Editing Charles Lee (general) (section)

====Court martial====
Even before the day was out, Lee was cast in the role of villain, and his vilification became an integral part of after-battle reports written by Washington's officers.<ref>Lender & Stone 2016 pp. 391–392</ref> Lee continued in his post as second-in-command immediately after the battle, and it is likely that the issue would have simply subsided if he had let it go. On 30 June, after protesting his innocence to all who would listen, Lee wrote an insolent letter to Washington in which he blamed "dirty earwigs" for turning Washington against him, claimed his decision to retreat had saved the day, and pronounced Washington to be "guilty of an act of cruel injustice" towards him. Instead of the apology Lee was tactlessly seeking, Washington replied that the tone of Lee's letter was "highly improper" and that he would initiate an official inquiry into Lee's conduct. Lee's response demanding a [[court-martial|court martial]] was again insolent, and Washington ordered his arrest and set about obliging him.<ref name="Ferling 2009 p. 180">Ferling 2009 p. 180</ref><ref>Chernow 2010 p. 452</ref><ref>Lender & Stone 2016 pp. 392–393</ref>

The court convened on 4 July 1778, and three charges were laid before Lee: disobeying orders in not attacking on the morning of the battle, contrary to "repeated instructions"; conducting an "unnecessary, disorderly, and shameful retreat"; and disrespect towards the commander-in-chief. The trial concluded on 12 August 1778, and the accusations and counter-accusations continued to fly until the verdict was confirmed by Congress on 5 December 1778.<ref>Lender & Stone 2016 pp. 395–396, 400</ref> Lee's defense was articulate but fatally flawed by his efforts to turn it into a personal contest between himself and Washington. He denigrated the commander-in-chief's role in the battle, calling Washington's official account "from beginning to end a most abominable damn'd lie", and disingenuously cast his own decision to retreat as a "masterful manoeuvre" designed to lure the British onto the main body.<ref>Lender & Stone 2016 pp. 396, 397, 399</ref> Washington remained aloof from the controversy, but his allies portrayed Lee as a traitor who had allowed the British to escape and linked him to the previous winter's alleged conspiracy against Washington.<ref>Lender & Stone 2016 pp. 397–399</ref>

Although the first two charges proved to be dubious,{{efn|According to the court martial transcript, Lee's actions had saved a significant portion of the army.<ref name="Ferling 2009 p. 180"/> Both Scott and Wayne testified that although they understood that Washington had wanted Lee to attack but at no stage explicitly gave Lee an order to do so.<ref>Lender & Stone 2016 pp. 191–192</ref> Hamilton testified that as he understood it, Washington's instructions allowed Lee the discretion to act as circumstances dictated.<ref name="Lender & Stone 2016 p. 194">Lender & Stone 2016 p. 194</ref> Lender and Stone identify two separate orders Washington issued to Lee on the morning of 28 June in which the commander-in-chief made clear his expectation that Lee should attack unless "some very powerful circumstance" dictate otherwise and that Lee should "proceed with caution and take care the Enemy don't draw him into a scrape."<ref>Lender & Stone 2016 pp. 195–196</ref>}} Lee was undeniably guilty of disrespect, and Washington was too powerful to cross.<ref>Lender & Stone 2016 p. 396</ref> As the historian John Shy noted, "Under the circumstances, an acquittal on the first two charges would have been a vote of no-confidence in Washington."<ref>Shy 1973, cited in Lender & Stone 2016, p. 396</ref> Lee was found guilty on all three counts, but the court deleted "shameful" from the second and noted the retreat was "disorderly" only "in some few instances." Lee was suspended from the army for a year, a sentence so lenient that some interpreted it as a vindication of all but the charge of disrespect.<ref>Lender & Stone 2016 pp. 396–397</ref> Lee continued to argue his case and rage against Washington to anyone who would listen, prompting both Lieutenant Colonel [[John Laurens]], one of Washington's aides, and Steuben to challenge him to a duel.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Founders Online: Account of a Duel between Major General Charles Lee and Lieute …|url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-0687|access-date=2020-10-21|website=founders.archives.gov|language=en}}</ref> Only the duel with Laurens actually transpired on December 23, 1778, during which Lee was wounded in the side. Laurens, believing the wound was more serious than it seemed, went to help the general. However, Lee said it was fine and proposed to shoot a second time. The men's seconds, [[Alexander Hamilton]] and Evan Edwards, opposed this idea and had the duel end there, despite Lee's protests to fire again and Laurens's agreeance. In 1780, Lee sent such a poorly received letter to Congress that it terminated his service with the army.<ref>Ferling 2009 pp. 180–181</ref><ref>Lender & Stone 2016 p. 400–401</ref><ref>Chernow 2010 p. 455</ref>