WI : 1800 - Burr v Adams and what would a Burr Presidency Look like?

We all know that 1800 was a weird and dangerous situation thanks to the electoral college and everything about it, mainly due to Burr and Jefferson facing each other to become President because Adams burned too many bridges. So, for a change and to get him out of the way, let's say Jefferson dies of a disease or infection before 1800, preferably between 1798 and 1800 and Madison, as I think he did per OTL, decides to op out and wait (could be wrong on that), allowing for Burr to be all but unopposed (Clinton will still probably go for it) as the D-R choice. Who would be his running mate and what would the 1800 election itself look like? If Burr wins (likely due to, as I said, Adams having burned too many bridges to win), what would his cabinet look like and what would be his policies? IIRC, Burr was very progressive for his time, supporting women sufferage and I think he was very much an abolitionist than other Northerners at that time, though the marriage of his daughter to Alston might suggest otherwise. I doubt he could get women sufferage passed through Congress, given they were very steadfast in that regard, but maybe he could convince them to allow Women Senators/Representatives via constitutional Amendment or by having each state determining whether or not they'll do that, though this could be ASB.

Also, I know this question has been asked before, but it almost always got bogged down and turned into discussions of Burr as a person and the conflict between Jefferson and Burr, hence why Got the former out of the way. So, what are you ideas to answer this WI?
 
Lemme watch Hamilton on Friday, and I'll get back to you LOL

Well, then Senator Burr would have to navigate a Federalist Senate until late 1801 where Federalists were dropping like flies due to retirement. Assuming the Federalists who retired in OTL (Senators William Hindman (MD), Ray Greene (RI), Elijah Paine (VT), all of which resulted in a Republican taking their seat) retire in this timeline, and are replaced by the same people (Senators Robert Wright (MD), Christopher Ellery (RI), Stephen R. Bradley (VT), respectively) as they were in OTL, it would be pretty smooth sailing strictly in terms of party lines.

As for his apparent progressiveness and potential policy, he might try to sign on to policies that would impede on the expansion of slavery rather than calling for the emancipation of it. He could also probably push some sort of anti-fugitive slave law or, more likely, pocket veto any fugitive slave law. This IS the early 1800s United States we're talking about and many founding fathers and potential members of his cabinet might've held slaves. He would, sadly, also be laughed out of office before getting anything passed related to women's suffrage or women's rights, as well. However, he could push for an expansion of voting rights in terms of universal male suffrage.

As for a running mate, that would have to be decided by the Congressional caucus as that's how they nominated candidates at the time. If the Republicans wished to maintain a North/South balance on the ticket, a few names that come to mind are James Madison (by 1800, had served as a Representative from Virginia's 15th District), James Monroe (who'd be in the middle of his first term as Governor of Virginia), or MAYBE Abraham Baldwin (who would be serving in the Senate from Georgia. Honestly, just threw that name in the consideration just to mix things up a little). Not really sure how likely they are, but just figured I should say them as they're the more obvious picks

I haven't studied much on Aaron Burr, so I'm just spitballing based on your introductory post. Hope this helps!
 
Last edited:
Burr's cabinet would be interesting. Due to their rivalry, I presume that Burr wouldn't want any of the deceased Jefferson's proteges, like Madison, Monroe, or Wilson Nicholas anywhere near his administration less they attempt to seize the 1804 nomination from him. His cabinet might look like this:
Secretary of State: Philip Van Cortlandt
Secretary of the Treasury: Richard D. Spaight
Secretary of War: Samuel Smith
Attorney General: Abraham Baldwin
Secretary of the Navy: Robert Smith

As for how this would impact the future, I'd say that the Democratic-Republican hegemony that was witnessed IOTL might not come to be. Burr was a much more controversial figure than Jefferson, and had many for enemies. Combine this with him lacking Jefferson's prestige, and generally being a man with less political skill and savvy than Jefferson, and the Federalists just might be able to retake the White House, given the right circumstances and candidate. Also Burr wouldn't duel Hamilton, and avoids killing him. So there, have some butterflies.
 
Lemme watch Hamilton on Friday, and I'll get back to you LOL

Well, then Senator Burr would have to navigate a Federalist Senate until late 1801 where Federalists were dropping like flies due to retirement. Assuming the Federalists who retired in OTL (Senators William Hindman (MD), Ray Greene (RI), Elijah Paine (VT), all of which resulted in a Republican taking their seat) retire in this timeline, and are replaced by the same people (Senators Robert Wright (MD), Christopher Ellery (RI), Stephen R. Bradley (VT), respectively) as they were in OTL, it would be pretty smooth sailing strictly in terms of party lines.

As for his apparent progressiveness and potential policy, he might try to sign on to policies that would impede on the expansion of slavery rather than calling for the emancipation of it. He could also probably push some sort of anti-fugitive slave law or, more likely, pocket veto any fugitive slave law. This IS the early 1800s United States we're talking about and many founding fathers and potential members of his cabinet might've held slaves. He would, sadly, also be laughed out of office before getting anything passed related to women's suffrage or women's rights, as well. However, he could push for an expansion of voting rights in terms of universal male suffrage.

