Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Charles Lee would have been the next logical choice and probably even the more "logical" choice than Washington was. Benedict Arnold, though serving admirably up until the moment of his betrayal, was a relative unknown at the time the CIC was chosen. Arnold was in no way upset over being passed over for the CIC job, he was upset over being given a seperate command, namely to head the force that attacked Quebec.
As it is history has proven that the right choice was Washington. As poor a tactical commander as Washinton seems to have been, he was exactly the right man for the job. The colonials couldn't dream of winning an actual head on full scale European set piece battle against the British. They could only really hope to stay alive and keep in the fight. The key to their victory was time. The longer the war drug on, the more likely the British were to quit. If Lee had been appointed commander I think there would have been a high chance that he would have gathered up the troops he had and went in search of the decisive battle, just as his military career had taught him to seek out. History has proven that this type of battle was virtually unwinnable for the colonials and may have ended in absolute disaster with Lee at the helm.
Being a scoundrel never got in the way of Grant (and quite a few others) being effective officers of high rank.
Another example of your ignorance of history and/ or political bias! I have read extensively on Grant and have NEVER seen him referred to as a scoundrel. Do you possess any REAL knowledge of his career ?
Oh, I forgot, he was a Republican, thus the devil incarnate to those of your ilk !
If Lee had been appointed commander I think there would have been a high chance that he would have gathered up the troops he had and went in search of the decisive battle, just as his military career had taught him to seek out. .
I think so as well, not only because of Lee's training in classical set piece fights, but also because winning a big battle would have been the most rapid path to glory for Lee, something which strongly motivated him.
I also question the depth of Lee's loyalty to the revolution. While he was a captive of the British before being exchanged, it was a good old boys reunion for him. He lived well and ran his mouth off an awful lot to his British captors, expressing opinions concerning the low probability of the colonials being able to ever defeat the forces of the crown, even going so far as to drawing up a campaign plan for the British army to pursue when the fighting resumed in 1777. (This was discovered much later.) His capture had been a rather inexplicable one, Lee having stopped with only a dozen or so soldiers to have a comfortable night at an inn, three miles from the rest of his force which was retreating South. That was either gross stupidity, or the action of someone who didn't care if he was taken prisoner or not. There is no doubt that it was seriously irresponsible behavior.
Finally, Lee is known to have argued strongly against Washington's plan to pursue and attack the Brits as they evacuated Philadelphia. Having lost the battle to avoid what would eventually be the Battle of Monmouth, Lee then performed poorly in it, disobeying orders and placing the Americans in great jeopardy.
There might so some truth to the idea that Lee was loyal to the American cause to the degree that he saw himself being advanced by it, and lost his enthusiasm when the advancement did not take place as he envisioned.
That is definitely not the sort which one would want as the head of a movement which relied on their ability to suffer and endure in order to win.
It would not have been Benedict Arnold. Before the war erupted, Arnold was a ship owning tradesman. He promptly enlisted in the Connecticut militia and was elected a captain. When he proposed the expedition to capture Fort Ticonderoga, the Massachusetts Committee for Public Saftey issued him a colonel's commission. That was Arnold's status at the time the selection of a commander in chief was made and clearly, Arnold's absense of experience, along with the regional nature of his officer commissions, made him an inferior candidate to either Washington or Lee.
Arnold did go on to prove that he not only was highly qualified to lead an army, but that he was arguably the best fighter that the American had. However, that was later, after Washington had already been in command for a time.
And.....even if Congress had been more aware of Arnold at the time and thought that he might be a suitable general, one basis for the selection of Washington had been the fact that George was not from New England. It was felt important that the Continental Army, which at the time was composed of all New England militias, be seen to be representing all of the 13 colonies as a united front. By appointing a Virginian to command, it made it a continental rebellion, not just a regional revolt. Arnold of course was a New Englander and that alone would have disqualified him even if he had been under consideration otherwise.
While we may say that Lee would probably have been given the job, we may also say that Arnold was definitely not in the running at the time it was given.
It would not have been Benedict Arnold. Before the war erupted, Arnold was a ship owning tradesman. He promptly enlisted in the Connecticut militia and was elected a captain. When he proposed the expedition to capture Fort Ticonderoga, the Massachusetts Committee for Public Saftey issued him a colonel's commission. That was Arnold's status at the time the selection of a commander in chief was made and clearly, Arnold's absense of experience, along with the regional nature of his officer commissions, made him an inferior candidate to either Washington or Lee.
Arnold did go on to prove that he not only was highly qualified to lead an army, but that he was arguably the best fighter that the American had. However, that was later, after Washington had already been in command for a time.
And.....even if Congress had been more aware of Arnold at the time and thought that he might be a suitable general, one basis for the selection of Washington had been the fact that George was not from New England. It was felt important that the Continental Army, which at the time was composed of all New England militias, be seen to be representing all of the 13 colonies as a united front. By appointing a Virginian to command, it made it a continental rebellion, not just a regional revolt. Arnold of course was a New Englander and that alone would have disqualified him even if he had been under consideration otherwise.
