Researching the American Revolution

Your source for information on the American War of Independence

Charles Lee

Charles Lee From Library of Congress

Primary Sources

Charles Lee Papers, 1759-1782. Accession 24716. Personal papers collection. The Library of Virginia. Richmond, Virginia.

Guide to Library of Virginia Papers

Lee, Charles. The Lee Papers. 4 volumes New York: New York Historical Society, 1871-4.

Volume I

Volume II

Volume III

Volume IV

Secondary Sources


Bunbury, Sir Henry. The Correspondence of Sir Thomas Hanmer. Memoir of Charles Lee. London: Edward Moxen, 1838.

McBurney, Christian M. George Washington’s Nemesis: The Outrageous Treason and Unfair Court-Martial of Major General Charles Lee during the Revolutionary War. First edition. California: Savas Beatie, 2019.

Highly recommend a video presentation by McBurney sponsored by the Fraunces Tavern Museum in New York

Bunbury, Sir Henry. The Correspondence of Sir Thomas Hanmer. Memoir of Charles Lee. London: Edward Moxen, 1838.

Papas, Phillip. Renegade Revolutionary: The Life of General Charles Lee. New York: New York University Press, 2014.

Langworthy, Edward, ed. The Life and Memoirs of the Late Major General Lee, Second in Command to General Washington during the American Revolution to Which Are Added, Political and Military Essays and Letters. New York: Richard Scott, 1813.

Mazzagetti, Dominick A. Charles Lee: Self before Country, 2013.

Moore, George H. The Treason of Major-General Charles Lee. New York: Charles Scribner, 1860.

Thayer, Theodore. The Making of a Scapegoat: Washington and Lee at Monmouth. Series in American Studies. Port Washington, N.Y: Kennikat Press, 1976.

Journal Articles

Boudinot, Elias. “Exchange of Major-General Charles Lee.” Edited by William S. Baker. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 15, no. 1 (1891): 26–34.

Brunner, J. H. “Gen. Charles Lee: Arch Traitor of the Revolution.” The American Historical Magazine, Tennessee Historical Society, 2, no. 1 (January 1897): 27–32.

Procknow, Eugene. “Charles Lee- The Continental Army’s Most Prolific Essayist General.” Journal of the American Revolution, December 1, 2022.


This image is thought to be the best likeness of Charles Lee.


Annotative Bibliography


Alden, John Richard. General Charles Lee Traitor or Patriot? Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951.

            Alden’s groundbreaking volume is the first full-length Charles Lee biography in over one hundred years and appreciably changed many historians’ view of Lee. Alden challenges George H. Moore’s 1860 treason charges characterizing the New York Historical Society librarian’s account as “savage and unscholarly.”[1] Far from a turncoat, Alden asserts that Lee provided essential services to the country, contributing to the Rebel victory.  For example, Alden contends that Lee’s tactical retreat to high ground at the pivotable Battle of Monmouth led to Washington’s claim of victory. In addition to recharacterizing Lee’s military contributions, Alden offers a different view of Lee’s character.  While previous historians focus on Lee’s fondness for dogs, uncouth social skills, and difficult temperament, Alden finds that his relationships were extraordinary, his intellectual abilities impressive, and his Whiggish republicanism admirable.[2]

In addition to authoring eleven scholarly books, Alden (1908-1991) is a recognized expert in the American Revolution.[3] After receiving his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan, Alden embarked on a lifelong teaching career.  He spent most of his working life at Duke University, where he became interested in southern Revolutionary and Early American history. Although Alden was born in Michigan, he deftly portrayed southern culture during the Revolution.[4] Alden is best characterized as a consensus historian.

Mazzagetti, Dominick A. Charles Lee: Self Before Country. New Brunswick, N.J and London: Rutgers University Press, 2013.

