you are determined to make Captivity as distressing as possible, to those whose Lot it is to fall into it, let me know it, that we may be upon equal terms, for your Conduct must and shall mark mine.46
Washington was going to protect his compatriots, and if that meant threatening—and potentially applying—Cunningham’s own gruesome tactics, so be it.
The tension over prisoner treatment escalated when Washington’s jealous second-in-command,1 Major General Charles Lee, was captured by the British. Sloppy in appearance and crude in manner, Lee was reputed to have a sex life “of the transient kind.”2 And it played right into British hands: Lee was caught after leaving his army behind for an evening of “female sociability” at Widow White’s Tavern in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.3
The eccentric Charles Lee was born into an unhappy home in Cheshire, England. The son of a British officer, he served in his father’s regiment starting at the shockingly young age of eleven.4 Although he was never properly socialized, he grew into a shrewd tactician as he fought for the British all over the world. Unlike Washington, he distinguished himself enough in the Seven Years’ War to warrant promotion in the British ranks. Returning to Europe, he continued his successful military career in wars from Portugal to Poland.
Lee was a man who made enemies quickly. On one such occasion, he took umbrage at an Italian officer’s comments, grabbed his gun, and challenged the offender to a duel. In the end, he lost two fingers and killed the Italian.5 Lee’s “warmth of temper” resulted in many similar encounters while he battled his way across the continent.6
As the colonists and Britain headed down their collision course during the early 1770s, Lee grew ever more sympathetic to the patriots’ loudening calls for liberty. He left the battles of Europe behind and returned to America in 1773 to set up a farm in Virginia. But his quiet life as a farmer was short. When war broke out in 1775, Lee leapt into the fray. He was not one to shy away from a fight.
At the outbreak of war with his mother country, Lee possessed far more military experience and education than Washington, so he expected to be appointed commander in chief. But when the Continental Congress met to select the commander, Lee was in for a surprise. The Congress viewed the tall, dignified, and morally respected Washington as a better leader for the colonies’ cause than the crude, pinched-faced Lee. Unlike Lee, Washington was “discreet and virtuous, no harum-scarum, ranting swearing fellow, but sober steady and calm.”7 While Washington was seen as a happily married pillar of Virginian society, the skinny, homely Lee was continuously rebuffed by women and displayed “hints . . . of homosexuality.”8 Perhaps most importantly, Washington was willing to work without pay, while Lee demanded a stipend from the cash-strapped Congress.9 Washington won the job, but Lee remained insubordinate.
Many regarded the slovenly Lee as militarily superior to Washington. In fact, the British viewed Lee as their primary strategic foe.10 Lee agreed. Living up to his spiteful and arrogant reputation, he showed his animosity towards Washington by writing letters to various American leaders explaining why he should replace Washington as commander. And, being the opposite of Washington, he was completely unrestrained in his angry tirades.
In fact, after spending the night with Widow White, the undressed Lee was finishing a letter denouncing Washington as “damnably incompetent” when the British dragoons appeared outside.11 Unluckily for Lee, his sentries were busy sunning themselves when the redcoats swept in on horseback.12 The British quickly scattered Lee’s unwary guards and secured the tavern’s perimeter. The pack of dogs that invariably—and bizarrely—accompanied Lee began barking, and the house erupted into a hushed frenzy. Before Lee could even get his clothes on, Widow White frantically burst into the room and attempted to hide him under her bed. But the British would not be fooled, and they fired into the tavern. The commanding British officer announced from outside, “If the general does not surrender in five minutes, I will set fire to the house.” After two minutes of panicked debate, Widow White emerged from the door into the chill morning air. Screaming for mercy, she offered the general’s surrender. Lee, caught with his pants down, followed.13
Howe was overjoyed with the capture of America’s tactical genius. The British predicted that the “Coup de Main [had] put an end to the Campaign,” since it would leave the Continental Army without a true military strategist.14 British bands played victory tunes to honor the “most miraculous Event,” while soldiers toasted the king until they were too inebriated to raise their cups.15 The news raised such “great hopes . . . of an early termination of the war” that a dreadful speller in one British village speedily organized a festival:16
Thursday next will be helld as a day of regoicin in commemoration of the takin of General Lee, when their wil be a sermint preached, and other public demonstrascions of joye, after which will bee an nox roasted whole & everery mark of festivety & bell ringing imagenable, width a ball & cock fiting at night. 17
The guards who had to watch over Lee were less pleased. They quickly came to despise his crude, conniving ways, and complained about having to spend any time with such an “atrocious monster.”18
After obtaining intelligence that Lee was being abused, Washington jumped to his defense—even though he knew that Lee had been exploiting the Continental Army’s recent defeats to garner support in Congress for his ouster as commander.19 Washington warned General Howe that “any violence which you may Commit upon his Life or Liberty will be severely retaliated upon the Lives or Liberties of British Officers, or those of their Foreign Allies at present in our hands.”20
While Washington did “beg that some certain Rule of Conduct towards Prisoners may be settled,” he reasoned that abuse was not only justified as a means of protecting Americans but required by honor.21 Shortly thereafter, he again warned the British forces that “if their rule of Conduct towards our prisoners is not altered, we shall be obliged, however disagreeable it may be, to make retaliation,” and that “any Accounts of ill Usage coming thro’ them, would be so authentic, that we might safely proceed to take such measures towards their prisoners as would be fully justifiable.”22
In expressing his position to Congress, Washington was even more candid. After learning of the “Inhuman Treatment to the whole, and Murder of part of our People after their Surrender” in New York, and now of Lee’s condition, he determined that “Justice and Policy will require recourse to be had to the Law of retaliation, however abhorrent and disagreeable to our natures in cases of Torture.”23
Despite their previous resolution directing that prisoners be treated with humanity just six months earlier, the Continental Congress came to follow Washington’s lead. After waffling in the early stages of the war, they relinquished their idealistic opposition to prisoner maltreatment in light of the practical realities of battle, observing, “No fact can be clearer that interest alone (and not principles of justice or humanity) governs men.”24 Just as Washington had been doing, Congress began to convey this hardened view to the enemy. Benjamin Franklin wrote to the British saying, “the United States are not unacquainted with the barbarous treatment their people receive when they have the misfortune of being your prisoners.” He warned, “if your conduct towards us is not altered, it is not unlikely that severe reprisals may be thought justifiable.”25
Echoing Washington’s position that unsavory tactics might sometimes be called for in the course of war, Congress formally resolved,
that if the enemy shall put to death, torture, or otherwise ill-treat any of the hostages in their hands, or of the Canadian or other prisoners captivated by them in the service of the United Colonies, recourse must be had to retaliation