Did Burr Break The Law? A Historical Inquiry

Aaron Burr was a Founding Father, the third vice president of the United States, and a man of complex character. He is remembered for his famous conflict with Alexander Hamilton, which culminated in a duel in 1804, where Burr fatally wounded Hamilton. Although dueling was illegal, Burr was never tried, and all charges against him were eventually dropped. However, his killing of Hamilton ended his political career.

Burr's true intentions remain unclear, but he is known for his involvement in the Burr Conspiracy, a treasonous plot to establish an independent country in the Southwest or invade newly acquired lands. He was arrested and tried for treason but acquitted due to a lack of evidence and the strict definition of treason outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Despite his acquittal, Burr's reputation was tarnished, and he lived the rest of his life in relative obscurity.

Did Burr commit murder?

On July 11, 1804, a duel took place between Aaron Burr, the third US vice president, and Alexander Hamilton, the former Secretary of the Treasury. The duel was the culmination of a bitter rivalry that had developed over the years between the two high-profile politicians. As a result of the duel, Burr shot and fatally wounded Hamilton.

In the aftermath, Burr was vilified for shooting Hamilton, and his political career was effectively ended. He was charged with murder in New York and New Jersey, but neither charge ever reached trial. A New York coroner's jury found Burr guilty on two counts: the misdemeanour of duelling and the felony of murder. However, with the help of some powerful friends, the charges were eventually dropped, and he returned to Washington, D.C., to finish his term as vice president.

While it is clear that Burr's shot caused Hamilton's death, the specifics of the duel are unclear. It is uncertain which of the two fired first, and some historians believe that Hamilton never intended to fire at Burr. Burr, on the other hand, may have fully intended to kill Hamilton. In the years following the duel, Burr was quoted as saying that he would have shot Hamilton in the heart if his vision had not been obscured by the morning mist. English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who met with Burr in England four years after the duel, concluded that Burr was "little better than a murderer."

In summary, while Burr was charged with and found guilty of murder by a coroner's jury, he was never tried or convicted of the crime in a court of law. The ambiguity surrounding the specifics of the duel, as well as Burr's political connections, likely contributed to the lack of a murder conviction.

Did Burr commit treason?

In 1807, former Vice President Aaron Burr was tried for treason in one of the most remarkable trials in early American history. The charges stemmed from a conspiracy in the years 1805-1807, during and after his term as Thomas Jefferson's vice president.

According to the accusations, Burr attempted to use his international connections and support from a cabal of American planters, politicians, and US Army officers to establish an independent country in the old federal Southwest Territory. He also allegedly tried to invade and conquer the newly acquired Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Burr's version of events was that he intended to farm 40,000 acres in the Spanish Texas colonial province, which had been leased to him by the Spanish Crown.

Burr was arrested on President Jefferson's orders in 1807 and charged with treason, despite a lack of firm evidence. He was ultimately acquitted due to the lack of detailed specificity in the US Constitution about any alleged crimes of treason, and because an "overt act of participation" could not be proven.

The true extent of Burr's intentions remains unclear, and historians have put forward various theories. Some claim that he intended to take parts of Texas and Louisiana for himself, while others believe he intended to conquer Mexico or even the entirety of North America. The number of men backing him is also unclear, with accounts ranging from fewer than 40 to upwards of 7,000.

Burr's political career was destroyed by the affair, and he spent several years in self-imposed exile in Europe before returning to the US and resuming his law practice in New York.

Was Burr's duel with Hamilton premeditated?

The Burr-Hamilton duel was the culmination of a bitter rivalry that had developed over years between both men, who were high-profile politicians in the newly established United States. The duel was premeditated in the sense that it was the result of a long-standing conflict between the Democratic-Republicans (Burr's party) and the Federalists (Hamilton's party).

The conflict began in 1791 when Burr won a United States Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's father-in-law, who would have supported Federalist policies. Hamilton was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury at the time. This was the first major skirmish between the two men, and it set the tone for their future political rivalry.

In the 1800 United States presidential election, Burr and Thomas Jefferson ran on the Democratic-Republican Party ticket against incumbent President John Adams and his running mate Charles C. Pinckney of the Federalist Party. Due to quirks in the election process, Burr ended up tying with Jefferson in the electoral college vote, and he chose to vie with Jefferson for the top office. As a result of Hamilton's influence on his fellow Federalists, Burr lost. He became vice president but was marginalized by Jefferson.

In early 1804, it became clear that Jefferson would drop Burr from his ticket in the upcoming election, so Burr decided to run for the governorship of New York instead. He was backed by members of the Federalist Party and was under the patronage of Tammany Hall in the 1804 New York gubernatorial election. Hamilton campaigned vigorously against Burr, causing him to lose the gubernatorial election to Morgan Lewis, a Clintonian Democratic-Republican who Hamilton had endorsed.