            In the first full-length Lee biography in over sixty years, Dominick A. Mazzagetti takes a fresh look at previous scholarship and Lee’s personal papers and offers a new, intriguing assessment of Lee’s legacy. Mazzagetti concludes that Lee was a military adventurer with no allegiance but to himself. Mazzagetti’s Lee is self-serving without loyalties or integrity. As proof, he provides a new rationale for the captive Lee giving a plan to the British to regain colonial control. Mazzagetti asserts that Lee developed his plan for the British to regain the center of attention.[5] In a significant omission, Mazzagetti does not address Lee’s political contributions to the American Rebellion. While not offering new evidence or new sources, Mazzagetti (1948-) uniquely approaches Lee from the perspective of an accomplished lawyer. Displaying a thorough understanding of the rules of evidence, Mazzagetti cogently lays out compelling arguments based upon the facts in historical documents. Additionally, Mazzagetti’s long association with public history provides a practical, fascinating to read understanding of people and events. Supported by a university press, fulsome footnotes and a comprehensive bibliography demonstrate Mazzagetti’s scholarship. Mazzagetti’s assessment of Charles Lee reads like a compelling legal brief couched in highly readable prose.

Moore, George H. The Treason of Major-General Charles Lee. New York: Charles Scribner, 1860.

            No assessment of Charles Lee is possible without addressing George H. Moore’s treason allegations. Moore served as the librarian for the New York Historical Society. On a trip to London, an antiquarian dealer offered to sell a previously unresearched document to Moore. Dramatically turning Charles Lee’s legacy on its head, the paper describes a military plan for the British to regain Colonial control in Lee’s handwriting. Moore unequivocally demonstrates the document’s authenticity, and no subsequent historian has challenged his provenance assessment. Based upon a reading of the document and other evidence, Moore concludes that Charles Lee committed treason during his 1776-8 British captivity. Moore’s work provided additional evidence to the Lee detractors in favor of Washington’s supporters. In addition to serving as a career librarian, Moore (1823-1892) authored five full-length books and many essays, principally on the Revolutionary era. He frequently addressed historical societies, genealogy societies, and libraries throughout New York and New England.[6] Moore’s education started at Dartmouth College.  He transferred to New York University and received a bachelor’s degree. He served as a secretary to the US Mexican Boundary commission in 1850. Late in life, NYU awarded him an LLD.[7]  Throughout his life, Moore venerated Washington, including writing a pamphlet, Libels on Washington with a Critical Examination thereof, which defends the General from the charges of using profanity when addressing Maj. Gen. Charles Lee during the Battle of Monmouth. Moore’s readers should be aware of his lifelong bias for Washington. Moore’s heavy reliance on the newly discovered document defines his approach as the Documentary Ideal or Empiricist history school.

Papas, Phillip. Renegade Revolutionary: The Life of General Charles Lee. New York: New York University Press, 2014.

            In the latest Lee biography, Philip Papas elevates Lee’s contributions to the highest level espoused by a scholarly historian. Papas portrays Lee as a master strategist who developed a plan given to the British to end the war not as a traitor but as a patriot seeking to find the best outcome for the Rebels. Papas believes that at the Battle of Monmouth, Lee drew the British into unfavorable terrain from which George Washington could bring the total weight of the Continental Army to bear on the British rearguard and claim victory.[8] While Papas’s view of Lee is generally positive, he does conclude that Lee suffered from manic depression, a highly speculative diagnosis by a layperson.[9] Papas received his Ph.D. from the City University of New York and is currently a senior professor at Union County College in New Jersey.[10] A native Staten Islander, Papas, is the author of another Revolutionary War book, That Ever Loyal Island. [11] Also, he wrote a book on the history of the Staten Island town of Port Richard with Professor Lori R. Weintrob.[12] Papas received inspiration for a Charles Lee biography from discovering a tree in the college’s historic tree grove planted to memorialize Charles Lee’s Revolutionary War contributions.[13] Papas’ extensive and unique coverage of Lee’s radical and republican writings places him in the Neo-Progressive interpretative school.[14]

Sparks, Jared. The Lives of Charles Lee and Joseph Reed. Vol. VIII. The Library of American Biography, Second Series. Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846.

