President Aaron Burr

In the 1800 election, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson were tied in electoral votes, with 73 each. The election was sent into the House of Representatives, where, after 36 ballots, Jefferson was awarded the Presidency, and Burr the Vice-Presidency.

But what if it had gone the other way, with Burr being elected President and Jefferson as Vice President?

What kind of President would Aaron Burr have made?
 
Most recent scholarship suggests Burr would have been quite good. The only reason he has a bad history, is the trumped up treason trial and his reclusive life style after the trial. Burr had no direct living descendants, unlike Jefferson and Adams who had plenty of opportunities to make themselves look better to posterity, as well as relations to cover up for them.

I think a Burr presidency is more Hawkish than Jefferson, and may lead to some sort of earlier Embargo act, which will be ruinous for the economy. I would hope that a President Burr would stay out of European affairs but I think the he will be drawn in on the French side. Burr who is just as astute as Jefferson will snap up Louisiana if it is possible. Burr will more than likely support the bank. We will still see the Amendment to the EC process. The only reason Burr lost is because Hamilton feared a Burr Presidency more than a Jefferson one. Most Federalists wanted to vote for Burr, so all Hamilton needs to do is stay quiet and release the reps.

While I am consider myself an ardent Hamiltonian and defender of the "Little Lion" as much as anyone on this board. I think He missed the boat here. Burr was an erudite and capable man who had lacked the patronage of Hamilton and family connections of Jefferson, to move up the colonial ladder. The reason both (yes Both , why do you think Jefferson dropped him in 1804, the duel was only part of it, he would have been dropped anyway) considered him a threat is because he was just as smart as they were and just as capable.

I think a Burr Presidency will Federalist in policy, increased centralization, hawkish foreign policy; but D-R in rhetoric. He supported manumission and abolition as well as woman's rights, I doubt you will see movement on these, because Burr was an astute politician and a decided pragmatist.
 
While I hate to disagree with my fellow FER (Friend of the Early Republic), Mr. Marty, I believe that a Burr Presidency could have gone very badly.
Although Mr. Burr was undoubtedly an intellligent man, a brave officer and a master political organizer, he was also constantly short of funds, open to plans that benefited him personally and without any fixed political principles (other than the advancement of Aaron Burr).
Burr's election in 1801 would have been widely seen as illegitimate and even with Federalist Party support it would have been difficult, if not impossible for him to govern. The Governors of Virginia and Pennsylvania had already threatened to call out their state militias in support of Jefferson and even if this rash action had been avoided, a President Burr would have been faced with large Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.
So, a President Burr could have been tempted to govern extra Constitutionally and from what we know of the man, he was not adverse to bold, riskly and ultimately self defeating gestures.
Even if he had behaved himself in office, the Republicans from Jefferson on down would have made it their sworn duty to defeat him in 1804 and the Federalist Party would have been damned by association with him.
I believe that in OTL, one of the main casues of the breach between the formerly friendly adversaries, Hamilton and Burr, was Hamilton's conviction (wherther justified or not) that Burr in his bid for the NY Governorship in 1803 was attempting to entangle the Federalist Party in his plots and schemes and this he could not allow. I can see a similar scenario in TTL.

Your humble servant
AH
 
IIRC, the Federalists regarded Burr as being the lesser of two evils. Only four state delegations voted for Burr. Two cast blank votes, and the other ten voted for Jefferson. At their best, the Federalists could get the delegations from Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania to vote for Burr, but they wouldn't have the necessary two-thirds majority required.

I think a more likely situation for a Burr presidency would be his tie with Jefferson never happening. He is never dropped from the Republican ticket in 1804, which means he never gets into his duel with Hamilton. When Jefferson steps down after his second term, Burr runs as the Republican candidate in 1808, possibly with Madison as his running-mate.
 
While I hate to disagree with my fellow FER (Friend of the Early Republic), Mr. Marty, I believe that a Burr Presidency could have gone very badly.
Although Mr. Burr was undoubtedly an intellligent man, a brave officer and a master political organizer, he was also constantly short of funds, open to plans that benefited him personally and without any fixed political principles (other than the advancement of Aaron Burr).
Burr's election in 1801 would have been widely seen as illegitimate and even with Federalist Party support it would have been difficult, if not impossible for him to govern. The Governors of Virginia and Pennsylvania had already threatened to call out their state militias in support of Jefferson and even if this rash action had been avoided, a President Burr would have been faced with large Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.
So, a President Burr could have been tempted to govern extra Constitutionally and from what we know of the man, he was not adverse to bold, riskly and ultimately self defeating gestures.
Even if he had behaved himself in office, the Republicans from Jefferson on down would have made it their sworn duty to defeat him in 1804 and the Federalist Party would have been damned by association with him.
I believe that in OTL, one of the main casues of the breach between the formerly friendly adversaries, Hamilton and Burr, was Hamilton's conviction (wherther justified or not) that Burr in his bid for the NY Governorship in 1803 was attempting to entangle the Federalist Party in his plots and schemes and this he could not allow. I can see a similar scenario in TTL.

Your humble servant
AH

What you seem to forget is that Burr WASN'T a Federalist. He was a Democratic-Republican, as was Jefferson. So there is no particular reason he could not have worked with Democratic-Republican majorities in Congress.
 
What you seem to forget is that Burr WASN'T a Federalist. He was a Democratic-Republican, as was Jefferson. So there is no particular reason he could not have worked with Democratic-Republican majorities in Congress.

Other than that a lot of Democratic-Republicans would be angered that Burr stole the presidency from the party's actual presidential candidate, Jefferson. This would sour his relations with Congress from the start, as if the party had wanted Burr to be president, they would have made him their candidate for that position, which they did not.
 
