Jefferson and Burr's careers if 1800 wasn't a tie?

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I couldn't find a specific thread on this topic. In any event what would the Jefferson administration looked like had the election not been thrown to the House? Without being tainted by his effort to win the Presidency in the House would Burr play a more prominent part in the Jefferson administration? Would he remain a popular figure among Democratic Republicans or would there be an inevitable falling out between them? What are Burr's chances of becoming Jefferson's heir later on? What would a Burr administration under those circumstances look like? How long would a decisive 1800 election result delay the twelfth amendment? In short how different might the early decades of the 19th century in the United States had been had Jefferson clearly come in first place and Burr clearly come in second?
 
I'm sure this has been discussed before but I couldn't find a specific thread on this topic. In any event what would the Jefferson administration looked like had the election not been thrown to the House? Without being tainted by his effort to win the Presidency in the House would Burr play a more prominent part in the Jefferson administration? Would he remain a popular figure among Democratic Republicans or would there be an inevitable falling out between them? What are Burr's chances of becoming Jefferson's heir later on? What would a Burr administration under those circumstances look like? How long would a decisive 1800 election result delay the twelfth amendment? In short how different might the early decades of the 19th century in the United States had been had Jefferson clearly come in first place and Burr clearly come in second?

First off Burr didn't try to win the election. In fact throughout the process he stayed at home in Albany and refused any visitors save official government envoys. That's simply a logical fallacy spread by anti-Burr advocates.

He would probably remain a popular figure. Even with the tainted election and Jefferson turning on him he was a widely respected Vice President. Without that taint expect him to be remembered very well and favorably.

Burr could become Jefferson's heir. Firstly he's more popular within the party. Secondly he was respected by the Federalists and is from the North which means he has more appeal to Northern voters. But I could also see the Democrat Republicans picking a more radical person like Jefferson was.

If Burr was Jefferson's successor we'd see some changes to policy. Burr would strengthen the military as the military man he was. He's also move against slavery with a definitive end to the slave trade. And maybe Burr's feminism will also be present on his presidency.

An amendment to the Twelveth Amendement would probably come about, but not for years until another controversial election.

Besides what I've said we'd also see a lesser Burr-Hamilton feud. The feud somewhat existed due to their differences in New York, but their feud was a small rivalry. It was the house election that caused their relationship to be so inflamed. Without it going to the House their relationship remains a minimal rivalry and Hamilton lives longer.
 
I think that a Jefferson-Burr rivalry was inevitable. Jefferson would always push for Madison to replace him.

At this point, the Secretary of State office was more often the grooming chair of the next President.

Burr was too independent and, just as important, not a Virginian that would go along with Jefferson's odd concepts of pseudo-anarchy in order to keep the "gentry" in power without any influence from above.
 
I would agree that at some point, the disdain that Jefferson and Madison felt towards any non Virginian and Burr's ambition would cause a rupture. The electoral alliance of 1800 was a marriage of convenience only and Jefferson might be looking for a more pliable northern running mate (Clinton? Gerry?) as early as 1803.
As to whether Burr could win the Presidency despite Jefferson's opposition, I think that this is an open question. Burr was popular and respected in some circles but even without the fiasco of the 1800 election he had a reputation as a sharp elbowed political strategist and street fighter and that might not translate well into success at the national level at a time when Presidents were still seen as national heroes or philosopher kings.
As to what type of President Burr might have been, that to me is an even murkier question. I do not believe that he would have been a Napoleon like figure, seeking glory in war so that he could establish a monarchy with himself as Emperor Aaron I. On the other hand, I do not see him as some early abolitionist or feminist. He educated his daughter but I think that is pretty thin ground for arguing that he was an early progressive.
Rather, I think he would have been a transactional President trying to get policies through Congress that would benefit himself and his friends and supporters.
 
I think that a Jefferson-Burr rivalry was inevitable. Jefferson would always push for Madison to replace him.

At this point, the Secretary of State office was more often the grooming chair of the next President.

Burr was too independent and, just as important, not a Virginian that would go along with Jefferson's odd concepts of pseudo-anarchy in order to keep the "gentry" in power without any influence from above.

True enough, but that's why Burr is likely to be run on the ticket again. He gives Jefferson New York and he's not in a position of great power.

