Aaron Burr: Repolished

‘Looking at the Founders through the Darkling Lens of Aaron Burr: or Good Vice President, Bad Vice President?’

In recent historical times we have witnessed the terms of two powerful vice presidents; Al Gore and Dick Cheney. Both of these men expanded the office of “second citizen” in different ways. A conservative’s nightmarish view of Gore is that of a utopian dreamer bent on putting the United States on a Socialist/Green path. Likewise, liberals suspect that Cheney spent his time in a “Doctor Strangelove” war-room plotting who knows what? Passing from the modern to the past, ironically and following the law of unintended consequences the third Vice President of the United States, Aaron Burr was extremely important in American History. Because he was powerful, influential and not easily controlled, his career as Vice-President led to the 12^th Amendment to the Constitution…a measure that greatly weakened the Vice Presidency. Oddly enough then, a Burrish style Vice Presidency represented a check on Executive power within the Executive branch itself.

Aaron Burr is the most misunderstood of the Founding Fathers. Most Americans know that he killed the man pictured on the $10.00 dollar bill, Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Some know that he was a hero during the siege of Quebec during the American Revolution. The complete story of Aaron Burr is very complex. The story of Burr has many implications and leads to three main themes.

First; the life of Aaron Burr and his activities is a quixotic series of adventures well worth telling. He was of the American elite, he served honorably during the American Revolution, he was a very successful, able politician and he was a moderate who leaned towards what we call the ‘left’ today while enjoying the occasional flirtation with the political ‘right’ of the times. He was not overly concerned with the competing ideologies of his time. He did enjoy power, prestige and the good life. He made friends and he made lifelong enemies. He fell and he survived.

Secondly; Burr should be seen in the context of the other leaders of the Revolution and of the Constitutional era. This is a psychological study because Burr irritated and infuriated people who were otherwise political enemies. The important psychological dance here has to do with Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and their reactions, actions, opinions and attitudes regarding Burr. Jefferson and Hamilton essentially created the two main sides of the ongoing American debate or party system. Today we call ourselves liberals or conservatives and we argue about the merits of centralized power (the ‘conservative’ Hamiltonian Federalists) versus a more de-centralized populist approach (the ‘liberal’ Jeffersonian democrat/republicans) to government. Burr navigated a world in which these ideas were congealing in American terms. Aaron Burr’s political maneuvers affected a very great deal of the history of his times.

Third, the career of Aaron Burr had a direct influence on American law and politics. His actions and life had a great deal to do with the 12^th Amendment, the Constitutional definition of treason, the role of money in politics, the role of the press in politics, the concept of candidates actively campaigning for office ( a Burrite first) and most importantly; the perception of character in the American polity. Therefore, Aaron Burr does provide a provocative, yet admittedly oblique opportunity to examine the current and increasingly problematic structure of the American construct. By this I note the two wars we engage in, the spreading financial disaster and certain Constitutional structural flaws we retain such as the Electoral College. To expand upon this point, many of the basic assumptions of American politics are currently being re-examined. Much of this soul searching is directly linked to the various geo-political and economic or social problems that face the United States. The fact that multiple problems have become so grave, at the same time, leads Americans to think about the intentions of the Founding Fathers. In addition and if one accepts that there do exist some very difficult quandaries these days; certain questions about the structure and evolution of our government necessarily arise. This in turn has led to a new wave of historiography concerning the Revolutionary generation. New biographies and new histories regarding the main figures in the American Revolution and the formative years just after the war abound. Much of the more recent historiography tends towards a more positive reassessment of Burr.

A simple listing of people in regards to their opinions of Burr from the Revolutionary era will begin to shed some light as to why this subject is so fascinating. Among the pro-Burr group were James Madison (it is believed that Burr introduced Madison to his future wife, Dolly, our first great, “First Lady”), Andrew Jackson, Albert Gallatin (who served in Jefferson’s administration) and John Jay. Those who disliked him included Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington. John Adams and his wife Abigail had no particular objections to Burr and did not seem to be too displeased when Burr killed Hamilton. John Marshall who was not fond of Jefferson and a biographer of Washington came to find himself in an uncomfortably neutral position regarding Burr whom he had known since the Revolution. When we consider that Jefferson and Hamilton were bitter, lifelong political opponents their conflicts with Burr raise interesting historical questions. Perhaps something about Burr’s hazel to black-eyed and cool persona made him appear to be up to something when he was simply there? Of course as a lawyer, politician and land speculator he was often up to something, a state of affairs far from unusual among the Founders during the era.

We do know that the idealism of the Revolution very quickly degenerated into what many Founders (as noted by Madison in ‘The Federalist Papers’) feared the most; the rise of political factions. The small ‘r’ republicans led by Jefferson were soon pitted against the Federalists who were led by Hamilton. Aaron Burr sensed opportunities in this expanding political divide. He was not an ideologue; he was an opportunist. This is why he enraged and alarmed his colleagues and why his story de-constructs so much of what we hold to be almost sacred today. Burr was literally, ‘a burr’ in the sides of the other Founders. While extremely talented, he was prone to spectacular mistakes. It is also important to note that Burr and Hamilton enjoyed periods of friendship during their lives. They served together during the Revolution and often argued legal cases together in New York. They moved in the same social circles and were very well aware of each other’s activities over the years.  

Essentially, Aaron Burr was of the American elite (born on February 6^th, 1756). His grandfather, Jonathan Edwards was a fiery divine and oft quoted force in the Great Awakening. His father, Aaron Burr Sr. was the greatly respected second president of Princeton College. It appears that Burr rebelled against his conservative upbringing. He was most literate, finished college in record time and became a charismatic leader of men. Burr truly liked women both in the amorous sense and as people with strong minds. As a lawyer, soldier and politician he did not hide his subtle contempt for those whose skills he found lacking. Nevertheless, he could be charming and devious; another clue as to why he was feared. Politically he was what we would call a ‘liberal’ today. Burr was an abolitionist, republican and held personal, proto-feminist views about the abilities of women. Throughout much of his life he wore a locket containing a miniature portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft, the author of, “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” (some believe it was a portrait of the writer that Burr treasured). Like the other members of the American Revolutionary generation Burr was a well-read product of the Enlightenment. He was also most modern in terms of campaigning in person and raising the necessary money that fuels politics. For example; he was a main founder of the Manhattan Company Bank whose stated purpose was to bring fresh water to New York City. Yet, a clause in the charter allowed Burr to use money for campaigning. That bank is still with us today as Chase Bank. These sorts of tactics were common among the Founders and their allies. Most of them speculated in land deals in the West and most failed at this with the notable exception of George Washington who did rather well.

Burr served in the Revolutionary War as a Colonel. Among other exploits he attempted to save the body of General Montgomery under fire during a failed attack on Quebec, found an old Indian trial that allowed General Putnam’s corps to escape while Washington lost the 1776 battles for New York City, stopped a mutiny at Valley Forge (this is most likely when he met and was friendly with Hamilton), patrolled the outlands of New York City to keep the British contained and fought well during the chaotic Battle of Monmouth Court Horse. For a time he was assigned to the staff of General in Chief George Washington. While other aides such as Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe and the Marquis de Lafayette adored Washington; Burr was critical of Washington’s Fabian strategies against the British and of Washington’s emerging demi-godlike stature. Burr had a point; Washington could be brittle and pompous for all of his fair-mindedness and endless stamina for the cause. This proved to be a typical and early mistake for Burr. One later result of this was that Washington refused to accept Burr’s appointment by President Adams to the rank of Brigadier General during the time of the Quasi-War with France (…these times were edgy due to The Whiskey Rebellion and other trying events). This leads to yet another grand irony in the convoluted tale of Aaron Burr. In 1798 Hamilton dreamt of leading The New Army (formed in response to the French threat) through republican Virginian onwards to Mexico and beyond in South America. Once he recognized that Hamilton was using his name to forward the project Washington distanced himself from this venture led by one of his most loyal lieutenants (Hamilton) while refusing to promote Burr to the rank of Brigadier General. President Adams allowed the funding for Hamilton’s army to dwindle while the republican press attacked the entire idea as a Federalist plot. Burr was not involved beyond hoping for a promotion and perhaps some military glory. For Burr, the future, ironic, almost fatal twist is that he would be tried for treason by the Jefferson administration for plots that paralleled both the visionary successful attempt to purchase the West by Jefferson and the stymied Napoleonic gaze of Hamilton in the same direction.

