Aaron Burr treason trial Essay Example
Aaron Burr treason trial Essay Example

Aaron Burr treason trial Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 10 (2625 words)
  • Published: October 19, 2018
  • Type: Essay
View Entire Sample
Text preview

In the early 1800s, the United States experienced a unique period in its history. The country was still young, growing, and in a state of constant turmoil, with political and economic fortunes being made and lost overnight. While the nation was founded on noble ideals, it became clear that personal ambition and self-interest often overshadowed the common good when it came to putting these ideas into practice. It seemed that powerful individuals used these ideas as tools for their own ambitions, as was the case with Aaron Burr.

Burr, a brilliant and ambitious individual known for his exceptional oratory skills, held considerable influence. He engaged in intense battles with Thomas Jefferson, another larger-than-life figure, which ultimately led to Burr being tried for treason against the United States. This trial marked the culmination of a personal and

...

political feud between two prominent figures. Jefferson was willing to go to any lengths to destroy Burr, even if it meant disregarding the principles that he himself had helped establish as the foundation of the United States.

The focus of this paper is on this trial and the events that preceded it. Reviewing the facts reveals that the trial was more about a personal vendetta between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr rather than a matter of law.Aaron Burr, born in 1756, was considered a rising star and potential President of the new republic. However, his conflict with Jefferson arose during the tied presidential election of 1800. When the election went to the House of Representatives, Burr rejected Federalist offers for a coalition and did not publicly support Jefferson for the Presidency. Burr believed that elections should not be won through coalitions

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

and was bitter about working with the Federalists. Showing arrogance and confidence in his position, Burr made no effort to persuade Congress to his side. In contrast, Jefferson quickly struck deals with Federalist congressmen to secure their votes and ultimately won the presidency. As depositions revealed, Jefferson had collaborated with the Federalists for his own election, tarnishing his reputation as a Republican founder and leader. This political maneuvering made Jefferson appear opportunistic and self-serving, leading to lasting distrust and disdain from Jefferson towards Burr.A close friend of Jefferson stated that Colonel Burr's destiny was sealed by Jefferson's lifelong animosity towards him. Despite this, Jefferson ultimately became President and Burr became Vice President. Their personal hatred for each other intensified during their time working together in the White House. Eventually, Jefferson removed Burr from the Republican ticket during his reelection. Burr then attempted to run for governor of New York, but was strategically thwarted by Alexander Hamilton, causing him to lose the election. This led to the infamous duel between Burr and Hamilton, resulting in Hamilton's death. Burr, now wanted for murder in two states, was forced to flee to the west. This marked the beginning of the final chapter of his ambitious career. When Burr first arrived in the West at nearly fifty years old, he was captivated by the vast untamed land and the solitude of the western plains. His natural charm and impressive oratory skills served him well in this rugged territory. His ability to persuade both small and large groups in an environment where grandiose ideas and ambitions prevailed would aid him in his future endeavors. Burr ventured west without a clear

plan, considering rebuilding his legal career, land speculation, and pursuing public office as potential options.One possible suggestion is:
There had been suggestions to construct a canal around the Falls of the Ohio, but these ideas did not align with a man who had come close to becoming President of the Republic. The source of the conspiracy idea is uncertain, but on April 29, 1805, Burr revealed his plan to initiate a revolution in Mexico (then under Spanish rule) during a dinner with Herman Blennerhassett. Blennerhassett, a wealthy landowner residing on a 300-acre island in the Ohio River, was not inclined towards ambitious foreign adventures. Burr then decided to deceive Britain and Spain into providing him with the necessary funds and troops for his Mexican revolution. This proved challenging from the outset, considering that Spain governed Mexico at that time. Burr's plan involved misleading both Britain and Spain by pretending to aim for dividing the United States into two parts, east and west. However, his true intention was to use the resources from Spain and Britain to invade Mexico. He outlined this strategy in a letter dated January 1st, 1806, addressed to Anthony Merry, the British minister to the US, and Don Carlos Yrujo, the Spanish minister to the US. Eventually, President Jefferson obtained this letter, which became a crucial piece of evidence in Burr's treason trial.Burr's assertion was that he never had any intention of committing treason; it was simply a ploy against two nations that were unpopular in the US at that time. It was widely known then that to be guilty of treason, one must actually commit an overt act

