Talk Less, Smile More! | Emperor Aaron Burr of Louisiana

Yeah I agree with Alex Zetsu, but the actual failed conspiracy that Burr had in mind to create himself ruler of Louisiana, they said he would assume a king like role. So I went with Emperor.

The actual conspiracy? There was no conspiracy, it was all a political intrigue against Burr. The only evidence presented at court was a letter which was written by Wilkerson, the man who had accused Burr. Indeed the first court that tried Burr threw out the case since there weren't the required three witnesses of the so-called treason. The only reason there was a second trial was because Jefferson pulled his presidential strings. In fact, Jefferson even tried to manipulate the court into delivering a guilty verdict. However, the second court easily acquitted Burr.

Nah. He pulled a Jefferson and had kids with some of his slaves.

Burr didn't have slaves, at all. Indeed he was the leading proponent of abolition and women'a suffrage in New York.
 
Just because there is no evidence of a conspiracy by Burr doesn't mean one didn't actually happen. In fact, Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies for Dummies (which is oddly a dubious source for the series) claims Wikinsson and Buur were workin for the Spanish
 
Watched.
Also, considering Burr was apparently into semi-royal stuff and was dealing with the Spaniards, he could have named himself Viceroy of Louisiana, either handing the land over to Spain while ruling over it or being a client state of the Spanish.
Heck, his possible success might cause more young Americans of questionable loyalties to try and do something similar for themselves, either with Spanish or Louisianan support, which might or might not end horribly for everyone involved apart from the Spanish.
 
The actual conspiracy? There was no conspiracy, it was all a political intrigue against Burr. The only evidence presented at court was a letter which was written by Wilkerson, the man who had accused Burr. Indeed the first court that tried Burr threw out the case since there weren't the required three witnesses of the so-called treason. The only reason there was a second trial was because Jefferson pulled his presidential strings. In fact, Jefferson even tried to manipulate the court into delivering a guilty verdict. However, the second court easily acquitted Burr.



Burr didn't have slaves, at all. Indeed he was the leading proponent of abolition and women'a suffrage in New York.

He had some at the beginning actually.
 
Just because there is no evidence of a conspiracy by Burr doesn't mean one didn't actually happen. In fact, Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies for Dummies (which is oddly a dubious source for the series) claims Wikinsson and Buur were workin for the Spanish

You can't in good faith use that argument though. That opens a doorway for every conspiracy theory and baseless claim out there. I could just as easily claim that the United States government perpetuated the September 11th Attacks and write about it being revealed in a timeline as if it is fact. Or defend that thread claiming awhile back that two random historical figures were in truth siblings, and made it simple fact in the world they were creating. I've nothing against religion, growing up with a type of flowing faith and religion myself, but I despise an unwavering literalism in every word of a religious text. Such an argument can be used to justify any thoughts within these books that can deny the world needed progress, or certain depths of curiousity.

... At its generalist, the assertion just because there isn't proof of something doesn't mean it isn't true, can be correct. It is in some cases for all we know, unlocked deep into the future by instruments far beyond our capabilities now We should always be inquiring of thoughts and ideas without dismissal; we've been incorrect so many times before. Still, it's dangerous to just allow that to be the titanium base on which any idea sits as reality.

I mean, in the case of Burr's trial specifically, it shows the unjust nature of such an idea. No proof of crime outside the biased account of the accuser. Pushed on, despite that lack, by Jefferson's political vendetta. Had he been found guilty, regardless of whether he actually plotted, it would be a travesty to just and fair trial.

... Now, sorry for being unbearably serious or over the top. I am interested to see what happens here. I only take issue with the use of that argument in debate, the mentioning of an admittedly dubious source besides ;) .

Six words: Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French

Burr was no Napoleon though. Taking a note from the thread title, I'll express my concern and say I do hope you'll be true to Burr. Hamilton has a wonderful depiction of Burr, but a depiction undeniably biased to give Alexander Hamilton further light. Hamilton wasn't a saint, he was a man like any other. He was ruthless, charismatic, and had quite a lot of questionable ideas alongside the genius. I'm excited to see what you can do with this, there's a lot of stuff that can be done here. I do hope you won't just declare the exact plot he was accused of truth and have him immediately declare war against a nation he had part in building, regardless if he's viewed as anything more than Alexander's power hungry foil by pop culture. They were both human, with all the benefits and negatives entailed.

Oh, and two things lastly:

1.) I don't believe Burr supported Hamilton's suggestion of an elective monarchy. Not every republican will declare themselves emperor at first chance.

2.) He was a radical abolitionist.
 
Burr didn't have slaves, at all. Indeed he was the leading proponent of abolition and women'a suffrage in New York.

I know Burr didn't have slaves. I also knew he was a proponent of women's suffrage in New York, but I didn't think he pushed that hard for it.

A New Orleans controlled by Burr might end up oddly progressive.

Also, funny thing, I was staring at the board for a long time. You were the first one to make a post in the forum for 7 hours and 30 minutes. Must have been a quiet day
 
I know Burr didn't have slaves. I also knew he was a proponent of women's suffrage in New York, but I didn't think he pushed that hard for it.

A New Orleans controlled by Burr might end up oddly progressive.

Also, funny thing, I was staring at the board for a long time. You were the first one to make a post in the forum for 7 hours and 30 minutes. Must have been a quiet day

Helios said he had slaves.

He tried, his wife being intelligent and capable made him believe that women deserved the right to vote.

It could

Wow
 
I know Burr didn't have slaves. I also knew he was a proponent of women's suffrage in New York, but I didn't think he pushed that hard for it.

A New Orleans controlled by Burr might end up oddly progressive.

Also, funny thing, I was staring at the board for a long time. You were the first one to make a post in the forum for 7 hours and 30 minutes. Must have been a quiet day
even if he makes himself emperor of Louisiana, I think he'd take the path you describe here. A progressive Emperor, if you will. I would find that path interesting and I hope the TL goes down that path.
 
A/N: Wow, I did not expect this much attention on this idea! Thank you! Well without further ado, here it is:

-Chapter 1-
"No, Merry, I am sure that Jefferson will be pissed!"


Aaron Burr did not want to run again this year. He would not be tried for the duel with Hamilton, I mean, no one barely cared anyways. Federalists hated him, Jeffersonian followers were against him, some of his own supporters were starting to become less loyal to his beliefs. He had a plan for revenge, it would not work, but all that had changed, for the nation had a guest, the British minister to the U.S Anthony Merry.

He was influentialand in Britian and seeked his money for his plan.

"Mr. Merry."

"Ah, Mr. Burr. How do you do?"

"Good actually, you?"

"Well, the President is not that happy, might it be because of me?"

"Probably. How do you enjoy the nation?"

"Quite hostile actually."

"Why don't you come meet with me sometime?"

"Sure, I would love it!"

So it was. Merry's wife and Burr had become good friends, and the men started discussing buisness. He told Merry that Britain could gain more power in the Southwest if they helped him succeed in build a nation to the west of the U.S. So an offer was made. Burr offered to detach Louisiana if the British gave him a million dollars and a fleet in the Gulf of Mexico. The inhabitants of Louisiana were supportive of a Brittish presence, but now they had someone to convince- George III of Hanover.


 
Top