During the Constitutional Convention period (1788-89), Burr was fairly quiet in terms of American History. He served in the New York legislature and became a very successful lawyer. Ironically; he often argued cases with Hamilton, a most persuasive team of lawyers to be sure. Between 1791 and 1797 he was a US Senator from New York. This led to his first clash with Hamilton By the time of the famous duel in 1804 Burr had known Hamilton socially for almost 30 years and their political wars had gone on for 15. Burr defeated Philip Schuyler who was Hamilton’s father-in-law for the Senate. This meant that Hamilton, a true, well meaning genius among the Founders began to develop a deep distrust for Burr. In addition, this meant that Burr was the rare republican who could draw votes (and seat republican legislators) in largely Federalist New York. Burr did run for president in 1796 but was out-maneuvered by the Jeffersonian-Virginians leading to mutual mistrust and bad feeling with the other major American political force in its formative stages. Adams won the 1796 Election only to last one term; thus becoming one of our most under-rated presidents. To add to the bitter hostility, many of the leading players or politicians controlled newspapers or editors whose specific purpose was to mock and slander their opponents. Hamilton and Jefferson were masters of this technique as was Burr to a lesser extent. Aaron Burr tended to keep his comments and thoughts about his opponents private. This led to an aura of mystery about Burr as people wondered where he actually stood on various issues.

Relations between Burr and Hamilton deteriorated further during the Election of 1800. At this time Hamilton, in spite of his superb work at the Constitutional Convention and as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury was beginning to lose influence as a national politician. His mentor and the main check on his combative personality, George Washington was dead. Hamilton was loathed by President John Adams for his behind the scenes influence on Adam’s cabinet officials. Hamilton was also ensnared in a sexual/financial scandal, ‘The Reynolds Affair’ and made the mistake of over-explaining his actions in the press. Hamilton was innocent in terms of using his position for financial gain and not so innocent regarding the particular liaison. There is a further irony here; when James Monroe and two others leaked certain papers regards Hamilton’s problems, Burr stepped in to stop a duel between Hamilton and Monroe.

During Adam’s presidency Thomas Jefferson served as Vice-President and spent much of his time at Monticello, his home in Virginia engaged in political plotting while protesting his disinterest in such matters. Jefferson, a man who was a true ideologue and rather ruthless in his political machinations had quietly built up the Democrat-Republicans in to a major political party at increasing cost to the Federalists. Jefferson may be a villain from the Burrite point of view; yet it would be folly to diminish the importance of the leader of the ‘Virginia junto’ ideas or his political skills. The point is that the seemingly shy Jefferson out-foxed the other Founders leading to dominance by the Democrat/Republicans in national politics. His Virginia lieutenants Madison and Monroe followed him to the White House. This situation did not change until Andrew Jackson; a Democrat defeated John Quincy Adams in the election of 1828.

Largely due to Jefferson’s role as the Republican leader, his opponents; the Federalists were showing signs of being a party on the decline. Jefferson was an ‘idea man’ and his perfect synthesis of Enlightenment ideals in ‘The Declaration of Independence’ should never be forgotten by anyone, ever, anywhere because it is the clearest statement of the American ideal. However, in 1800 Jefferson needed Burr to secure the New York vote.  In exchange Burr was to be Vice-President. Burr got the vote out for Jefferson. Due to a flaw in the Constitution, Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral College. Burr’s actions at this point are contradictory. He seemed to demur to Jefferson but there was no ringing endorsement of Jefferson beyond some letters. He declined to actively lobby or fight for the presidency but neither did he step aside for Jefferson. There is some evidence that Jefferson may have cut some deals with the Federalists to ensure his rightful election as President. This led to a convoluted situation where the matter went to the out-going Federalist Congress for decision.

Hamilton stepped in to this looming breech in the American republican experiment. He despised Jefferson as a person and thought that Jefferson’s, ‘yeoman farmer’, de-centralized government-state’s rights and pro-French policies were dangerously misguided. However, by this point, Hamilton was almost insane on the subject of Burr who he thought to be without morals and thus, even more dangerous. So, he lobbied on behalf of his other enemy and Jefferson won after 35 tie votes in the House. This left everybody, except Jefferson, in a difficult political position. The Republican president was not going to do his old enemy, Hamilton any favors. Burr was Vice-President yet thoroughly distrusted by President Jefferson. Burr proved to be an excellent but at times disloyal Vice-President. He was the first in that office to bring the chaotic, loosely run Senate into order and he insisted that the Senate not always meet in secret session.  Burr used his power to thwart Jefferson in meaningful ways. He was fair in impeachment trials that the administration brought forth against Federalist judges thus foiling the president’s attempts to purge the Federalist judiciary. He cast a tie vote that stopped a Jeffersonian embargo of revolutionary Haiti. President Jefferson was not happy with the idea of black rebels entering the South via New Orleans. Due to actions or votes such as these and the bitterness from 1800 there was no way that Jefferson would allow him on the ticket for 1804. Jefferson and Burr did dine together once and awhile perhaps to maintain the illusion of solidarity. Yet knowing that he was blocked from the second office in the land with its path to the presidency and because Jefferson declined to appoint Burr to an Ambassador’s post indicated a lack of support from that quarter Burr decided to run for Governor of New York. Hamilton (and to a more subtle, lesser extent, Jefferson) stepped in again and ensured that Burr was badly defeated.

Now both Burr and Hamilton found themselves politically isolated and pondering 15 years of political battle, much of it in the form of vicious slanders in the press. This of course led directly to ‘The Duel’. I see this clash as the avoidable tragic end of two quintessential Americans. Burr was reacting to comments and slurs published in the press attributed to Hamilton that were clear attacks on his character. An exchange of letters followed. Hamilton’s were superb exercises of equivocation as he feared the political embarrassment of apologizing. Burr’s were better, incisive, lawyerly masterpieces, to the point and effectively forced Hamilton to make a choice. Thus; these negotiations failed to solve the impasse and because of the ‘code of honor’ prevalent (ego and pride) in those times events drifted towards the inevitable, formalized clash. The meeting between the sitting Vice-President of the United States and the former Secretary of the Treasury occurred at Weehawken, New Jersey on July 11^th, 1804 across the Hudson River from New York. Although frowned upon, dueling was not illegal in New Jersey so the purpose was to avoid possible murder charges in New York. Using his personal set of dueling pistols Hamilton fired first (the most likely scenario from the limited evidence we have today) and missed or may have missed on purpose. Burr stumbled slightly on a stone, fired second and inflicted a fatal wound on a man who had once been his friend. Colonel Aaron Burr, the third Vice-President of the United States had just killed General Alexander Hamilton the first American Secretary of the Treasury. Burr seemed to instantly regret the outcome but was hurried away from the scene by his seconds. Hamilton died shortly after in horrible pain. Because the duel was fought in New Jersey it did prove difficult to prosecute Burr for murder in New York although there was a great, almost universal wave of grief for Hamilton a circumstance that did not help Burr’s reputation at all. Aaron Burr did rather boldly finish up his term as Vice-President in part because Jefferson needed him for the treason trials held against Federalist judges. His ‘Farewell Speech’ to the US Senate was very eloquent, so moving that many Federalists and Democrat/Republicans reconsidered his merits for a time. However; the greater damage was done. ‘The Duel’ was most unfortunate because Hamilton was killed; leaving a large, very distressed family behind stuck with a great deal of debt and Burr was even further politically ruined. Both were great military men who might have been most useful to the US during the War of 1812. Both were fine talents; Hamilton a true genius in terms of the creation of American systems. Burr was almost an equal as an inventor of modern politics.