While we may say that Lee would probably have been given the job, we may also say that Arnold was definitely not in the running at the time it was given.
Good post and insight on Arnold. In 1775 when Washington was chosen Arnold was nothing more than a militia Colonel who had captured a lightly defended fort. The other point I would add here (and that I poorly explained in my other post) is that Arnold did not feel slighted over being passed over for the CIC job. He felt slighted that he was not given command over the Quebec expedition that was based on a plan that he developed and lobbied for.
Overall our "choices" for an alternate to Washington are really limited to the following men who were appointed as generals by the Continental Congress under Washington when he was appointed CIC:
Major Generals:
Artemas Ward - Was the colonel of the 3rd Royal Militia regiment in Massachusetts during and after the French and Indian War. He lost his commission do to his activities in the lead up to the revolution. When the 3rd regiment defected en masse, they elected him commander. He was later made general of the entire Massachusetts militia. He received acclaim for the Battle of Bunker Hill, though he did not command the troops. He was most likely a first choice, but was always in ill health and was made second in command to Washington. His health forced his retirement from the army in 1777 after he helped Washington organize the militia.
Charles Lee - Most extensive military experience of all the commanders. He served in several campaigns of the Seven Years War, even in the service of Portugal. He was also the aid-de-camp to the King of Poland in 1765 and during the Russo-Turkish War. He only came to America in 1773 after failing to secure a promotion in the British Army. He was very obviously driven by a sense of personal advancement and glory. Outside of that though, probably the biggest reason he was overlooked is that he expected to be compensated. By joining the rebel cause he had forfeited all his properties in England.
Philip Schuyler - Served briefly as captain of a local militia in the French and Indian War. Most of his military experience was relegated to quartermaster operations. His appiontment is more of a nod to his status and position as one of the premier men of New York. His poor health had him often delegating command to others. He never actually led his men in battle.
Israel Putnam - Served with the famous Roger's Rangers as well as British regulars in the French and Indian War. He was also made a major in the Connecticut militia and led a regiment at Detroit, Ticonderoga and Montreal. He also joined the British expedition to Havana. He was the actual field commander at Bunker Hill, but that would prove the highmark of his career. His actions in later campaigns were questioned and he suffered a stroke in 1779 while in winter camp.
Brigadier Generals (these were known men, but not first run choices for the CIC job):
Seth Pomeroy (declined the invitation and no replacement was chosen)
Richard Montgomery
David Wooster
William Heath
Joseph Spencer
John Thomas
John Sullivan
Nathanael Green
Looking at the list of the 4 main alternates it is obvious how Congress ended up where they did. Three of our alternates are from New England which would make them not an ideal choice. Our fourth choice was a recent transplant from Britain and though very experienced wanted to be paid for his service. Even if we take out the New England factor, Ward was never a real choice do to his health despite his vast popularity and skills. Schuyler might as well have been a political appointee that was most likely given the commission as he was putting up money for the cause. Putnam would have been an interesting choice, but his experience was decidedly more irregular and small unit tactics, not campaigns. His prior service, though eclectic was not exactly meritorious. He was captured by Pontiac's men and almost roasted alive at Detroit and was ship wrecked during the Havana expedition.
Nathaniel Green? Wasnt Alexander Hamilton very close to him as well who could of been capable of the job?
Green was very much an unknown quantity when the selection of CIC was made. He never had any formal military experience, instead teaching himself tactics from books. He was the founder of a local militia and was promoted by the State of Rhode Island from private to Brigadier General in response to the siege at Boston. His appointment was solidified as a Brigadier General when Washington was made CIC. He was later appointed Major General by Congress in 1776. Militarily he wasn't much of a stand out outside of his role as quartermaster general until he was appointed Commander of the Southern Army in 1780.
When it comes to Alexander Hamilton, you have to remember that he was born in 1755 or 1757 (no one is 100% sure which) and that would have made him barely 20 years old at the time the revolution began. In fact, he was attending King's College (Columbia University) when the war broke out and joined a militia made up of King's College students. After his unit seized British cannon, they formed as an artillery company and Hamilton was made captain. They performed admirably in the battles of White Plains and Trenton. Hamilton was then offered a place on the staff of Greene and also Knox, which he declined. He was eventually asked to join Washington's staff as a Lt. Colonel. He basically became Washingtons primary aide handling all of Washington's correspondence and acting as his emissary. It wasn't until he threatened to resign his commission in 1781 that he was given combat command. The command he was selected to lead was a batallion of NY light infantry that led the assault on Redoubt #10 at Yorktown.
So, Greene was a relative unknown in 1775 that didn't really distinguish himself until years later and Hamilton was nothing more than a young up and coming that got himeslf noticed by Washington and married well (he married Philip Schuyler's daughter).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