A Harvard University history professor and later President, Jared Sparks, wrote the first account of Charles Lee by someone who did not know him or live in his generation. Sparks’ biography is the best starting place for scholars interested in Lee’s life. Generally, Sparks offers an objective, positive assessment of Lee’s character and military contributions. Sparks wrote the biographical monograph before George Moore’s discovering Lee’s purported treasonous plan. Sparks (1789-1866) graduated from Harvard College in 1811 and pursued further religious studies. Sparks became a minister in Baltimore and also served as chaplain to the US House of Representatives.  In 1838, Sparks returned to Harvard to teach Ancient and Modern History.  Eleven years later, the University trustees elected Sparks president.  However, administrative duties did not fit Sparks’ character, and he spent the remaining years researching and writing.[15]  Best known for his documentary editing, Sparks’ Harvard archival files are extremely valuable primary sources. While Sparks is a noted George Washington venerator, his biographical account of Charles Lee is remarkably balanced.  All subsequent Lee biographers reference Spark’s work which is an example of the Whig history school.[16]

Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Catterall, Roger. “Traitor or Patriot? The Ambiguous Conduct of Charles Lee.” Virginia Cavalcade 24, no. 4 (Spring 1975): 164–77.

            Roger Catterall’s thesis is that Charles Lee, while seemingly traitorous, actually performed a strategically valuable service by focusing Howe on capturing Philadelphia versus joining Gen. Burgoyne in securing the Hudson valley, which might have won the war for the British. As proof, he cites a Lee letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush intimating about the great aid he provided the Patriot cause during his captivity. Lee indicates that he informed Washington and Morris about his clever deception. Catterall points out that, in a similar situation, Lee told Washington about his contacts with British Gen. Thomas Gage in 1775. Additionally, the lack of a written record is consistent with the thoroughly discrete Washington who routinely kept spy craft secrets out of his official correspondence. Without a citation, Catterall adds that fellow general officers knew that Lee had duped Howe. Therefore, in Catterall’s eyes, Lee should be regarded as a Patriot and not as another Benedict Arnold. At the same time, not a complete exoneration, Catterall’s unique assessment deserves further examination. Catterall (1897-1978) graduated from Harvard University and Harvard Law school. He practiced law in New York City and Richmond, Virginia, before serving as a member of the State Corporation Commission of Virginia and as a state judge.  Frequently, Catterall wrote scholarly articles on constitutional and Federal judicial issues while teaching at the University of Richmond.[17] As this article was one of the few history articles published by Catterall, his historical school is hard to discern. However, the American Historical Association noticed the paper to its readers as significant scholarship.[18]

Champagne, Roger J. “New York’s Radicals and the Coming of Independence.” Journal of American History 51, no. 1 (June 1, 1964): 21–40.

            Roger J. Champagne’s article is an example of a balanced view of Lee’s military contributions, especially when he exercised independent military authority. The article’s thesis is that the New York radicals, with the outbreak of hostilities in Boston, struggled in transitioning from political agitation to operating a revolutionary government supported by the populous. The Loyalist faction, led by the Delancy family, possessed considerable influence and sought to discredit the radicals. Washington sent Charles Lee from Boston to New York City to prepare the city’s defenses against an anticipated British attack. While entering a political maelstrom, Champagne portrays Lee’s actions in a positive light. Lee ended the city’s trade with the British military, began constructing fortifications in Brooklyn and navigated the jurisdictional dispute between the revolutionary New York and Continental Congresses. Champagne’s article is a scholarship example, which does not raise Washington’s stature by degrading Lee’s. Born in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Roger J. Champagne (1926-2010) earned three degrees at the University of Wisconsin, the last a Ph.D. in 1960. For twenty-nine years, Champagne taught Early American history at Illinois State University.[19] Champagne is best known for writing the definitive biography of Maj. Gen. Alexander McDougall, one of the New York radicals.[20] Champagne writes as a Consensus historian who “rediscovered” under-recognized contributions of Revolutionary War generals.

Fiske, John. “Charles Lee: The Soldier of Fortune.” In Essays: Historical and Literary, 1–2:55–98. New York: Macmillan & Company, LTD, 1902.