Burr then managed to get into even more trouble. Essentially he conceived a wild scheme to detach part of the West and, perhaps, create his own country out of Mexico and Louisiana. Or, was he simply attempting to settle a section of land in the West? To this day there is much historical debate and uncertainty about this subject meaning that it remains rather unclear what Burr was actually up to. We do know that he contacted the British and French regarding this matter. In this he was betrayed by Jefferson’s General in Chief, James Wilkinson who was double agent (#13) in the pay of Spain. The West was still fairly unsettled in terms of who had the most valid claims to particular territories making the scenario quite muddled. Perhaps because he was determined to claim the West via expeditions such as Lewis and Clark’s (not to mention looming troubles with powerful Native American leaders such as Tecumseh of the Shawnee), President Jefferson did not see it that way. There was also the divisive issue matter of one of Jefferson’s greatest accomplishments, The Louisiana Purchase from Napoleonic France. While doubling the size of the United States; this sale obviously opened up vast new areas to slavery. North-Eastern Federalists approached Burr with an idea of separating from the Union based on this matter. Burr was non-committal. As usual, Burr’s vague demurral caused him to be suspect in the minds of many. In any case; while fleeing Jeffersonian vengeance Burr was captured in Alabama, taken to Richmond and charged with treason in 1807. Jefferson over-stepped the boundaries of his office and personally managed the prosecution from Washington D.C.

The spectacular trial (held in Richmond, Virginia, a Jeffersonian stronghold) was over-seen by Chief Justice James Marshall, a distant cousin and enemy of Jefferson’s (see Marbury vs. Madison one of the few times in case law where Jefferson was thoroughly out-witted). Burr, who certainly knew, “Hamilton’s” Constitution well acted as one of his own attorneys among a very strong defense team and was, found ‘not guilty’ of the specific charges three times much to the annoyance of President Jefferson. Burr’s three strongest points of defense were first that he was not present at the time and place of the alleged treason (he was in Mississippi having similar charges dismissed by a judge), that the prosecution could not find two witnesses to prove treason as mandated in the Constitution and that he had far too few men in his party of settlers on Blennerhassett Island on the Ohio River to contemplate invading Mexico. Another very interesting aspect of this trial was that Burr subpoenaed President Jefferson in order to get his hands on cipher letters between Wilkinson and himself that the General had altered in order to make Burr look worse. This was the first case in which a president claimed, “Execuctive privilege” and Jefferson did not appear at the trial. President Jefferson did send most of the requested documents to Richmond. However; fairly recent discoveries of documents in Spanish archives reveal that the ambitious Burr most likely would have set himself up in some portion of the West or Mexico if possible. If so; this still does not clearly constitute treason against the United States. This was because Spain was caught between warring France and England. Thus, it was not always certain whether or not that nation was neutral, a friend or foe of the United States or linked to England or France at any given moment especially given the slow communications of the time. On the other hand; the more we look at Burr the more Gen. Wilkinson fades into historical ignominy (in part due to multiple blunders during the War of 1812) while doubts arise regarding Jefferson’s record on civil liberties.

Although he escaped the felony charges (the hangman) Burr suffered further blows. His wife had died earlier of cancer, his daughter, Theodosia was lost at sea and took with her a chest containing most of Burr’s papers. This tragedy feeds the enigma because we know that Hamilton and Jefferson were writing to us; to future Americans. We know relatively little of Burr’s thinking. We do know that Burr fell into depression, wandered about Europe (England, France, Germany & Sweden) experiencing high society, enjoying sexual dalliances and suffering extreme poverty. He befriended Jeremy Bentham whose philosophy of Utilitarianism matched well with Burr’s progressive views. So, Burr saw more of the world than any member of the founding generation-from Sweden to the American West. The former Vice-president was on the run yet with impish irony he gave, “The Federalist Papers” (Hamilton, Jay & Madison) at times as a gift.  He finally returned to the US after much difficulty obtaining a passport because the British, French and US diplomats were watching his activities. After a long delay he was granted his pension as a Colonel from the American Revolution. Partly because he thought that James Monroe was a rather incompetent president he made one more attempt at a political comeback through the offices of his son-in-law Joseph Alston who was the Governor of South Carolina. However; Alston was very depressed after the death of his wife, Theodosia and could not rouse himself to the Burrite cause. Always trying forward; Burr resumed his womanizing (which, to be fair, appears to be an activity he pursued after the death of his wife), financial speculations and law practice with a specialty in divorce cases on the side of women. Burr also entered a scandalous second marriage with a younger, wealthy woman of not the best reputation. This liaison quickly ended in a divorce which he did not contest. He did manage to outlive his enemies; living in New York and passing away on September 14^th, 1836 shortly after suffering a stroke. The major personality from the Founding Era who outlived Burr was Dolly Madison (1849), a friend of Burr’s wife and daughter, the Theodosia(s). He did survive long enough to witness the Texas Revolution; a grand irony because the pro-Southern Texan Revolutionaries actually accomplished what Burr was charged with treason for when they separated from Mexico. Therefore; the life of Aaron Burr does shine an oblique light on the Founding Era and raises some interesting questions that we, as Americans or humans still tend to ponder.

Are human beings perfectible? Given the cautionary tale of Burr one may answer, ‘no’. Jesus, Buddha and some Enlightenment philosophers may disagree and say, ‘yes’. It is clear that the Founders were very human and that many of them turned on each other in bitter and protracted feuds. It is an easy politically correct exercise to dismiss the Founders because of their human foibles. We take far more uncritical comfort in seeing the Founders as heroic men of marble who created this great nation. We need to remember that they established the first government in human history ever to grant liberty to the people. It is true that the Athenians invented democracy for some of the people as did the Americans. There are examples of democratic cantons in Switzerland. Tribal groups in Asia and the Native Americans practiced forms of democracy. The point is that the Americans challenged the entire world to consider the experiment and for better or worse we continue to do so.

Are political systems perfectible? In particular, can or should the American system be perfected? My answer here is, yes. The 12^th Amendment fixed the 1800 Jefferson/Burr mess while eliminating a possible check on the executive branch within the executive. The rise of political parties does keep individual politicians from physically fighting each other. However, party loyalty can now trump allegiance to the greater, ameliorative good. This has been the case in my view during the recent dominance of all three branches of American government by the present day Republicans. However; it is now so expensive to get elected there seems to be little time to actually govern well. Now, the Democrats control the Presidency, the Senate while the Republicans hold the House.  We shall see what develops as our stalemated government deals with multiple problems.

The Federalists were the ‘big government’ party of the period and thus derided as pro-British conservatives but they hated slavery. The republicans opposed a large, powerful central government, supported the French Revolution and were considered the liberals of the time while they tended to be the slave holders. These two points lead us to the enormous stress the massive conflict or series of wars (1789-1815) between Great Britain and Revolutionary/Napoleonic France put on America. This stress had a great deal to do with the formation of party lines and US policy. Another question arises. Is the two party system good for America? Would a Libertarian party on the right and a Socialist/Green party on the left force the main two to cut certain ‘deals’? To do so would require some ‘representatives at large’ and a re-thinking of the ‘winner takes all’ system in US elections. For example; in my view the Electoral College was put in place as a check on the people by the Federalists as the horrors of the French Revolution began to become apparent. The same view might be applied to our current, “Hamiltonian” financial system as we find ourselves caught in a rather huge monetary quandary. Do we completely need either now? I think not.