of treason, rather than just plan one. Burr later argued that his strategy was reasonable. However, Burr's elaborate scheme began to crumble when he realized he could not secure the necessary funds without the assistance of both Yrujo and Merry, unbeknownst to Burr, both ministers had discovered his true intentions. This left Burr desperate for funds and no alternative except the east coast of the US, where he was still facing charges for murder, although no one appeared particularly eager to prosecute him. Not long after he arrived, rumors started circulating about Burr's attempt to split the East from the West. Prompted by a letter regarding Burr's proposal to Yrujo and Merry, Jefferson promptly publicized an announcement revealing he had uncovered a conspiracy to divide the country, urging everyone associated with it to distance themselves without mentioning Burr's name. Within a few days, the conspiracy fell apart. Three months later, on January 22nd, 1806, President Jefferson sent a special message to Congress denouncing Aaron Burr as the principal conspirator in a traitorous plot to divide the nation.Despite lacking evidence at that time, Jefferson's voice was enough to tarnish Burr's reputation and turn public sentiment against him for the remainder of his life. Several pivotal conspirators assisted Burr in executing his plan, with General James Wilkinson being the most significant one. General Wilkinson, a corrupt and self-serving politician, had a penchant for selling himself to the highest bidder. In 1787, he pledged allegiance to the Spanish crown to attain the exclusive privilege of selling Kentucky produce in Louisiana's metropolis. Later, he attempted to separate Kentucky from Virginia, envisioning an independent Kentucky capable of forming alliances with

its Spanish neighbors once it achieved statehood. This episode, known as the Spanish Conspiracy, became even more incriminating when it was revealed that Wilkinson was receiving an annual payment of $2,000 from the Spanish government. Subsequently, Wilkinson joined the army and swiftly rose to become the highest-ranking general within just eight years. By that point, the Spanish government was compensating him a staggering $16,000 for his services. It is possible that Wilkinson, being utterly corrupt, was the sole true traitor in this narrative; however, he had not made Thomas Jefferson his personal enemy. In Burr's plan, Wilkinson's role was to lead an army of mercenaries against Mexico.Burr helped Wilkinson become governor of the Louisiana territory in exchange for land gained from Mexico. When Jefferson learned of Burr's plan, Wilkinson confessed to him in a letter, hoping for indemnity in exchange for testifying against Burr. However, Jefferson did not take action for a whole year, leading some historians to suspect his involvement in a plot to frame Burr. It was not until receiving a letter from the postmaster general on October 16th, 1806, stating that Burr planned to divide the country, that Jefferson finally warned people to distance themselves from the conspiracy. Jefferson aimed to trap Burr in a more overt act of treason by making a moderate proclamation that did not directly mention him. By January 22nd, 1807, Jefferson believed he had gathered enough evidence to convict Burr and accused him of being the main conspirator in a Western plot before Congress. Congressman John Randolph demanded evidence to support Jefferson's serious accusations against Burr. Jefferson provided several letters he claimed were written by General Wilkinson,

although some were not.The mentioned letters referred to both a plan to divide the West and East and Burr's intentions to invade Mexico. Congress was convinced, and three months later, on March 30th, 1807, Burr was arrested in Richmond, Virginia on multiple charges. The first charge was the misdemeanor of initiating an expedition against the King of Spain's territories. The second charge was treason, as Burr had assembled an armed force to seize New Orleans, transform Orleans Territory, and separate the Western states from the Atlantic states. Chief Justice John Marshall, who was a prominent citizen of Richmond, wrote and delivered the warrant for Burr's arrest. Burr peacefully surrendered and awaited his trial. Since he was arrested within the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice, it was determined that Marshall would oversee the case, greatly impacting its outcome. U.S. Attorney George Hay prosecuted Burr, although not as skilled as the defense team's brilliant legal minds. Fortunately for Hay, he received daily legal advice letters from Jefferson, who was a superb lawyer himself. Eventually, Jefferson even began dictating the defense's legal strategies, which raised questions concerning the actions of the Chief Executive. The prosecution aimed to convict Burr by basing their arguments on a precedent set in a previous trial.The previous ruling established that if a treasonous act is committed, all individuals involved, regardless of their level of involvement, are culpable for treason. The intention was to demonstrate that a group of approximately fifty men gathered on Blennerhassett Island for seditious motives, and even though Burr was not present during that time, his participation in the plot rendered him guilty of treason. The prosecution was assisted by