As for a running mate, that would have to be decided by the Congressional caucus as that's how they nominated candidates at the time. If the Republicans wished to maintain a North/South balance on the ticket, a few names that come to mind are James Madison (by 1800, had served as a Representative from Virginia's 15th District), James Monroe (who'd be in the middle of his first term as Governor of Virginia), or MAYBE Abraham Baldwin (who would be serving in the Senate from Georgia. Honestly, just threw that name in the consideration just to mix things up a little). Not really sure how likely they are, but just figured I should say them as they're the more obvious picks

I haven't studied much on Aaron Burr, so I'm just spitballing based on your introductory post. Hope this helps!
I do assume the three Senate seats you mentioned are likely to be changed from OTL as, since they retired during a Jefferson Presidency, why wouldn't they retire during a Burr Presidency? I can see him signing on a law that prevents the establishment of Slavery past the Mississippi River, which immediately takes out the Missouri Compromise and 60 years of pointless compromises, though that law could be repealed when a pro-slavery presidency reaches office. ANother interesting question is what would happen to his Daughter, Theodosia Burr Alston, and his Grandson, Aaron Burr Alston? Seeing as Burr would've been the former President by 1812, they would maybe not disappear and if that's the case, then what does the future of ABA look like?

Burr's cabinet would be interesting. Due to their rivalry, I presume that Burr wouldn't want any of the deceased Jefferson's proteges, like Madison, Monroe, or Wilson Nicholas anywhere near his administration less they attempt to seize the 1804 nomination from him. His cabinet might look like this:
Secretary of State: Philip Van Cortlandt
Secretary of the Treasury: Richard D. Spaight
Secretary of War: Samuel Smith
Attorney General: Abraham Baldwin
Secretary of the Navy: Robert Smith

As for how this would impact the future, I'd say that the Democratic-Republican hegemony that was witnessed IOTL might not come to be. Burr was a much more controversial figure than Jefferson, and had many for enemies. Combine this with him lacking Jefferson's prestige, and generally being a man with less political skill and savvy than Jefferson, and the Federalists just might be able to retake the White House, given the right circumstances and candidate. Also Burr wouldn't duel Hamilton, and avoids killing him. So there, have some butterflies.
IIRC, Burr was more controversial and had more enemies, but he was a grand speaker and brought the senate to tears upon the speech he gave when he was leaving. As for the Federalists, Pickeney just wouldn't be the right choice and I don't think Hamilton would ever have a chance, so who do they choose in 1808? And what is the effect on American relations with Britain and France (I can't see how a Burr victory would prevent or do something differently about the Napoleonic Wars and increasing hostile relations between the US and the UK)?
 
IIRC, Burr was more controversial and had more enemies, but he was a grand speaker and brought the senate to tears upon the speech he gave when he was leaving. As for the Federalists, Pickeney just wouldn't be the right choice and I don't think Hamilton would ever have a chance, so who do they choose in 1808? And what is the effect on American relations with Britain and France (I can't see how a Burr victory would prevent or do something differently about the Napoleonic Wars and increasing hostile relations between the US and the UK)?
Two people come to mind: John Marshall, if he is willing, of course (IOTL, he declined the Federalist nomination in 1812), an Associate Judge on the Supreme Court, or former Secretary of State Timothy Pickering either for 1804 or 1808. As for foreign policy, Burr probably buys Louisiana. If Burr is re-elected in 1804, would he pass an Embargo Act equivalent? Would President Burr send the navy to fight the Barbary pirates? I'm also unsure how Philip Van Cortlandt would govern as Secretary of State. I dunno, unless a Federalist is elected in 1804/1808, I don't foresee much difference on the foreign policy front.
 
Two people come to mind: John Marshall, if he is willing, of course (IOTL, he declined the Federalist nomination in 1812), an Associate Judge on the Supreme Court, or former Secretary of State Timothy Pickering either for 1804 or 1808. As for foreign policy, Burr probably buys Louisiana. If Burr is re-elected in 1804, would he pass an Embargo Act equivalent? Would President Burr send the navy to fight the Barbary pirates? I'm also unsure how Philip Van Cortlandt would govern as Secretary of State. I dunno, unless a Federalist is elected in 1804/1808, I don't foresee much difference on the foreign policy front.
I think most Democratic-Republicans were against the British and for the French in a variety of ways, but unlike Jefferson, Burr, who had served in the military, would likely make sure the army and maybe the Navy remained strong and would make a move on Canada as soon as it seemed like Britain would be too pre-occupied with France to fight the US, unlike Madison and Jefferson, who crippled the military severely and chose the worst time for war. So I can see him pushing for an earlier War with Britain in maybe 1805 or 1806, when Britain was the most engaged it ever would be with Napoleon and I think he'd also make a move on Spain depending on whether or not Nappy still invades there as per OTL, seeing that state as prime opportunity, though this is more speculation, as Burr might be just as stupid as Jefferson on the things I just mentioned. As for the Embargo Act, I actually think that Burr would rather go for a build the navy and patrol trade routes type deal.

Any ideas of his movements on the abolitionist cause and what the future of his grandson would be (He would have a lot of expectations, considering his father was Governor of South Carolina and Grandfather President of the United States, though him getting elected in South might get problematic depending on how anti-slavery Burr is).
 
Top