Both Burr and Hamilton were abolitionists although both their records can be attacked on some points. It seems to me that while the American Revolution succeeded in terms of granting liberty to some, the slavery issue once ignored or put aside led to a major flaw in the American construct. Human bondage is a social, moral issue; to delay action is to invite disaster i.e.: a Civil War. My point is that from the beginning the United States was more concerned with political rights than social rights.  For all of his vivid flaws; Burr did maintain good relations with the Native Americans (he befriended Joseph Brant, a Mohawk/Iroquois leader), people of African descent and women. Late in life he supported orphans, loyally remained kind to friends who were in financial or legal trouble and said very little to discredit his former political enemies. Perhaps his life illustrates a quiet point; could a subtle, supposedly “Machiavellian” moderate possibly do more good than an ideologue from either end of the political spectrum? In Burr’s case we shall never know because the combination of his own miscalculations and the determination of his opponents effectively derailed his career.

There are similarities in the styles of William Jefferson Clinton and Aaron Burr. There is a parallel here; both Burr and Clinton display a great love of life and love of politics. Both have been attacked as willing to change positions for political advantage, a form of political maneuvering that enrages enemies while delighting the historical observer. I see Burr as a sort of provocative strategist who through his political deeds exposed the cracks and crevices in American law that many ambitious intelligent people might navigate to reach power. However, I am convinced that he actually was not a bad or evil human being. This may be his great lesson to us; we should think deeply and further perfect our system lest someone or something far worse than the “roguish” Aaron Burr appear to all of our dismay.

Keith Keller

Notes: There are a good many recent books on Burr and the other Founders from which this article is taken from with all credit due to the original authors. The short list should include the following texts.

“The Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and the Future of America” by Thomas Fleming is perhaps the best source to start reading on the subject.

“Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson: A Study in Character” by George G. Kennedy is a little impressionist in its construction but very illuminating.

“Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr” by Nancy Isenberg is a well written quite pro-Burr biography.

“Alexander Hamilton” by Ron Chernow tells the other side of the story in an engaging manner.

“John Adams” by David McCullough won the Pulitzer Prize.

Joseph J. Ellis is perhaps the leading light among the present group of historians writing about the Founders although he seems to be not too enthralled with Burr at times. I recommend “Founding Brothers: the Revolutionary Generation” for a general view with wonderful anecdotes. “American Sphinx: the Character of Thomas Jefferson” is a post-modern classic on the complex personality of Jefferson. Ellis has also written about Washington and Adams.

For a good laugh or another fine book on the subject there is always Gore Vidal’s, “Burr: A Novel” a work of great accuracy and even greater satire.

The enterprising reader can take a look at Burr’s own memoirs of two volumes. Hamilton and Jefferson each have left memoirs of 20 or more volumes….one clear reason why their thoughts tend to dominate the, ‘Burr question’ to this day.

For a classic, older and very pro-Jefferson series; the biographies by Dumas Malone will more than suffice.

On the other hand there is, “Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side” by Bernard W. Levy who dissects certain aspects of Jefferson’s record (controversially) without leaving Burr unscathed.

Garry Willis’, “Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence” closely examines that still resonating document thus illustrating Jefferson’s genius and his own skill at writing.

Those who seek a somewhat biased bit of Jefferson bashing might consider, “Jefferson’s Vendetta: The Pursuit of Aaron Burr and the Judiciary” by Joseph Wheelan.

The most recent entry in the Burr revisionist sweepstakes is, “American Emperor: Aaron Burr’s Challenge to Jefferson’s America” by David O. Stewart. Mr. Stewart is an accomplished lawyer and does quite a nice job in explaining the many legal complexities that swirled around Burr as will as providing insights to the various personalities or characters involved.

In 2000 PBS released a short documentary, “The Duel: Hamilton vs. Burr an Event that changed History”. This piece does a pretty good job of explaining the basics.

Finally; the very enterprising may obtain “The Memoirs of Aaron Burr” in two volumes. There are, of course, many sources available on micro-film and other media by or about Burr.

Keith Keller- November, 2011

Copyright: Keith Keller, this essay is not to used in any manner without the express permission of the author.

REFLECTIONS ON SOPWITH CAMEL: (SF BAND)

Reflections on Sopwith Camel by Keith Keller

            July 23^rd, 1977: I was walking around the Oakland Coliseum during Led Zeppelin’s, “Day on the Green” concert. How I got there with a semi-back stage pass I do not recall beyond that I was a minor figure in the Bay Area music scene at the time (booking, managing and promoting bands). With a fresh BA in Broadcasting from San Francisco State University in hand this sort of work was interesting and necessary as SFSU graduated around 600 people with such degrees that year while there were only around 6 major broadcasting jobs available in the area. My story is not important at this particular point beyond being part of the narrative as my purpose is to re-introduce the world to Sopwith Camel a band I was representing at the time.

            Everyone was wondering why Zeppelin’s drum tech/roadie was banging on the kick-bass drum for what seemed like an eternity. Then opportunity struck; there was Bill Graham standing right next to me in the upper decks looking to be in an approachable mood. I introduced myself and started to quickly describe the fact that Sopwith Camel was back and sounding rather good. Mr. Graham looked interested but then his radio-phone buzzed (long before this current era of cell-phones). He was informed that Led Zeppelin’s crew was busy assaulting his crew backstage. Cleary enraged; he managed to exit the conversation politely yet the chance went glimmering away. The version of Sopwith Camel that I worked with faded away as well. I believe it had something to do with a limited budget from their recording label and the complexities inherent in gaining traction or notice with a line-up featuring only one original member (Peter Kraemer). There were neither bad feeling nor grudges; a case that is often rare in the music business.

            Flash forward to 2012 and one of those blundering into someone from your past stories via social networking systems. My life was very different, older, slightly wiser (MA in History) and more experienced (worked in England with the Fairport Convention/Richard Thompson people, taught History for many years in the US and English in South Korea). Sopwith Camel was tucked away in a corner of my mind as a pleasant past memory. Yet, fortuitously, “The Hump” returned and we now have a most interesting and welcome project for Sopwith Camel is better than ever!

            After many emails and telephone conversations the time came to visit Peter Kraemer. What a guy! Ideas, songs, stories, political themes and the history of his many adventures or misadventures in the music business poured out of him in a passionate flood. He is a gracious, creative and highly articulate, talented gentleman. Eventually; as we were having a great time we got down to business. Much of this concerned the pragmatic matters of where to book the band, press photos, setting up web-links and brain-storming on how to proceed. Then we got to the music. It is very, very good! This version of Sopwith Camel has power and punch. Please go to the following link for information on the line-up and a fine essay on Sopwith Camel history by Peter Kraemer.

http://www.sopwithcamel.org/

           

Describing music requires the use of many adjectives and at times comparisons. The music is unique rock n’ roll, it is very danceable, full of energy, packed with wonderful vignettes about odd characters and incisive social commentaries. There are moments of subtle exotica, fantasias in space-time and some very modern electro-instrumentation as Kraemer plays his many saxophones through synthesizers.

            In terms of comparisons (which can be somewhat inaccurate) you will hear the crunchiness of The Mekons, story telling akin to Ray Davies (The Kinks), the Euro-cool of Roxy Music (Bryan Ferry) along with bits of the original San Francisco loopy pop-psychedelic sound of early Sopwith Camel. Mix in some New Order, Laurie Anderson with more story telling as in Lou Reed and you will be getting close to what words cannot perfectly describe.

            In his piece, “About the Band” Peter notes that the drummer, Bruce Slesinger (Dead Kennedys), is the, “famous” member of the band. No argument there as Bruce is a great drummer (the other members are Martin Beard on bass, an original member and Mike McKevitt on guitar…. both fine musicians in their own rights) yet Peter Kraemer should be famous. Peter is the main writer, plays all sorts of horns, synthesizers, sings in a unique voice and is basically the creative genius behind this band.

            While some groups from the early Motown, English and American rock scenes (who shall remain un-named here) have become parodies of themselves, Sopwith Camel most certainly has not. Beyond the fact that the music is great; public radio stations and oral historians should be falling all over themselves to interview the exuberant, expressive Mr. Kraemer as he has met almost everyone of note (not only in music) during his career, has, “seen it all” and tells the stories in a most engaging manner.