            While George Moore may have discovered Lee’s purportedly treasonous plan, John Fiske did more to tarnish his Revolutionary War services and ruin his character. Fiske, the most famous historian of his time, accuses Lee to be no more than a mercenary without morals or integrity. Fiske believes that Lee had no real republican views and simply came to America to make his fortune, as did many other foreign officers. Fiske dismisses Lee’s military expertise finding that he regularly took credit for the others’ victories and accomplishments. Contrary to other historians, Fiske believes that Washington provided explicit orders to Lee to attack at Monmouth. During the battle, he portrays Lee as acting strangely and out of control. On a personal level, Fiske describes Lee as having “talents too slender” and being “weak, dyspeptic, and querulous.”[21] Fiske concluded by stating that Lee belongs in Dante’s limbo, “too wicked for the one place, too weak for the other.”[22] Lee’s reputation never recovered from Fiske’s colorful, one-sided thrashing. Fiske (1842-1901) was a prolific writer whose works were “immensely popular.”[23] After receiving a Harvard Law degree, he started his professional career by opening a Boston law practice.  However, he quickly realized that he enjoyed writing, researching, teaching more than the law. Fiske taught at several universities, including Harvard, Washington University, and University College, London. Later in life, he became famous for popularizing Charles Darwin’s evolution theories and for historical writing. During the period 1888-1893, Fiske gave five hundred and twenty-seven lectures.[24]  A talented storyteller, Fiske elevated history in peoples’ minds as a worthy discipline and is an excellent example of the Imperialist history school.[25]

King, Charles. “The Battle of Monmouth Court House.” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, 1, 4–5 (51 1849): 125–47.

            Charles King is an excellent example of a nineteenth-century historian who venerated George Washington while criticizing rival Charles Lee’s conduct and minimizing his contributions. King characterizes Lee as arrogant and ill-advised.[26] Emphasizing the contributions of New Jersians, King provides a Monmouth battle narrative in which heroic Washington turns around the retreating Lee forces and saves the Rebel’s day. King accepts the accounts written by Washington’s supporters and rejects those offered by Lee and his supporters. For example, King agrees with the excuses of Charles Scott that he never received Lee’s order to hold his ground. Scott’s retreat was the pivotal movement that caused the Rebel lines to collapse. A second dramatic example, King recites Alexander Hamilton’s version of the dispute between Lee and Washington.  As a firm Washington supporter, later historians have viewed Hamilton’s account of the battle with suspect motivations, especially his boast that he would die on the spot rather than retreat like Lee.[27] Charles King (1789-1867) served as President of Columbia College (now Columbia University). President King stressed Columbia’s openness to other faiths despite its Episcopal heritage and required foundational instruction in classics.[28] Under King’s direction, Columbia instituted law, medicine, and mining schools. He frequently gave public lectures on history and other topics. The New York Historical Society and Columbia University hold his letters and papers. King’s work does not neatly fit into a history school but is typical of a nineteenth-century historian who idealized American Revolution leaders.

Lennon, Donald R.”  ‘The Graveyard of American Commanders’: The Continental Army’s Southern Department, 1776-1778.” The North Carolina Historical Review 67, no. 2 (1990): 133–58.

            The thesis of Professor Lennon’s article is that the southern state governments interfered with the Continental Army commanders making them ineffective and unsuccessful. Congress named Maj. Gen. Charles Lee the first overall commander in the south. While Lee was one of the most popular general officers, he immediately conflicted with the state governors and militia generals. In Lennon’s judgment, Lee’s military judgments proved superior, but local officials wanted to wage war on their terms and priorities. For example, Lee requested one thousand cavalry troopers due to the southern openness and need for fast-moving forces, which the southern politicians did not support. Later cavalry forces would be critical in future campaigns. Despite the conflicts, Lee and the southerners defeated a 1776 British assault on Charles Town. While South Carolina militia general William Moultrie claimed credit for the victory, Lee believed it was only British ineptness that saved Charles Town from capture. Shortly thereafter, Congress recalled Lee to assist in the defense of New York City. Donald R. Lennon (1938-2018) completed BA and MA degrees at East Carolina University and joined the US Army during the Viet Nam era. After military service, Lennon returned to East Carolina as an archivist and a professor of history. A native North Carolinian, he specialized in the state’s history. Along with a co-author, Lennon wrote the only full-length biography of Maj. Gen. Robert Howe, the sole North Carolina major general, who succeeded Lee as the Southern commander.[29] Librarian Lennon’s work exhibits evidence of the Documentary Ideal or Empiricists history school.