I would agree that at some point, the disdain that Jefferson and Madison felt towards any non Virginian and Burr's ambition would cause a rupture. The electoral alliance of 1800 was a marriage of convenience only and Jefferson might be looking for a more pliable northern running mate (Clinton? Gerry?) as early as 1803.
As to whether Burr could win the Presidency despite Jefferson's opposition, I think that this is an open question. Burr was popular and respected in some circles but even without the fiasco of the 1800 election he had a reputation as a sharp elbowed political strategist and street fighter and that might not translate well into success at the national level at a time when Presidents were still seen as national heroes or philosopher kings.
As to what type of President Burr might have been, that to me is an even murkier question. I do not believe that he would have been a Napoleon like figure, seeking glory in war so that he could establish a monarchy with himself as Emperor Aaron I. On the other hand, I do not see him as some early abolitionist or feminist. He educated his daughter but I think that is pretty thin ground for arguing that he was an early progressive.
Rather, I think he would have been a transactional President trying to get policies through Congress that would benefit himself and his friends and supporters.

Burr was known for his sharp manner which could prove problematic. And I agree he's not going to pull a Napoleon. But as to Abolition he led the movement to end slavery in New York. And his feminism goes beyond educating his daughter. He led an attempt to give suffrage to Women in New York and also was an admirer of Wollstonecraft. And though he might push through legislation favourable to himself he's not just some greedy, self centred person.
 
Aaron Burr was an excellent lawyer and a master of local politics. He was also perpetually in debt, a womanizer and a man of "flexible" political principles.
I do not think his expedition West was treasonous, as Jefferson tried to paint it, but it was clearly designed to benefit Burr and his friends in some manner that I don't think even Burr had thought through. I think a President Burr would be similarly self interested.
An example of Burr's legal skill and the reason many people did not trust him was the Manhattan Company. Burr got the NY Legislature to grant the company a charter to build a water system for New York. Tucked into the charter was an opaque clause giving the company the right to engage in various financial activities to support the water gathering and transportation system. This became the Bank of Manhattan, latter Chase Manhattan Bank. Even Hamilton, who had defeated other attempts to have the Legislature charter a bank to compete with his Bank of New York, was fooled by Burr's maneuver.
I think Hamilton and John Jay get the credit for establishing the New York Manumission Society. I am not aware that Burr was involved.
 
First off Burr didn't try to win the election. In fact throughout the process he stayed at home in Albany and refused any visitors save official government envoys.

But he also did not disclaim accepting election as President. He could have resolved the situation with a simple statement, but he didn't.

Burr had a peculiar sense of honor. He felt that as long as he never violated the letter of any pledge he had made, honor was satisfied. In 1800, his nomination by the Republicans was clearly as running mate to Jefferson, but that was not explicitly stated.

When the electoral vote tie was announced, he could have stated he would not accept election by the House over Jefferson, and that would have been the end of it. But since he had not explicitly pledged to do so, he let the House election proceed, accepting the support of the Federalists whom he had previously condemned. In his mind this was not dishonorable; in the minds of nearly all Republicans and even some Federalists, it was contemptible hypocrisy.

(Note that arch-Federalist Alexander Hamilton condemned Burr and endorsed Jefferson, despite Burr being much closer to him on the issues.)

Incidentally - suppose that the Republicans manage a bit better, and Jefferson wins outright. Then there is no crisis and no 12th Amendment.

But the landmine is still there. When does it get stepped on? Suppose Jefferson-Burr run again in 1804 - might Burr connive to get a few Republican electors to drop Jefferson, or a few Federalist electors to cross over for him. Then he becomes President by blatant trickery... And TSHTF!
 
If a rupture between Jefferson and Burr is inevitable at least in the sense that Burr would never be Jefferson's handpicked successor can he maintain enough credibility within the Democratic Republican Presodency to mount a campaign when Jefferson steps down? If so would Burr's attempt to win the Presidency in 1808 be seen as a traitorous betrayal of Madison-Jefferson's heir apparent and whoever the Virginians would prefer as the secondary candidate or would he have some electoral appeal at least among Northern Democratic Republicans in such a contest? Might he try something more or less out of Hamilton's playbook in a contest to succeed Jefferson? That is under no 12th amendment conditions might he encourage ticket splitting in his stronghold to prevent Madison from obtaining a majority? In short if Burr is in a position to be able to mount a credible campaign for the Presidency might a north/south Burr vs. Madison repture emerge? If so how might such a rupture impact the party's future? One admittedly slim possibility is that in their effort to block the other from winning Burr and Madison's partisans create the conditions for the Federalist candidate to sneak in.

As far as the pre-12th amendment system aside from the situation that did occur and the possibility of a secondary candidate winning the Presidency instead of the party's favorite through some fluke in an election there's the looming problem of a succession crisis. Say another election results in an Adams Jefferson situation-ideological rivals inhabit the Presidency and Vice Presidency. And then the President dies...
 
Top