Reply
Fri 31 Oct, 2003 01:38 pm
Well, in my readings, I came across this guy, General Charles Lee, who served under Washington during the American Revolution. As traitors go, Benedict Arnold probably has him beat, but I'll bet he gave Washington quite a few gray hairs. Here's some interesting info. I found on infoplease.lycos.com:
Lee, Charles
Lee, Charles, 1731-82, American Revolutionary army officer, b. Cheshire, England. He first came to America to serve in the French and Indian War and took part in General Braddock's disastrous campaign (1755), in the unsuccessful campaign against Ticonderoga (1758), and in the capture of Montreal (1760). His duties as a British officer later took him to Portugal under Gen. John Burgoyne (1762) and to Poland. In 1773 he went to Virginia to live and became a supporter of colonial independence. At the start of the American Revolution his military experience won him a commission as major general in the Continental army. After directing the fortification of New York City early in 1776, he went to Charleston, S.C., and received credit for the successful defense of that city, despite his having advised William Moultrie to abandon the fort that saved the city. Returning to New York, he repeatedly disregarded General Washington's command to cross the Hudson River in the retreat after the battle of White Plains, in the hope that he could win a personal success and replace Washington as commander in chief. When he did cross he was captured (Dec. 13, 1776) by the British at Basking Ridge, N.J. As a captive he gave Gen. William Howe a plan for defeating the Americans, but his treason was not discovered. Lee was exchanged and joined Washington at Valley Forge (1778). At the battle of Monmouth (1778) he ordered a retreat of his forces and thus prevented an American victory. The rout was stemmed only by Washington, Baron von Steuben, and Nathanael Greene. A court-martial resulted in a year's suspension from command for Lee, who continued to criticize Washington abusively. In 1780 he was finally dismissed from service. His papers have been published by the New-York Historical Society (1872-75).
It would be interesting to read a discussion about who or what is a traitor to the United States. Other than the truism that: if you lose you're a traitor, if you win, you're a patriot. Generally I suppose that betraying a public trust is the seed of treachery. Fighting against the current political grain can get the ball rolling. Defying current political paranoia is another way. Ask Senator McCarthy. After he fell from favor he was a candidate for traitor himself. Those who violate the law, considering themselves exempt from the application of it, such as President Nixon, makes him in my opinion the most traitorous President. Blatent lying to the public, to their great detriment, perhaps, as some say, the current President may be a serious form of betrayal. There are more ways than I ever imagined it seems.
Well, in the case of Charles Lee, his qualifications are pretty firm. First of all, he defied the repeated entreaties of Washington to bring his troops to help with an imminent British attack, with excuses like "their shoes aren't very good," in the hopes that he could replace Washington as commander in chief. And then, when captured, gave the enemy plans to defeat his own army.