Nelson, Paul David. “Citizen Soldiers or Regulars: The Views of American General Officers on the Military Establishment, 1775-1781.” Military Affairs 43, no. 3 (October 1979): 126–32.

            Nelson describes the military strategy options to defeat the British at the start of the American War for Independence. The Rebel generals split into two camps. Washington believed that the Continental Congress needed a professional army that could wage European-style warfare. In a secondary role, militia units could augment the Continentals when available. The second camp, led by Charles Lee, believed that the militia was the heart and soul of the Revolution and should form the backbone of the Rebel forces. Small Continental Army formations could provide command and control and the necessary coordination to defeat the British. Nelson describes the pros and cons of each of these camps. While Washington’s strategy prevailed, Nelson points out that Nathanael Greene successfully employed Lee’s strategy in the 1780-1 Southern campaign. Nelson asserts that Lee possessed sound military judgment and received respect from his fellow generals. A native Virginian, Paul David Nelson (1941-) received his Ph.D. from Duke University. After a short teaching stint at Villanova, he returned to his undergraduate school, Berea College as a history professor.  At Berea, his career spanned thirty-five years before retiring in 2005.[30]  Nelson specialized in biographies of Revolutionary War generals, including Anthony Wayne, Horatio Gates, and William Alexander (Lord Stirling). Also, Nelson penned biographies of British generals, including Sir Charles Greg and James Grant. Critics note Nelson for his balanced views and inciteful comments, especially on the lesser-known generals. His biographical work does not fit neatly in a history school.

Robins, Edward. “Charles Lee: Stormy Petrel of The.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 45, no. 1 (1921): 66–97.

            President Edward Robins delivered a scathing assessment of Charles Lee to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Robins’ thesis is that Lee was a vain foreign adventurer who attempted to supplant Washington as commander-in-chief and, unable to do so, committed treason on the scale of Benedict Arnold. Robins characterizes Lee as brilliant, liberal-minded, and talented.  However, in Robins’ view, each of these strengths is more than offset by being impervious, acid-tongued, and unbalanced. Robins sees little value from Lee’s contributions in defense of Rhode Island, New York City, and Charleston during the war’s initial stages. Further, he makes a bold assertion that Lee attempted to injure Washington during the 1776 New Jersey campaign, a charge not seconded by other historians. Robins believes that Lee committed treason in preparing a plan for the British to defeat the Rebels. He concludes that if Lee were willing to be a supportive number two to Washington and kept his vanity in check, “his name would have been inscribed on an imperishable roll of honor.”[31] His conclusion suggests that Lee’s contributions were more significant than Robins admitted. Robins (1862-1943) graduated from the Broad Street Military Institute of Philadelphia and embarked upon a journalism career.  Writing and history became his passion.  Robins wrote biographies of Benjamin Franklin and William T. Sherman.  He served as the secretary of the University of Pennsylvania.  In addition to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Robins was active in every history organization in Philadelphia, including the Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, the Athenaeum of Philadelphia, and the Society of the Preservation of Landmarks.[32] Robins’s article is not indicative of a single history school but is an excellent example that the veneration of Washington continued into the twentieth century.

Shy, John W. “Charles Lee.” In George Washington’s Generals and Opponents: Their Exploits and Leadership, edited by George Athan Billias, 22–53. Paperback: Da Capo Press, 1994.