President Jefferson's blatantly illegal actions, wherein he issued blank pardons to Hay and authorized him to pardon anyone implicated in the conspiracy if they testified against Burr. The defense team consisted of Burr himself, Edmund Randolph, John Wickham, and Luther Martin. These four lawyers were some of the most skilled in the nation and shared a mutual animosity towards President Jefferson. Their legal strategy aimed to portray Burr as a victim of a Presidential administration that relentlessly pursued him and continuously violated his civil rights. Burr also requested a subpoena mandating Jefferson to produce various documents, including his correspondence with Wilkinson. The court granted Burr's request, sparking a conflict of power between the judicial and executive branches. How should we find a balance between the independence of the president and an accused individual's rights to obtain evidence?Jefferson reluctantly submitted the documents, explicitly stating that it was solely because he believed they did not compromise national security. The trial eventually commenced after Burr was indicted by a Grand jury on both charges. It took ninety-six potential jurors before twelve suitable ones were selected due to most admitting their bias against the defendant. The prosecution intended to call numerous witnesses, but only a few were able to testify in court due to objections by the defense or rulings by judge Marshall. For example, William Eaton's testimony was never allowed as the defense forced him to reveal that the government settled a long-standing claim for $10,000 only when Eaton agreed to testify. Others were disqualified due to pardons granted by Jefferson. The President's direct influence on the prosecution, fueled by zeal, certainly didn't help their case. Burr and

his colleagues argued two major points: firstly, that no treason had occurred since the constitution requires an overt act of war against the country, which did not happen; and secondly, that Burr couldn't be guilty as he wasn't present during the alleged act of treason, contrary to previous precedents.Several days later, Marshall delivered a three-hour decision on Monday, August 31, 1807. He ruled that actual presence at the island was essential for proof of an overt act, contradicting a prior opinion. He also stated that advising or procuring treason is not treason in itself. The following day, the jury ruled that Aaron Burr was not proven guilty based on the evidence presented. Consequently, Burr was found not guilty. Jefferson, outraged by the ruling, threatened to impeach Marshall and took the matter to congress. However, congress never brought the impeachment to a vote. History has assessed Jefferson's personal hatred of Burr as the driving force behind his inappropriate pursuit and illegal conspiracy to convict a political opponent. Normally a brilliant lawyer, Jefferson would not have brought a case of treason against an unknown man based on the same facts. Furthermore, if he didn't know Burr, he would not have become so involved and instead would have allowed justice to take its course. Under the influence of his patriotism, Jefferson may have believed that writing a letter planning treason was treason itself, or perhaps he simply wanted to destroy Burr. Clearly, Jefferson's bias and vindictiveness drove his behavior, leading him to violate the very Constitution he sought to protect. Although he failed to get Burr convicted, he did accomplish his main objective.After the trial, Aaron Burr faced

intense public hatred and the threat of being lynched in the streets. As a result, he had to flee America disguised and sought refuge in Europe for four years, where he lived in poverty. Upon his return to the United States, he experienced further tragedy as his daughter and young grandson died at sea. On his deathbed in 1836, a friend questioned Burr about his intentions to separate the West from the Union. Burr vehemently denied any such plans, comparing it to the absurd notion of possessing the moon and dividing it among friends. Despite this, the trial of Aaron Burr serves as a reminder of how politicians can use noble-sounding speeches to pursue their own selfish political agendas. It remains relevant today as we lament the loss of more dignified political times, particularly in light of recent presidential elections. By studying history, one can realize that not much has truly changed.John Marshall: A Life in Law (New York: Macmillan publishing Co., 1974) by Leonard Baker (56)
The Burr Conspiracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954) by Thomas Abernathy (54)
John Marshall; Definer of a Nation (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1996) by Jean Smith (353, 354)
The Great Chief Justice (New York: University Press of Kansas, 1996) by Charles Hobson (21, 196)
Shout Treason: The Trial of Aaron Burr. (New York, 1959) by Francis Bernie (236)
Harmon Blennerhassetts Journal (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1988) by Harmon Blennerhassett
The Aaron Burr Conspiracy (New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1936) by Walter McCaleb (6, 183, 167)
American History Illustrated, June, 1978. "The Aaron Burr Conspiracy" by Lowell Harrison (127, 20, 373)
Jefferson And Burr (Richmond: M. Cullaton Printers, 1898) by Isaac Jenkinson (375)
Bibliography:
Abernathy, Thomas. The Burr

Conspiracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954.
Baker, Leonard. John Marshall: A Life in Law. New York: Macmillan publishing Co., 1974.
Bernie, Francis. Shout Treason: The Trial of Aaron Burr. New York: 1959.
Blennerhassett, Harmon. Harmon Blennerhassetts Journal. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1988.
Harrison, Lowell. The Aaron Burr Conspiracy. American History Illustrated, June, 1978.
Hobson, Charles. The Great Chief Justice. New York: University Press of Kansas, 1996.
Jenkinson, Isaac. Jefferson And Burr. Richmond: M. Cullaton Printers, 1898.
McCaleb, Walter. The Aaron Burr Conspiracy. New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1936.
Smith, Jean. John Marshall; Definer of a Nation. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1996.The text provides information about two books related to New York. The first is titled "Burr" by Gore Vidal, published by Henry Holt and Company in 1996. The second is also by Gore Vidal, titled "Burr", published by Random House, INC. in 1973.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New