            Beyond all this; the important thing is that Sopwith Camel has returned with a bang. This band is vital, plays with a fiery zeal and has something to say about the current state of affairs in America. So, I suggest you do yourselves a musical favor, learn about the band, come out and support them as we accrue gigs (concerts) and discover a Bay Area treasure, reborn. They rock!

Keith Keller

bluegray49@yahoo.com

707-573-6820

PS: Another good contact is Mike Somavilla. “The Keeper of the Flame” for SF rock history.

http://www.sfmusicandbeyond.com/

This piece is the work of Keith Keller on behalf on Sopwith Camel and may be used for discussion, publication and promotional reasons with credit to the author and band. KK

           

           

An Appeal to Reason in a Time of Unreason

An Appeal for Reason in a Time of Unreason

*Note to the reader: this piece is an experiment in addressing a complex subject in 650 words. Not counting this note, the piece is exactly 650 words long.     

The people are angry, distressed, confused as we see on both the left,” Occupy” movements and right, “The Tea Party”. The government is ineffective,  politically stalemated and bankrupt. Bewildering webs of problems abound: poverty, homelessness, destructive financial shenanigans, climate change, competition for diminishing resources among seven billion people and war(s). On the liberal/progressive left, beyond the usual, “herding cats” inanity in prioritizing agendas there is a choice between peaceful demonstrations and aggressive actions. On the right; moderate conservatives seem to be held in thrall by dangerously intransigent reactionaries. In such times rhetoric heats up and there is the ever present hazard of the center giving way. Should the latter happen; perilous situations may arise. Therefore; I begin and end with quotes while briefly noting examples of revolutions and counter-revolutions.

Kissinger (or Nixon 1972 when opening relations with China): “What do you think of the French Revolution?”

Premier Zhou En Lai: “It is too early to tell.”

The American Revolution (1776-83) was a magnificent rallying call for liberty (humanity’s “natural” rights) that continues to echo wherever people desire freedom. However; by 1789 (the Constitutional Convention) the USA became somewhat conservative in nature and structurally difficult to change. Ask Burr.

The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars lasted from 1789 (the Bastille) until the fall of Napoleon in 1815 (Waterloo). Liberal idealism degenerated into Terror and unstable Directories as combinations of radicals bloodily turned on each other. Napoleon brought order, sought glory and fell.

The American Civil War (1861-65) can be viewed as a counter-revolution in reaction to the election of Lincoln. Morally; the South was clearly wrong in attempting to continue slavery. In retrospect: the Rebels had some valid (Jeffersonian-small government) points regarding big (Federalist/Hamiltonian) government. 680,000 died: arguments about race and the nature of American governance continue. Thus; we should be collectively ashamed when we consider the devotion of the Rebels and Yankees.

The Russian Revolution (1917) ignited after generations of repression by the Czars. Germany overwhelmingly defeated Russia during WW-1 weakening the Czars and hopes of political compromise. Ruthless Bolsheviks eliminated moderate parties and created a monolithic dictatorship under Lenin, then Stalin leading to the Cold War with the US. The Chinese Revolution of 1949 spawned a monstrosity under Mao. American defense budgets increased since the Korean War and continue to swell.

Nazi Germany was a counter-revolutionary reaction against the Weimar Republic (and the crushing, punitive Treaty of Versailles) which although liberal and creative was decadently impoverished. Hitler, Japan and Italy plunged the world into horrific war in which approximately 55,000,000 died in every conceivable manner

Today we witness, “The Arab Spring”; revolutions in the Middle East, these tribal/nation states sit on vast amounts of petroleum. It is anyone’s guess as to which way these events go; secular moderation or medieval, radicalized Islam? Currently; The West cannot do much except hope for the best.

Remember the lessons of History. What we do as Americans will resonate for centuries so consider the consequences. Talent, ambition, and luck are creative drivers of capitalism. Yet, the, “Occupiers” are correct; inequities in income are the issue. Money is power. Money equals speech? Corporations are persons? If absurdly so, both corporations and citizens should perform their civic duties and accept equitable justice for misdeeds. Without fairness it will be far more difficult to address other worsening problems. I suggest we choose to follow the path of Dr. King and Gandhi unless we want to see chaos, riot and repression when, inevitably, the powerful become impatient. Either way requires courage. The point is to focus and clarify the message. Other powers will not wait as Americans engages in folly. Act, ameliorate, learn, converse, think; it is our moral, civic duty.

“The Americans will always do the right thing after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.” Winston Churchill

We risk our civilization unless we use reason.

Keith Keller: Historian

Aaron Burr: The Darkling Founder: Good or Bad Vice-President?

‘Looking at the Founders through the Darkling Lens of Aaron Burr: or Good Vice President, Bad Vice President?’

In recent historical times we have witnessed the terms of two powerful vice presidents; Al Gore and Dick Cheney. Both of these men expanded the office of “second citizen” in different ways. A conservative’s nightmarish view of Gore is that of a utopian dreamer bent on putting the United States on a Socialist/Green path. Likewise, liberals suspect that Cheney spent his time in a “Doctor Strangelove” war-room plotting who knows what? Passing from the modern to the past, ironically and following the law of unintended consequences the third Vice President of the United States, Aaron Burr was extremely important in American History. Because he was powerful, influential and not easily controlled, his career as Vice-President led to the 12^th Amendment to the Constitution…a measure that greatly weakened the Vice Presidency. Oddly enough then, a Burrish style Vice Presidency represented a check on Executive power within the Executive branch itself.

Aaron Burr is the most misunderstood of the Founding Fathers. Most Americans know that he killed the man pictured on the $10.00 dollar bill, Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Some know that he was a hero during the siege of Quebec during the American Revolution. The complete story of Aaron Burr is very complex. The story of Burr has many implications and leads to three main themes.

First; the life of Aaron Burr and his activities is a quixotic series of adventures well worth telling. He was of the American elite, he served honorably during the American Revolution, he was a very successful, able politician and he was a moderate who leaned towards what we call the ‘left’ today while enjoying the occasional flirtation with the political ‘right’ of the times. He was not overly concerned with the competing ideologies of his time. He did enjoy power, prestige and the good life. He made friends and he made lifelong enemies. He fell and he survived.

Secondly; Burr should be seen in the context of the other leaders of the Revolution and of the Constitutional era. This is a psychological study because Burr irritated and infuriated people who were otherwise political enemies. The important psychological dance here has to do with Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and their reactions, actions, opinions and attitudes regarding Burr. Jefferson and Hamilton essentially created the two main sides of the ongoing American debate or party system. Today we call ourselves liberals or conservatives and we argue about the merits of centralized power (the ‘conservative’ Hamiltonian Federalists) versus a more de-centralized populist approach (the ‘liberal’ Jeffersonian democrat/republicans) to government. Burr navigated a world in which these ideas were congealing in American terms. Aaron Burr’s political maneuvers affected a very great deal of the history of his times.

Third, the career of Aaron Burr had a direct influence on American law and politics. His actions and life had a great deal to do with the 12^th Amendment, the Constitutional definition of treason, the role of money in politics, the role of the press in politics, the concept of candidates actively campaigning for office ( a Burrite first) and most importantly; the perception of character in the American polity. Therefore, Aaron Burr does provide a provocative, yet admittedly oblique opportunity to examine the current and increasingly problematic structure of the American construct. By this I note the two wars we engage in, the spreading financial disaster and certain Constitutional structural flaws we retain such as the Electoral College. To expand upon this point, many of the basic assumptions of American politics are currently being re-examined. Much of this soul searching is directly linked to the various geo-political and economic or social problems that face the United States. The fact that multiple problems have become so grave, at the same time, leads Americans to think about the intentions of the Founding Fathers. In addition and if one accepts that there do exist some very difficult quandaries these days; certain questions about the structure and evolution of our government necessarily arise. This in turn has led to a new wave of historiography concerning the Revolutionary generation. New biographies and new histories regarding the main figures in the American Revolution and the formative years just after the war abound. Much of the more recent historiography tends towards a more positive reassessment of Burr.

