WI: President Burr

Well the dual with Alexander Hamilton would be turned into the first American civil war, between the federalist and the democratic-republicians. If the federalist lose they will be tried for treason if DR lose it would be call the second revolution.

Jefferson would stand down as president and like john Adams live a quite life away from Washington.
 
Well the dual with Alexander Hamilton would be turned into the first American civil war, between the federalist and the democratic-republicians. If the federalist lose they will be tried for treason if DR lose it would be call the second revolution.

Jefferson would stand down as president and like john Adams live a quite life away from Washington.

There wouldn't be a duel, which if people actually studied the duel's history instead of having a vague idea of its existing they'd know.
 
What happens if the House of Representatives chose Aaron Burr as president in 1800 instead of Thomas Jefferson?

Well, according to this Wikipedia article, all it required was Anthony Lispenard, who seems to have wanted to vote for Burr for President and Vice President, to cast his ballot for Burr and anyone else in the country.

Burr would become President, with Jefferson as VP without the need of the House to intervene. I really don't see the two getting along, and I don't see Burr getting another term. He definately wouldn't run for Governor in 1804, so the duel would be butterflied away. He did seem to be in favor of western expansion, so perhaps he doesn't bungle Louisiana.
 
That's a different scenario, though. In both cases, Jefferson will claim to be the rightful winner that the people (and state legislatures) voted for, and Burr is an usurper. He has the express support of the militia in Virginia and Maryland, and threatened to call them out and take Washington if the House selected Burr in OTL. I don't believe he was bluffing.

So the House elects Burr and Vice-President Jefferson takes the capital by force. The question becomes whether New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania call out their own forces and head south, or simply withdraw from Congress, reconvene in New York City around President Burr and thus have an almost-peaceful division of the country while Jefferson holds treason trials against Representatives who didn't vote his way.

In the second scenario (Burr wins in the Electoral College), Jefferson has far less support, his claims of a stolen election resonating with fewer people. He still attempts to take the office by force, but his insurrection is put down and Burr probably hangs him (if not, exiles him to France, which could be interesting).

Burr would, if anything, get Louisiana faster and easier than Jefferson managed.
 
That's a different scenario, though. In both cases, Jefferson will claim to be the rightful winner that the people (and state legislatures) voted for, and Burr is an usurper. He has the express support of the militia in Virginia and Maryland, and threatened to call them out and take Washington if the House selected Burr in OTL. I don't believe he was bluffing.

So the House elects Burr and Vice-President Jefferson takes the capital by force. The question becomes whether New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania call out their own forces and head south, or simply withdraw from Congress, reconvene in New York City around President Burr and thus have an almost-peaceful division of the country while Jefferson holds treason trials against Representatives who didn't vote his way.

In the second scenario (Burr wins in the Electoral College), Jefferson has far less support, his claims of a stolen election resonating with fewer people. He still attempts to take the office by force, but his insurrection is put down and Burr probably hangs him (if not, exiles him to France, which could be interesting).

Burr would, if anything, get Louisiana faster and easier than Jefferson managed.

Wouldn't it just be possible for the other states to simply "just go with it" (since New York and Pennsylvania voted for Jefferson anyway)
 
That's a different scenario, though. In both cases, Jefferson will claim to be the rightful winner that the people (and state legislatures) voted for, and Burr is an usurper. He has the express support of the militia in Virginia and Maryland, and threatened to call them out and take Washington if the House selected Burr in OTL. I don't believe he was bluffing.

So the House elects Burr and Vice-President Jefferson takes the capital by force. The question becomes whether New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania call out their own forces and head south, or simply withdraw from Congress, reconvene in New York City around President Burr and thus have an almost-peaceful division of the country while Jefferson holds treason trials against Representatives who didn't vote his way.

In the second scenario (Burr wins in the Electoral College), Jefferson has far less support, his claims of a stolen election resonating with fewer people. He still attempts to take the office by force, but his insurrection is put down and Burr probably hangs him (if not, exiles him to France, which could be interesting).

Burr would, if anything, get Louisiana faster and easier than Jefferson managed.

Well, let's be honest here--we are dealing with popular perspective here--in the popular imagination, Burr is the evil villain who murdered Hamilton, and Jefferson is the pure and good Founding Father. That both cases are a great deal more complicated than that is putting it mildly. (Especially Jefferson, whose unpleasant personality quirks are far, far worse than people imagine.)

But yeah--Burr would probably not only NOT bungle the Louisiana Purchase, he'd probably handle the entire Napoleonic War situation far cagier than Jefferson managed to. The Embargo Acts in particular can only be called... well, a bungle.
 
That's a different scenario, though. In both cases, Jefferson will claim to be the rightful winner that the people (and state legislatures) voted for, and Burr is an usurper. He has the express support of the militia in Virginia and Maryland, and threatened to call them out and take Washington if the House selected Burr in OTL. I don't believe he was bluffing.

So the House elects Burr and Vice-President Jefferson takes the capital by force. The question becomes whether New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania call out their own forces and head south, or simply withdraw from Congress, reconvene in New York City around President Burr and thus have an almost-peaceful division of the country while Jefferson holds treason trials against Representatives who didn't vote his way.

In the second scenario (Burr wins in the Electoral College), Jefferson has far less support, his claims of a stolen election resonating with fewer people. He still attempts to take the office by force, but his insurrection is put down and Burr probably hangs him (if not, exiles him to France, which could be interesting).

Burr would, if anything, get Louisiana faster and easier than Jefferson managed.

A. Pennsylvania was one of the states which threatened to call out its militia in support of Jefferson if the Federalists in Congress tried to hand the election to Adams. They were already on board with the Republicans.

B. Why in the world would Jefferson object so strongly as to split the country in half or raise an armed revolt if Burr is elected instead of him? Where in the world do you even get this idea?
 
Top