PC: Aaron Burr Presidency

Yes, very much so. In 1807 Napoleon as very strong and the British were struggling in Iberia.

Even worse than that - in 1807 not only were there no British forces in the Peninsular, but the French hadn't invaded, the Spanish revolt hadn't started, and the Tsar had just signed the treaty of Tilsit. It wasn't quite the nadir of the war, but it was pretty close.
 
Even worse than that - in 1807 not only were there no British forces in the Peninsular, but the French hadn't invaded, the Spanish revolt hadn't started, and the Tsar had just signed the treaty of Tilsit. It wasn't quite the nadir of the war, but it was pretty close.

Precisely my point. In 1807 we had no military commitments on the continent. We didn't send an expeditionary force to Lisbon until late 1808, and initially it was pretty small - still only around 26,000 (including Hanoverians) even in early 1809.

In 1812-14 we were much more heavily committed, but even then still had enough forces to spare to enable us to eject American invaders from Upper Canada. In 1807-8 our hands were relatively free in Europe, and we could have spared even more.
 
Yes, very much so. In 1807 Napoleon as very strong and the British were struggling in Iberia. In 1812, Napoleon was invading deep into Russia and the British were doing well in Spain.

Not sure yet, I'll have to look it up.



Hamilton's relationship iwithbBurr is complicated and various sources have recorded various things. But one thing that is certain is that after years of friendship Burr and Hamilton's relationship deteriorated into bitterness. It possibly started when Burr was sly about the Manhattan Water Company and tricked Hamilton and continued when Burr defeated Hamilton's father in law. This bitterness was exacerbated by their differing political ideals and ambitions. During and after The 1800 election Hamilton spread vitriol about Burr. Meanwhile for Burr and Hamilton's duel the site selected was the site of the pace where Hamilton's son was killed in a duel.

The conspiracy is most probably a hoax. The witnesses of it were a few unrealiable people. And the reason it became such a big thing was because Jefferson wanted to ruin Burr. There is no actual evidence of the conspiracy neither now nor then. Which is why Burr was acquitted of the crime. A lot of Burr's bad rap comes from how Hamilton, Jefferson, and their allies smeared his name.

Agree with first paragraph, disagree with second. Burr conspired. That's a fact. Even the recent book on William Clark published just this year goes into detail on the conspiracy and has further proof, although a lot of speculation goes into the book as well, it is based on William Clark's diary entries of his Mississippi voyages prior to the Louisiana Purchase and his connections to Wilkinson. Yes, Burr was involved, yes Wilkinson had military plans to take Louisiana by force if need be, yes Clark was a forward scout to check out military installations in the late 1790s and to pass on information to other conspirators. It's a fact. "The Unknown Travels and Dubious Pursuits of William Clark" by Jo Ann Trogden based as I said on his diary that has sat unstudied at the University of Missouri-Columbia (Mizzou for you college football fans) for a long time.
 
Precisely my point. In 1807 we had no military commitments on the continent. We didn't send an expeditionary force to Lisbon until late 1808, and initially it was pretty small - still only around 26,000 (including Hanoverians) even in early 1809.

In 1812-14 we were much more heavily committed, but even then still had enough forces to spare to enable us to eject American invaders from Upper Canada. In 1807-8 our hands were relatively free in Europe, and we could have spared even more.

In 1812 the obnoxious little corporal was busy with the vast bulk of France's military strength out east, which meant it wasn't available to mount a sudden invasion, the Continental System had been breached by Russia and continued to unravel over the next couple of years as the French were pushed back, and the French Navy deteriorated rapidly as more and more men were pulled into the army to try and deal with the immediate threat of the allied armies to the east.

In 1807 Britain had no allies on the continent, which left Bonaparte free to and had to concentrate all his energy against us. We had to dedicate significant forces to denying France control of the Danish fleet and the Baltic and to ensure that there was no breakout by the French fleet, especially from Antwerp. We did not have the forces to divert to mount a close blockade of the US coast as we did five years later. It didn't help that it was also just after the fall of the Talents ministry, and the war effort was in a mess. Make no mistake - the country's situation after Tilsit was as dangerous as at the height of the Armada campaign, and considerably more dangerous than in June 1940.
 
Top