A simple listing of people in regards to their opinions of Burr from the Revolutionary era will begin to shed some light as to why this subject is so fascinating. Among the pro-Burr group were James Madison (it is believed that Burr introduced Madison to his future wife, Dolly, our first great, “First Lady”), Andrew Jackson, Albert Gallatin (who served in Jefferson’s administration) and John Jay. Those who disliked him included Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington. John Adams and his wife Abigail had no particular objections to Burr and did not seem to be too displeased when Burr killed Hamilton. John Marshall who was not fond of Jefferson and a biographer of Washington came to find himself in an uncomfortably neutral position regarding Burr whom he had known since the Revolution. When we consider that Jefferson and Hamilton were bitter, lifelong political opponents their conflicts with Burr raise interesting historical questions. Perhaps something about Burr’s hazel to black-eyed and cool persona made him appear to be up to something when he was simply there? Of course as a lawyer, politician and land speculator he was often up to something, a state of affairs far from unusual among the Founders during the era.

We do know that the idealism of the Revolution very quickly degenerated into what many Founders (as noted by Madison in ‘The Federalist Papers’) feared the most; the rise of political factions. The small ‘r’ republicans led by Jefferson were soon pitted against the Federalists who were led by Hamilton. Aaron Burr sensed opportunities in this expanding political divide. He was not an ideologue; he was an opportunist. This is why he enraged and alarmed his colleagues and why his story de-constructs so much of what we hold to be almost sacred today. Burr was literally, ‘a burr’ in the sides of the other Founders. While extremely talented, he was prone to spectacular mistakes. It is also important to note that Burr and Hamilton enjoyed periods of friendship during their lives. They served together during the Revolution and often argued legal cases together in New York. They moved in the same social circles and were very well aware of each other’s activities over the years.  

Essentially, Aaron Burr was of the American elite (born on February 6^th, 1756). His grandfather, Jonathan Edwards was a fiery divine and oft quoted force in the Great Awakening. His father, Aaron Burr Sr. was the greatly respected second president of Princeton College. It appears that Burr rebelled against his conservative upbringing. He was most literate, finished college in record time and became a charismatic leader of men. Burr truly liked women both in the amorous sense and as people with strong minds. As a lawyer, soldier and politician he did not hide his subtle contempt for those whose skills he found lacking. Nevertheless, he could be charming and devious; another clue as to why he was feared. Politically he was what we would call a ‘liberal’ today. Burr was an abolitionist, republican and held personal, proto-feminist views about the abilities of women. Throughout much of his life he wore a locket containing a miniature portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft, the author of, “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” (some believe it was a portrait of the writer that Burr treasured). Like the other members of the American Revolutionary generation Burr was a well-read product of the Enlightenment. He was also most modern in terms of campaigning in person and raising the necessary money that fuels politics. For example; he was a main founder of the Manhattan Company Bank whose stated purpose was to bring fresh water to New York City. Yet, a clause in the charter allowed Burr to use money for campaigning. That bank is still with us today as Chase Bank. These sorts of tactics were common among the Founders and their allies. Most of them speculated in land deals in the West and most failed at this with the notable exception of George Washington who did rather well.

Burr served in the Revolutionary War as a Colonel. Among other exploits he attempted to save the body of General Montgomery under fire during a failed attack on Quebec, found an old Indian trial that allowed General Putnam’s corps to escape while Washington lost the 1776 battles for New York City, stopped a mutiny at Valley Forge (this is most likely when he met and was friendly with Hamilton), patrolled the outlands of New York City to keep the British contained and fought well during the chaotic Battle of Monmouth Court Horse. For a time he was assigned to the staff of General in Chief George Washington. While other aides such as Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe and the Marquis de Lafayette adored Washington; Burr was critical of Washington’s Fabian strategies against the British and of Washington’s emerging demi-godlike stature. Burr had a point; Washington could be brittle and pompous for all of his fair-mindedness and endless stamina for the cause. This proved to be a typical and early mistake for Burr. One later result of this was that Washington refused to accept Burr’s appointment by President Adams to the rank of Brigadier General during the time of the Quasi-War with France. This leads to yet another grand irony in the convoluted tale of Aaron Burr. In 1798 Hamilton dreamt of leading The New Army (formed in response to the French threat) through republican Virginian onwards to Mexico and beyond in South America. Once he recognized that Hamilton was using his name to forward the project Washington distanced himself from this venture led by one of his most loyal lieutenants (Hamilton) while refusing to promote Burr to the rank of Brigadier General. President Adams allowed the funding for Hamilton’s army to dwindle while the republican press attacked the entire idea as a Federalist plot. Burr was not involved beyond hoping for a promotion and perhaps some military glory. For Burr, the future, ironic, almost fatal twist is that he would be tried for treason by the Jefferson administration for plots that paralleled both the visionary successful attempt to purchase the West by Jefferson and the stymied Napoleonic gaze of Hamilton in the same direction.

During the Constitutional Convention period (1788-89), Burr was fairly quiet in terms of American History. He served in the New York legislature and became a very successful lawyer. Ironically; he often argued cases with Hamilton, a most persuasive team of lawyers to be sure. Between 1791 and 1797 he was a US Senator from New York. This led to his first clash with Hamilton By the time of the famous duel in 1804 Burr had known Hamilton socially for almost 30 years and their political wars had gone on for 15. Burr defeated Philip Schuyler who was Hamilton’s father-in-law for the Senate. This meant that Hamilton, a true, well meaning genius among the Founders began to develop a deep distrust for Burr. In addition, this meant that Burr was the rare republican who could draw votes (and seat republican legislators) in largely Federalist New York. Burr did run for president in 1796 but was out-maneuvered by the Jeffersonian-Virginians leading to mutual mistrust and bad feeling with the other major American political force in its formative stages. Adams won the 1796 Election only to last one term; thus becoming one of our most under-rated presidents. To add to the bitter hostility, many of the leading players or politicians controlled newspapers or editors whose specific purpose was to mock and slander their opponents. Hamilton and Jefferson were masters of this technique as was Burr to a lesser extent. Aaron Burr tended to keep his comments and thoughts about his opponents private. This led to an aura of mystery about Burr as people wondered where he actually stood on various issues.

Relations between Burr and Hamilton deteriorated further during the Election of 1800. At this time Hamilton, in spite of his superb work at the Constitutional Convention and as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury was beginning to lose influence as a national politician. His mentor and the main check on his combative personality, George Washington was dead. Hamilton was loathed by President John Adams for his behind the scenes influence on Adam’s cabinet officials. Hamilton was also ensnared in a sexual/financial scandal, ‘The Reynolds Affair’ and made the mistake of over-explaining his actions in the press. Hamilton was innocent in terms of using his position for financial gain and not so innocent regarding the particular liaison. There is a further irony here; when James Monroe and two others leaked certain papers regards Hamilton’s problems, Burr stepped in to stop a duel between Hamilton and Monroe.

During Adam’s presidency Thomas Jefferson served as Vice-President and spent much of his time at Monticello, his home in Virginia engaged in political plotting while protesting his disinterest in such matters. Jefferson, a man who was a true ideologue and rather ruthless in his political machinations had quietly built up the Democrat-Republicans in to a major political party at increasing cost to the Federalists. Jefferson may be a villain from the Burrite point of view; yet it would be folly to diminish the importance of the leader of the ‘Virginia junto’ ideas or his political skills. The point is that the seemingly shy Jefferson out-foxed the other Founders leading to dominance by the Democrat/Republicans in national politics. His Virginia lieutenants Madison and Monroe followed him to the White House. This situation did not change until Andrew Jackson; a Democrat defeated John Quincy Adams in the election of 1828.