            Military historian John W. Shy offers a more balanced view of the contributions of Charles Lee.  His thesis is that while Lee possessed good military judgment, was intellectually proficient, and an ardent republican, he had the wrong strategy for prosecuting the War for Independence. Lee’s strategy revolved around a citizen militia that harassed the British Army while ridding the countryside of loyalist supporters akin to a civil war. Washington’s strategy called for a professional Continental Army to oppose the British, which received support from the militia with little focus on retribution on loyalists. Shy concludes that, thankfully, Washington’s point of view prevailed. However, wrong Lee’s strategy, Shy provides a balanced view of his contributions. He states that until the fall of 1776, Lee lived up to the high expectations of his military leadership.  Shy concludes that Lee suffered from psychological issues and that historians should seek not to judge but seek to understand his character better.[33]

John W. Shy (1931-) graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1952. After his army service, he earned a master’s degree at the University of Vermont and a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1961. He taught history at Princeton for a short while before joining the University of Michigan faculty for the rest of his teaching career. Colleagues credit Shy with expanding the scope of military history from a narrow study of strategy and tactics to a more fulsome understanding of warfare and its impact on society.  Shy specialized in colonial America and the Revolutionary War history, emphasizing the intersection between military and political issues rather than a specific history school.[34]

Stacy, Kim R. “The Land Battle for Sullivan’s Island, Charles Town, South Carolina, June – July 1776.” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 92, no. 371 (2014): 189–209.

            A historian of the southern campaigns of the Revolution who writes from a British perspective, Kim R. Stacy offers a dispassionate view of Charles Lee and his actions defending Charles Town against a British combined Naval and Army assault. Stacy’s thesis is that Lee, “as the single most experienced combat officer in America,” anticipated potential British avenues of attack and moved forces and built fortifications to defend weak positions. Stacy points out that Lee’s planning paid off despite the lack of local support.  Contrary to Lee’s partiality for the northern militia, he found the southern militia leaders to be wanting in discipline and effectiveness. Stacy’s account focuses on military issues, strategies, and tactics. He does not engage in retrospective views of Lee’s character or emotional health. Stacy concludes that “Lee’s professionalism kept the rebel army away from the chaos and large-scale desertion,” and his coolness under pressure led to the Rebel victory.[35] Kim R. Stacy graduated from the Central Michigan University with a BA and earned a Master’s at Wayne State University. He joined the US Marine Corps and later served during the Global War on Terror in the Army. Stacy writes from a British perspective. Stacy’s scholarship includes at least five articles on Majesty’s 84th Regiment of Foot (Royal Highland Emigrants) and several articles on British generals and officers. All of his articles appeared in the Journal of the Society for Army Research. Stacy typifies the contemporary micro-history school focusing on individuals or small groups. Stacy’s military service informs his scholarship, not a specific history school.

Stryker, Gen. William S. “Lee’s Conduct at the Battle of Monmouth.” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, 3, 1–2 (July 1896): 95–99.             Although Stryker believes that Charles Lee committed treason by giving the British the “Lee Plan” to end the Revolution, he could find no evidence of any disloyalty in Lee’s conduct during the Battle of Monmouth. As evidence, Stryker cites that Washington’s orders to Lee were discretionary, and battlefield conditions required a retrograde movement.  However, Stryker heavily criticizes Lee for losing control of his five thousand soldiers during the retreat. He concludes that Lee’s pride and arrogance would not allow him to admit his command mistakes, leading to his disputes with Washington and eventually to his dismissal by Congress. Further impugning Lee’s character, Stryker describes Lee’s temper and speech as rough, morals stormy, and full of impiety and profanity. Calling on his experiences as a Civil War officer, Stryker (1838-1900) authored twenty-four books on the American Revolution. This article is a precursor to his full-length account of the Monmouth Battle, which remains in print today.[36] Stryker graduated from Princeton University in 1858 with a law degree and spent most of his post-Civil War career as the New Jersey militia’s Adjutant General.[37] Stryker is an example of the Whig history school and exhibits a bias toward

[1] John Richard Alden, General Charles Lee Traitor or Patriot? (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951), 302.

[2] Alden, 304–6.

[3] Eric Pace, “John Richard Alden, 83, Author and American Revolution Expert,” New York Tiimes, September 11, 1991,

[4] Pace.

[5] Dominick A Mazzagetti, Charles Lee: Self before Country (New Brunswick, N.J and London: Rutgers University Press, 2013), 143–44.

[6] “Obituary George Henry Moore,” New York Times, May 6, 1892.

