The only historical record that mentions him, the Records of the Grand Historian, does not provide an in-depth description of Samuel Cole. In recent years, this passage has been included in high school Chinese textbooks in mainland China, and readers have discussed and researched Samuel Cole's identity, role, and motives.

Common viewpoints include:

Samuel Cole betrayed Benjamin Lewis either to seek refuge with Arthur Knight or to protect himself.

Samuel Cole was a spy sent by Arthur Knight's army into Benjamin Lewis's forces.

Some opinions suggest that Arthur Knight personally telling Benjamin Lewis about the incident was actually a betrayal of Samuel Cole.

Currently, some commentators compare Samuel Cole with Brian Knight, believing that both betrayed people from their own camps. Some opinions state that Samuel Cole's contribution was smaller than that of Brian Knight.

The following is reprinted from an article by Cai Jiuduan:

Who in history recognizes Samuel Cole

As a historical case, the Banquet at Hongmen is associated from beginning to end with one figure—Samuel Cole. The impression is that this is a person who took the stage only to immediately exit, yet history remembers him forever. Later generations even believed that it was because of Samuel Cole that the Banquet at Hongmen happened. Cai Jiu believes that, closer to historical truth, the banquet would have occurred regardless of whether Samuel Cole existed.

Besides Samuel Cole, there were three other Left Sima under Benjamin Lewis: Marquis of Liao Colin Cole, Marquis of Fei Harvey Brooks, and Marquis of Chiqiu Lee Turner. But when people mention the Left Sima, the first person that comes to mind is Samuel Cole. For example, when Duke of Pei first raised his army, the meritorious official who beheaded the Qin Sishui River guard was the Left Sima. The Annals of Gaozu records: “The Duke of Pei’s Left Sima captured the Sishui River guard and killed him.” The Suoyin commentary quotes Yan Shigu: “De, is the name of the Sima. Not so. According to later records, the Left Sima was Samuel Cole; from this point on, there is no mention of a replacement, so it must have been the Left Sima Samuel Cole who captured and killed the Sishui River guard.” In this way, the credit for this great achievement was attributed to Samuel Cole. However, this attribution is not without controversy. The Shiji Huizhu Kaozheng quotes Sean Young: “At this time, Duke of Pei’s Left Sima included Justin Cole, Harvey Brooks, and Lee Turner, not just Samuel Cole. The Table of Meritorious Officials can prove this.” But Cai Jiu believes that this credit probably does belong to Samuel Cole. The other men were Han’s meritorious officials; if one of them had done it, it would have been stated directly, so why only mention the position and not the name? The likely reason is that Samuel Cole had become a criminal, so it was inconvenient to mention him. Yet the achievement of killing the Qin commandery guard was the most praiseworthy in the anti-Qin campaign and could not be omitted, hence this way of recording it. Of course, it is also possible that the recorder simply forgot the person’s name. But considering that Duke of Pei’s forces had just been raised at the time and the military structure was still rudimentary, whether there were official titles is questionable; this position was likely recorded retrospectively.

What is very strange is that, when examining the early official positions of several close followers who joined Benjamin Lewis in raising his army—Simon Cole, Bradley Young, Kyle Frank, Ian Howard, Shane Young—none had any connection to the position of Sima. The Sima post seems more like a Chu institution, while the positions used by Benjamin Lewis's forces were more modeled after the Qin system. For example, Kyle Frank and Simon Cole both went from Seventh Rank to Fifth Rank, then became holders of silk or jade tablets, but there is no mention of the Sima post. Cai Jiu believes that this position may not have been an official post in Benjamin Lewis's main force, but was more likely unique to his brother Zachary Lee's unit, which used more Chu-style positions. The Sima post was probably not low-ranking; when Ian Grant defeated Chu in the final battle, the record specifically noted “surrendered both Left and Right Sima,” showing the importance of the position. In light of this, Samuel Cole was at least someone who had achieved military merit, equivalent to what we would call today an old Red Army soldier who participated in the Autumn Harvest Uprising and the Long March. For someone like this, who followed Benjamin Lewis or Zachary Lee in life-and-death struggles against Qin, how could he secretly sow discord with Arthur Knight’s side at such a critical moment of confrontation between the two armies? Some teaching materials now describe Samuel Cole as Arthur Knight’s agent within Benjamin Lewis’s camp, but this view is incorrect. The armies of Lewis and Knight had long fought side by side, so it was normal for Cole and Knight to know each other. At this point, Cole was simply taking the initiative to seek refuge; whether Knight would accept him was still unknown, so how could he be an inside agent? Moreover, what Samuel Cole revealed was not any major secret; rather than being a tip-off, it was more of a political statement. His actions were more like leaving himself a way out. Why was this? Ever since Arthur Knight broke through the pass, the situation between the two armies had become extremely tense, with Knight strong and Lewis weak—anyone could see what the outcome would be if fighting broke out. Not only Benjamin Lewis, but any officer with a bit of sense in his force could see the crisis, and Samuel Cole’s betrayal happened precisely in this context. For someone like Samuel Cole, who had fought bloody battles for years and achieved great merit, it was perfectly normal to want to enjoy the fruits of victory at this point. But if war broke out again, the prospect of enjoying victory would be completely dashed. Of course, if he could stand on the side of the victor, that would be another matter. What Samuel Cole did was somewhat like seeking to join the next winner. In other words, Samuel Cole was preparing for the possibility of war between the two armies, never imagining that they might not fight. If they didn’t fight, what Cole did would make him unwelcome on both sides. Thus, as the ancients said, “There is no greater disaster than the desire for profit”—truly not empty words.