Largely due to Jefferson’s role as the Republican leader, his opponents; the Federalists were showing signs of being a party on the decline. Jefferson was an ‘idea man’ and his perfect synthesis of Enlightenment ideals in ‘The Declaration of Independence’ should never be forgotten by anyone, ever, anywhere because it is the clearest statement of the American ideal. However, in 1800 Jefferson needed Burr to secure the New York vote.  In exchange Burr was to be Vice-President. Burr got the vote out for Jefferson. Due to a flaw in the Constitution, Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral College. Burr’s actions at this point are contradictory. He seemed to demur to Jefferson but there was no ringing endorsement of Jefferson beyond some letters. He declined to actively lobby or fight for the presidency but neither did he step aside for Jefferson. There is some evidence that Jefferson may have cut some deals with the Federalists to ensure his rightful election as President. This led to a convoluted situation where the matter went to the out-going Federalist Congress for decision.

Hamilton stepped in to this looming breech in the American republican experiment. He despised Jefferson as a person and thought that Jefferson’s, ‘yeoman farmer’, de-centralized government-state’s rights and pro-French policies were dangerously misguided. However, by this point, Hamilton was almost insane on the subject of Burr who he thought to be without morals and thus, even more dangerous. So, he lobbied on behalf of his other enemy and Jefferson won after 35 tie votes in the House. This left everybody, except Jefferson, in a difficult political position. The Republican president was not going to do his old enemy, Hamilton any favors. Burr was Vice-President yet thoroughly distrusted by President Jefferson. Burr proved to be an excellent but at times disloyal Vice-President. He was the first in that office to bring the chaotic, loosely run Senate into order and he insisted that the Senate not always meet in secret session.  Burr used his power to thwart Jefferson in meaningful ways. He was fair in impeachment trials that the administration brought forth against Federalist judges thus foiling the president’s attempts to purge the Federalist judiciary. He cast a tie vote that stopped a Jeffersonian embargo of revolutionary Haiti. President Jefferson was not happy with the idea of black rebels entering the South via New Orleans. Due to actions or votes such as these and the bitterness from 1800 there was no way that Jefferson would allow him on the ticket for 1804. Jefferson and Burr did dine together once and awhile perhaps to maintain the illusion of solidarity. Yet knowing that he was blocked from the second office in the land with its path to the presidency and because Jefferson declined to appoint Burr to an Ambassador’s post indicated a lack of support from that quarter Burr decided to run for Governor of New York. Hamilton (and to a more subtle, lesser extent, Jefferson) stepped in again and ensured that Burr was badly defeated.

Now both Burr and Hamilton found themselves politically isolated and pondering 15 years of political battle, much of it in the form of vicious slanders in the press. This of course led directly to ‘The Duel’. I see this clash as the avoidable tragic end of two quintessential Americans. Burr was reacting to comments and slurs published in the press attributed to Hamilton that were clear attacks on his character. An exchange of letters followed. Hamilton’s were superb exercises of equivocation as he feared the political embarrassment of apologizing. Burr’s were better, incisive, lawyerly masterpieces, to the point and effectively forced Hamilton to make a choice. Thus; these negotiations failed to solve the impasse and because of the ‘code of honor’ prevalent (ego and pride) in those times events drifted towards the inevitable, formalized clash. The meeting between the sitting Vice-President of the United States and the former Secretary of the Treasury occurred at Weehawken, New Jersey on July 11^th, 1804 across the Hudson River from New York. Although frowned upon, dueling was not illegal in New Jersey so the purpose was to avoid possible murder charges in New York. Using his personal set of dueling pistols Hamilton fired first (the most likely scenario from the limited evidence we have today) and missed or may have missed on purpose. Burr stumbled slightly on a stone, fired second and inflicted a fatal wound on a man who had once been his friend. Colonel Aaron Burr, the third Vice-President of the United States had just killed General Alexander Hamilton the first American Secretary of the Treasury. Burr seemed to instantly regret the outcome but was hurried away from the scene by his seconds. Hamilton died shortly after in horrible pain. Because the duel was fought in New Jersey it did prove difficult to prosecute Burr for murder in New York although there was a great, almost universal wave of grief for Hamilton a circumstance that did not help Burr’s reputation at all. Aaron Burr did rather boldly finish up his term as Vice-President in part because Jefferson needed him for the treason trials held against Federalist judges. His ‘Farewell Speech’ to the US Senate was very eloquent, so moving that many Federalists and Democrat/Republicans reconsidered his merits for a time. However; the greater damage was done. ‘The Duel’ was most unfortunate because Hamilton was killed; leaving a large, very distressed family behind stuck with a great deal of debt and Burr was even further politically ruined. Both were great military men who might have been most useful to the US during the War of 1812. Both were fine talents; Hamilton a true genius in terms of the creation of American systems. Burr was almost an equal as an inventor of modern politics.

Burr then managed to get into even more trouble. Essentially he conceived a wild scheme to detach part of the West and, perhaps, create his own country out of Mexico and Louisiana. Or, was he simply attempting to settle a section of land in the West? To this day there is much historical debate and uncertainty about this subject meaning that it remains rather unclear what Burr was actually up to. We do know that he contacted the British and French regarding this matter. In this he was betrayed by Jefferson’s General in Chief, James Wilkinson who was double agent (#13) in the pay of Spain. The West was still fairly unsettled in terms of who had the most valid claims to particular territories making the scenario quite muddled. Perhaps because he was determined to claim the West via expeditions such as Lewis and Clark’s (not to mention looming troubles with powerful Native American leaders such as Tecumseh of the Shawnee), President Jefferson did not see it that way. There was also the divisive issue matter of one of Jefferson’s greatest accomplishments, The Louisiana Purchase from Napoleonic France. While doubling the size of the United States; this sale obviously opened up vast new areas to slavery. North-Eastern Federalists approached Burr with an idea of separating from the Union based on this matter. Burr was non-committal. As usual, Burr’s vague demurral caused him to be suspect in the minds of many. In any case; while fleeing Jeffersonian vengeance Burr was captured in Alabama, taken to Richmond and charged with treason in 1807. Jefferson over-stepped the boundaries of his office and personally managed the prosecution from Washington D.C.

The spectacular trial (held in Richmond, Virginia, a Jeffersonian stronghold) was over-seen by Chief Justice James Marshall, a distant cousin and enemy of Jefferson’s (see Marbury vs. Madison one of the few times in case law where Jefferson was thoroughly out-witted). Burr acted as one of his own attorneys among a very strong defense team and was found ‘not guilty’ of the specific charges three times much to the annoyance of President Jefferson. Burr’s three strongest points of defense were first that he was not present at the time and place of the alleged treason (he was in Mississippi having similar charges dismissed by a judge), that the prosecution could not find two witnesses to prove treason as mandated in the Constitution and that he had far too few men in his party of settlers on Blennerhassett Island on the Ohio River to contemplate invading Mexico. Another very interesting aspect of this trial was that Burr subpoenaed President Jefferson in order to get his hands on cipher letters between Wilkinson and himself that the General had altered in order to make Burr look worse. This was the first case in which a president claimed, “Execuctive privilege” and Jefferson did not appear at the trial. President Jefferson did send most of the requested documents to Richmond. However; fairly recent discoveries of documents in Spanish archives reveal that the ambitious Burr most likely would have set himself up in some portion of the West or Mexico if possible. If so; this still does not clearly constitute treason against the United States. This was because Spain was caught between warring France and England. Thus, it was not always certain whether or not that nation was neutral, a friend or foe of the United States or linked to England or France at any given moment especially given the slow communications of the time. On the other hand; the more we look at Burr the more Gen. Wilkinson fades into historical ignominy (in part due to multiple blunders during the War of 1812) while doubts arise regarding Jefferson’s record on civil liberties.

