Charles Lee is picked over George Washington

[Farnan]

Here is a realistic situation. When the Continental Congress was choosing a leader to command the Continental Army there were two prime candidates, George Washington and Charles Lee. In order to curray favor in the South, and because Washington offered to work for free, George Washington was chosen as the general. However, what would happen if Charles Lee was chosen instead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lee_(general)

[Slaytaninc]

Although I know jack and crap about war, just by reading that article, he sounds like a horrible officer.

[Poach]

A lot of that may stem from his hatred of Washington and anger over being made subordinate to him, though.

His character was much more volatile than Washington's, however. He may have led the Continental Army to disaster through not being cautious enough.

Edit: Farnan, not very important as wiki suggests the right article anyway, but the last bracket in your link isn't actually part of the link.

[Farnan]

A lot of that may stem from his hatred of Washington and anger over being made subordinate to him, though.

From what it seems Charles Lee joined the American cause in order to be made the Commander-in-Chief. It seemed he wanted glory more than honor. I also find it suspicious that he had decided to go to a tavern with only a few guards and "coincidently" British dragoons decided to stop at the same taven.

Washington's greatest feat was in not losing the war. There were many times he came close but was able to keep the British from a decisive victory. The biggest example of this was the Battle of Long Island. The British had routed many of his forces but decided to wait to deliver the killing blow till morning. However, Washington was able to withdraw his army using subterfuge (one thing he did is assign soldiers to keep all the campfires going so that the British wouldn't see the number of fires decreasing and know the Americans were escaping) and slip past the Royal Navy saving it. I don't know if Lee would have retreated, he may have decided to fight and then have lost the revolution.

[Poach]

Indeed, Washington's cautious nature and preference to withdraw rather than fight if he had his doubts was pivotal to the Continental Army's continued existence and eventual success. Lee's less cautious attitude could well have led the Army to destruction.

[Tiberius Tosi]

I can't really speak for how the army would have performed on the battlefield, but it is doubtful that under such a general the army would have held together in the first couple of years. In my opinion all Washington really had to do was keep the army from falling apart and every day it survived was a failure for the British and brought the US closer to recognized independence. Under a highly British character who demanded to be paid (don't give Washington too much credit, he ran up a tab more expensive than his pay would have actually been lol) disobeyed orders and didn't give up his British rank until after he accepted the Continental one (and who had drawn up plans for the British lol) probably would have been a poor morale leader and the army would have dissolved, which was Washington's greatest triumph as a military leader and is what actually won the war in my opinion.