disciplined European-style fighting force in which local militias played a supporting role, shoring local defenses, gathering intelligence, and harassing British forces. He saw the militias as too undisciplined and untrained to meet the British Army on the field. From a political perspective, the Continental Army’s role was advantageous as it was meant to reduce exacerbated forms of regionalism and political fragmentation, all the while garnering support for national unity. In this discussion Papas weaves the various differences, explicating and differentiating between leadership styles, tactics of waging war, and concepts of liberty and democracy, and then presenting how these various understandings culminated into debates regarding government centralization. As Papas discusses these themes...