The final straw that led to the duel was a letter published in a newspaper in April 1804. In the letter, Dr. Charles D. Cooper claimed that at a dinner party, Hamilton had called Burr "a dangerous man" and expressed a "more despicable opinion" of him. Burr was aggrieved by this and wrote a letter to Hamilton calling for an explanation. The two men engaged in a correspondence that ultimately resulted in Burr demanding that Hamilton deny that he had ever spoken ill of him. Hamilton felt that he could not comply without sacrificing his political career, and although he opposed dueling—his eldest son had died in a duel three years earlier—he accepted Burr's challenge.

Thus, the duel between Burr and Hamilton was premeditated in the sense that it was the result of a long-standing political rivalry and a series of specific disagreements and slights between the two men. However, the actual shooting and lethal outcome of the duel may not have been premeditated, as Hamilton had reportedly told confidants and made clear in valedictory letters that he intended to throw away his shot, possibly by shooting wide of Burr.

Did Burr break the law by founding the Manhattan Company?

Aaron Burr founded the Manhattan Company on September 1, 1799. While Burr's actions in founding the company were deceptive and controversial, it is unclear whether they were illegal.

Burr solicited support from Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists under the guise that he was establishing a water company for Manhattan. In reality, he was founding a bank. Before the establishment of Burr's bank, the Federalists held a monopoly on banking interests in New York via the federal government's Bank of the United States and Hamilton's Bank of New York. These banks financed operations of significant business interests owned by aristocratic members of the city. Hamilton had prevented the formation of rival banks.

Burr secretly changed the application for a state charter at the last minute to include the ability to invest surplus funds in any cause that did not violate state law, and dropped any pretense of founding a water company once he had gained approval. Hamilton and other supporters believed that Burr had acted dishonorably in deceiving them. Meanwhile, construction was delayed on a safe water system for Manhattan, and writer Ron Chernow suggests that the delay may have contributed to deaths during a subsequent malaria epidemic.

The Manhattan Company was more than a bank; it was a tool to promote Democratic-Republican power and influence, and its loans were directed to partisans. By extending credit to small businessmen, who then obtained enough property to gain the franchise to vote, the bank was able to increase the party's electorate. Federalist bankers in New York responded by trying to organize a credit boycott of Democratic-Republican businessmen.

In the 1800 presidential election, Burr combined the political influence of the Manhattan Company with party campaign innovations to deliver New York's support for Jefferson. That year, New York's state legislature was to choose the presidential electors, and before the April 1800 legislative elections, the State Assembly was controlled by the Federalists. Burr enlisted the help of Tammany Hall to win the voting for selection of Electoral College delegates. He gained a place on the Democratic-Republican presidential ticket with Jefferson in the 1800 election. Jefferson and Burr won New York, and tied for the presidency overall, with 73 electoral votes each.

In summary, while Burr's actions in founding the Manhattan Company were deceptive and controversial, it is unclear whether they were illegal.

Did Burr break the law by seeking to establish an independent country?

In 1807, former Vice President Aaron Burr was acquitted of treason charges in what was known as the "Trial of the Century." The charges were related to his alleged conspiracy to create an independent country in the western states and the Louisiana Territory, which was known as the Burr Conspiracy.

Burr's political career was already in decline following his fatal duel with Alexander Hamilton in 1804, and he saw an opportunity to revive his fortunes by seeking to establish his own empire in the west. He believed that with a relatively small and well-armed military force, he could take territory from Louisiana and build his own empire, possibly even taking Mexico.

Burr's plans included seeking support from General James Wilkinson, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army, and Anthony Merry, Britain's Minister to the United States. He offered to help Britain take Western territory from the United States in exchange for money and ships to carry out his conquest. However, he never received support from Britain or Spain, and his plans began to circulate in Eastern newspapers.

Despite this, Burr continued his quest for support and set out from Pittsburgh in August 1806, recruiting volunteers and storing supplies on Harman Blennerhassett's island in the Ohio River. By the end of 1806, his plans were falling apart, but he proceeded down the Mississippi River with a small army of men.

In Bayou Pierre, just 30 miles above New Orleans, Burr learned that there was a bounty out for his capture, and he surrendered to authorities. He was brought to trial for treason more than once but was acquitted each time due to a lack of evidence and the strict definition of treason outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

While Burr was not convicted of breaking the law, his actions and the conspiracy surrounding them certainly suggest questionable motives and a threat to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. His legacy remains controversial, with some viewing him as a progressive hero and others as a villain of early American history.

Frequently asked questions