Robert,

I am well aware that Burr was a Republican. He was, in fact, that party's candidate for VP. However, my point was that if he had been elected President by the House of Representatives due to Federalist votes, he would have earned the undying emnity of every Jeffersonian form TJ on down.
In OTL Burr's silence during the House votes was enough to have Jefferson consign him to political limbo and begin thinking about how to drop him from the ticket in 1804. Burr knew this and that was why he ran for Governor of NY while he was still VP.
I can see no way for Burr to have been considered a legitimate Republican President by that party if he had been elected by the House in 1801. With massive Republican majorities in both houses as a result of the 1800 election, Burr would be faced with assembling a majority from Republican defectors and the very small Federalist minority in order to get anything done. Not an easy task since the Jeffersonians were a very disciplined group. Or, he could have done something bold, Burr like and possibly illegal.
There was a alt history short story about Burr in which Burr is portrayed as an evil genius who schemes to obtain the Presidency in 1801, plans for and wins a war of aggression against the UK and then establishes a hereditary monarchy along the lines of Napoleon. I do not think that the real Burr was nearly as evil or as far sighted as the fictional one but I can see him trying some bold move to win fame and glory (and wealth) and it not turning out well for either him or the country.
Another poster suggested a Burr/Madison ticket in 1808 if the election of 1800 had not been thrown into the House. I think this would be possible if Jefferson and Burr remained on good terms for the eight years of TJ's Presidency (a very big if considering their personalities) but I think it is unlikely because of TJ's close freindship with JM, JM's desire to do TJ's bidding and the belief of both TJ and JM (at least in OTL before the disputed election) that Burr was a useful Northern associate but not really a true Jeffesonian because, well, he wasn't from Virginia.

Your servant
AH
 
Robert,

I am well aware that Burr was a Republican. He was, in fact, that party's candidate for VP. However, my point was that if he had been elected President by the House of Representatives due to Federalist votes, he would have earned the undying emnity of every Jeffersonian form TJ on down.
In OTL Burr's silence during the House votes was enough to have Jefferson consign him to political limbo and begin thinking about how to drop him from the ticket in 1804. Burr knew this and that was why he ran for Governor of NY while he was still VP.
I can see no way for Burr to have been considered a legitimate Republican President by that party if he had been elected by the House in 1801. With massive Republican majorities in both houses as a result of the 1800 election, Burr would be faced with assembling a majority from Republican defectors and the very small Federalist minority in order to get anything done. Not an easy task since the Jeffersonians were a very disciplined group. Or, he could have done something bold, Burr like and possibly illegal.
There was a alt history short story about Burr in which Burr is portrayed as an evil genius who schemes to obtain the Presidency in 1801, plans for and wins a war of aggression against the UK and then establishes a hereditary monarchy along the lines of Napoleon. I do not think that the real Burr was nearly as evil or as far sighted as the fictional one but I can see him trying some bold move to win fame and glory (and wealth) and it not turning out well for either him or the country.
Another poster suggested a Burr/Madison ticket in 1808 if the election of 1800 had not been thrown into the House. I think this would be possible if Jefferson and Burr remained on good terms for the eight years of TJ's Presidency (a very big if considering their personalities) but I think it is unlikely because of TJ's close freindship with JM, JM's desire to do TJ's bidding and the belief of both TJ and JM (at least in OTL before the disputed election) that Burr was a useful Northern associate but not really a true Jeffesonian because, well, he wasn't from Virginia.

Your servant
AH

Robert, I wouldn't argue with AH's knowledge, he knows his stuff. :)

Mr. Hamilton,
I would say you are forgetting one thing and possibly are missing out on some recent Scholarship on Burr (Nancy Isenberg's Aaron Burr, quite flattering and a bit apologist but I still found it enlightening and worth reading). In the book she makes reference to Burr's massive popularity in both the North and the South. Burr had quite the following in all regions and this probably the top reason for Jefferson and Madison being wary of Burr and his charisma; not necessarily because he was some mad genius. in the election of 1796 he finished 3rd in the EC and he had only been a state representative from NY and a Col. in the ARW. He had immense personal popularity as well as a devoted group of subordinates.

Yes Burr was quite impoverished but this was because he was a mad speculator and was not conscientious with his money, he lived and spent extravagantly and so had to pay for it. He wasn't looking to be rich for the sake of being rich. Which I feel are different motivations.

You did nail the Virginia view (read JM and TJ) of Burr, he was useful as long as he was controllable. Once Burr took office as VP and presided over the Senate, he was viewed by D-R and Federalist as being wise and prudent. This is the reason I give him an opportunity of governing effectively, I think his personal popularity and his substantial intellect would allow him to be an effective President if the Federalists swing to his column combined with some S.C./N.C./Georgia (with no particular love of Jefferson or Madison) and mid atlantic D-Rs he could govern in coalition and accomplish a few things; a resounding success no but an absolute disaster no. I think we end up with a mediocre one term presidency.
 
Here's a fairly easy way: A faithless elector tried to cast both votes for Burr, but wasn't allowed, so he voted the party line. What if he'd voted for Burr and, I don't know, Clinton? Jay? Madison? No second vote?
 

Keenir

Banned
Although Mr. Burr was undoubtedly an intellligent man, a brave officer and a master political organizer, he was also constantly short of funds, open to plans that benefited him personally

so...a normal President. ;D

and without any fixed political principles

didn't Jefferson want the US to be a small nation of elite farmers, or something? (there was a word starting with Y, but I can't think of it)

...and yet Jefferson bought half the continent from France.
 
Top