Although he escaped the felony charges (the hangman) Burr suffered further blows. His wife had died earlier of cancer, his daughter, Theodosia was lost at sea and took with her a chest containing most of Burr’s papers. This tragedy feeds the enigma because we know that Hamilton and Jefferson were writing to us; to future Americans. We know relatively little of Burr’s thinking. We do know that Burr fell into depression, wandered about Europe (England, France, Germany & Sweden) experiencing high society, enjoying sexual dalliances and suffering extreme poverty. He befriended Jeremy Bentham whose philosophy of Utilitarianism matched well with Burr’s progressive views. So, Burr saw more of the world than any member of the founding generation-from Sweden to the American West. He finally returned to the US after much difficulty obtaining a passport because the British, French and US diplomats were watching his activities. After a long delay he was granted his pension as a Colonel from the American Revolution. Partly because he thought that James Monroe was a rather incompetent president he made one more attempt at a political comeback through the offices of his son-in-law Joseph Alston who was the Governor of South Carolina. However; Alston was very depressed after the death of his wife, Theodosia and could not rouse himself to the Burrite cause. Always trying forward; Burr resumed his womanizing (which, to be fair, appears to be an activity he pursued after the death of his wife), financial speculations and law practice with a specialty in divorce cases on the side of women. Burr also entered a scandalous second marriage with a younger, wealthy woman of not the best reputation. This liaison quickly ended in a divorce which he did not contest. He did manage to outlive his enemies; living in New York and passing away on September 14^th, 1836 shortly after suffering a stroke. The major personality from the Founding Era who outlived Burr was Dolly Madison (1849), a friend of Burr’s wife and daughter, the Theodosia(s). He did survive long enough to witness the Texas Revolution; a grand irony because the pro-Southern Texan Revolutionaries actually accomplished what Burr was charged with treason for when they separated from Mexico. Therefore; the life of Aaron Burr does shine an oblique light on the Founding Era and raises some interesting questions that we, as Americans or humans still tend to ponder.

Are human beings perfectible? Given the cautionary tale of Burr one may answer, ‘no’. Jesus, Buddha and some Enlightenment philosophers may disagree and say, ‘yes’. It is clear that the Founders were very human and that many of them turned on each other in bitter and protracted feuds. It is an easy politically correct exercise to dismiss the Founders because of their human foibles. We take far more uncritical comfort in seeing the Founders as heroic men of marble who created this great nation. We need to remember that they established the first government in human history ever to grant liberty to the people. It is true that the Athenians invented democracy for some of the people as did the Americans. There are examples of democratic cantons in Switzerland. Tribal groups in Asia and the Native Americans practiced forms of democracy. The point is that the Americans challenged the entire world to consider the experiment and for better or worse we continue to do so.

Are political systems perfectible? In particular, can or should the American system be perfected? My answer here is, yes. The 12^th Amendment fixed the 1800 Jefferson/Burr mess while eliminating a possible check on the executive branch within the executive. The rise of political parties does keep individual politicians from physically fighting each other. However, party loyalty can now trump allegiance to the greater, ameliorative good. This has been the case in my view during the recent dominance of all three branches of American government by the present day Republicans. However; it is now so expensive to get elected there seems to be little time to actually govern well. Now, the Democrats control the Presidency, the Senate while the Republicans hold the House.  We shall see what develops as our stalemated government deals with multiple problems.

The Federalists were the ‘big government’ party of the period and thus derided as pro-British conservatives but they hated slavery. The republicans opposed a large, powerful central government, supported the French Revolution and were considered the liberals of the time while they tended to be the slave holders. These two points lead us to the enormous stress the massive conflict or series of wars (1789-1815) between Great Britain and Revolutionary/Napoleonic France put on America. This stress had a great deal to do with the formation of party lines and US policy. Another question arises. Is the two party system good for America? Would a Libertarian party on the right and a Socialist/Green party on the left force the main two to cut certain ‘deals’? To do so would require some ‘representatives at large’ and a re-thinking of the ‘winner takes all’ system in US elections. For example; in my view the Electoral College was put in place as a check on the people by the Federalists as the horrors of the French Revolution began to become apparent. Do we need it now? I think not.

Both Burr and Hamilton were abolitionists although both their records can be attacked on some points. It seems to me that while the American Revolution succeeded in terms of granting liberty to some, the slavery issue once ignored or put aside led to a major flaw in the American construct. Human bondage is a social, moral issue; to delay action is to invite disaster i.e.: a Civil War. My point is that from the beginning the United States was more concerned with political rights than social rights.  For all of his vivid flaws; Burr did maintain good relations with the Native Americans (he befriended Joseph Brant, a Mohawk/Iroquois leader), people of African descent and women. Late in life he supported orphans, loyally remained kind to friends who were in financial or legal trouble and said very little to discredit his former political enemies. Perhaps his life illustrates a quiet point; could a subtle, supposedly “Machiavellian” moderate possibly do more good than an ideologue from either end of the political spectrum? In Burr’s case we shall never know because the combination of his own miscalculations and the determination of his opponents effectively derailed his career.

There are similarities in the styles of William Jefferson Clinton and Aaron Burr. There is a parallel here; both Burr and Clinton display a great love of life and love of politics. Both have been attacked as willing to change positions for political advantage, a form of political maneuvering that enrages enemies while delighting the historical observer. I see Burr as a sort of provocative strategist who through his political deeds exposed the cracks and crevices in American law that many ambitious intelligent people might navigate to reach power. However, I am convinced that he actually was not a bad or evil human being. This may be his great lesson to us; we should think deeply and further perfect our system lest someone or something far worse than the “roguish” Aaron Burr appear to all of our dismay.

Keith Keller

Notes: There are a good many recent books on Burr and the other Founders from which this article is taken from with all credit due to the original authors. The short list should include the following texts.

“The Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and the Future of America” by Thomas Fleming is perhaps the best source to start reading on the subject.

“Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson: A Study in Character” by George G. Kennedy is a little impressionist in its construction but very illuminating.

“Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr” by Nancy Isenberg is a well written quite pro-Burr biography.

“Alexander Hamilton” by Ron Chernow tells the other side of the story in an engaging manner.

“John Adams” by David McCullough won the Pulitzer Prize.

Joseph J. Ellis is perhaps the leading light among the present group of historians writing about the Founders although he seems to be not too enthralled with Burr at times. I recommend “Founding Brothers: the Revolutionary Generation” for a general view with wonderful anecdotes. “American Sphinx: the Character of Thomas Jefferson” is a post-modern classic on the complex personality of Jefferson. Ellis has also written about Washington and Adams.

For a good laugh or another fine book on the subject there is always Gore Vidal’s, “Burr: A Novel” a work of great accuracy and even greater satire.

The enterprising reader can take a look at Burr’s own memoirs of two volumes. Hamilton and Jefferson each have left memoirs of 20 or more volumes….one clear reason why their thoughts tend to dominate the, ‘Burr question’ to this day.

For a classic, older and very pro-Jefferson series; the biographies by Dumas Malone will more than suffice.

Those who seek a somewhat biased bit of Jefferson bashing might consider, “Jefferson’s Vendetta: The Pursuit of Aaron Burr and the Judiciary” by Joseph Wheelan.

The most recent entry in the Burr revisionist sweepstakes is, “American Emperor: Aaron Burr’s Challenge to Jefferson’s America” by David O. Stewart. Mr. Stewart is an accomplished lawyer and does quite a nice job in explaining the many legal complexities that swirled around Burr as will as providing insights to the various personalities or characters involved.

In 2000 PBS released a short documentary, “The Duel: Hamilton vs. Burr an Event that changed History”. This piece does a pretty good job of explaining the basics.

Finally; the very enterprising may obtain “The Memoirs of Aaron Burr” in two volumes. There are, of course, many sources available on micro-film and other media by or about Burr.

Keith Keller- November, 2011

Copyright: Keith Keller, this essay is not to used in any manner without the express permission of the author.