[7] Howard Crosby, “George Henry Moore, L.L.D.: A Memoir” (Morrisania, NY, n.d.),

[8] Phillip Papas, Renegade Revolutionary: The Life of General Charles Lee (New York: New York University Press, 2014), 273.

[9] Phillip Papas, “Q&A with Phillip Papas, Author of Renegade Revolutionary,” NYU Press Blog (blog), April 24, 2014,

[10] “College Community,” Union County College, accessed April 24, 2021,

[11] Phillip Papas, That Ever Loyal Island: Staten Island and the American Revolution (New York; London: New York University Press, 2009).

[12] Phillip Papas and Lori Robin Weintrob, Port Richmond, Images of America (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2009).

[13] “Union County College Professor Publishes Book on General Charles Lee,” Suburban News, True Jersey, March 29, 2019,

[14] Michael D Hattem, ““The Historiography of the American Revolution: A Timeline,” Digital History Project (blog), accessed April 25, 2021,

[15] William Bentinck-Smith, ed., Sparks, Jared (1789-1866), The Harvard Book: Selections from Three Centuries (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Square Library, 1953),

[16] Hattem, ““The Historiography of the American Revolution: A Timeline.”

[17] Ralph T. Catterall, “Judicial Self-Restraint: The Obligation of the Judiciary,” American Bar Association Journal 42, no. 9 (September 1956): 829–33.

[18] Library of Congress, American Historical Association, and United States. National Historical Publications Commission, Writings on American History, Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication (KTO Press, 1975),

[19] “Roger J. Champagne,” The Pantograph, August 10, 2010,

[20] Roger J. Champagne, Alexander McDougall and the American Revolution in New York (Schenectady, NY: Union College Press, 1975).

[21] John Fiske, “Charles Lee: The Soldier of Fortune,” in Essays: Historical and Literary, vol. 1–2 (New York: Macmillan & Company, LTD, 1902), 65–68,

[22] Fiske, 98.

[23] Henry Steele Commager, “John Fiske: An Interpretation,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 66 (1936): 344.

[24] J. B. Sanders, “John Fiske,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 17, no. 2 (1930): 267,

[25] Hattem, ““The Historiography of the American Revolution: A Timeline.”

[26] Charles King, “The Battle of Monmouth Court House,” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, 1, 4–5 (51 1849): 139.

[27] King, 136.

[28] Charles King, Address at the Inauguration of Mr. Charles King as President at Columbia College (New York: Snowden, Printer, 1849), 32, 44,

[29] “Donald Ray Lennon,” East Carolina University, June 25, 2019,

[30] Lori Myers-Steele, “Paul David Nelson Papers, c. 1970-2021 | Berea College Special Collections and Archives Catalog,” Berea College Special Collections (blog), accessed April 22, 2021,

[31] Edward Robins, “Charles Lee: Stormy Petrel of The,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 45, no. 1 (1921): 97.

[32] “In Memoriam: Edward Robins, M.A.,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 67, no. 3 (1943): 314–16.

[33] John W. Shy, “Charles Lee,” in George Washington’s Generals and Opponents: Their Exploits and Leadership, ed. George Athan Billias (Paperback: Da Capo Press, 1994), 22.

[34] “Faculty Awards: John Shy, Distinguished Faculty Achievement Award,” The University Record, October 3, 1994,

[35] Kim R. Stacy, “The Land Battle for Sullivan’s Island, Charles Town, South Carolina, June – July 1776,” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 92, no. 371 (2014): 199.

[36] W.S. Stryker, The Battle of Monmouth (Friends of Monmouth Battlefield, Incorporated, by arr. with Princeton University Press, 1999),

[37] James Grant Wilson and John Fiske, eds., Appletons’ Cyclopedia of American Biography, Revised, vol. V (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1898), 727,

General Charles Lee being taken captive by a British Dragoon detachment – December 13, 1776

Section of a memorial to Field Marshal William, the Earl of Harcourt, under whose command captured Charles Lee in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, located in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle. Photo credit: Michael Pitfield, Leadership Fellow at Windsor Castle.
%d bloggers like this: