WI: Burr in 1801?

Wolfpaw

Banned
Many people do not know that the much-maligned Aaron Burr tied with Thomas Jefferson in the presidential election of 1800. Despite urging from both Republicans and Federalists, Burr allowed his friend Sen. Bayard of Delaware to give the vote to Mr. Jefferson (in exchange for Massa Tom leaving Bayard's Federalist friend collector of the Port of Wilmington).

But what if things had gone differently? What if Burr had been elected president by the House of Representatives in 1801?
 
A great deal depends on what the historically taciturn Burr says between the election and the formal count on the House floor, and during the House's deliberations. OTL he shut himself up in his house and declined to take callers, while Jefferson had the Virginia and Maryland militias called out and threatened to march on Washington if the election was "stolen" from him. Burr wins on class and manners, but he loses support by appearing weak or unwilling to fight.

If one or two minds change on the House floor while nothing changes outside, I take Jefferson at his word. He'll use the militia to "overturn" the House's decision, and all hell breaks loose, potentially dissolving the Union.

If Burr makes some statesmanlike speech, or even matches belligerence with belligerence, then Maryland for certain and possibly Virginia as well will recalculate in the face of real opposition, and I expect everyone will eventually settle down, have a beer, and acknowledge the Constitutionality of Burr's win. The 12th Amendment remains a certainty either way.

Which option did you want to explore? Extraconstitutional Jefferson or a Burr administration?
 
while Jefferson had the Virginia and Maryland militias called out and threatened to march on Washington if the election was "stolen" from him.

Really? That little tidbit of information i didn't know.

Be interesting to see what kind of effect this would have if Jefferson actually used this. You did say that he would most likely make use this threat and send in the militia....so, if the Union becomes divided, Jefferson in the South and atm, we will say Burr in the north, it would be an interesting way to see how the country develops.

New England is firmly federalist, New York would have to be supporters of Burr, so perhaps everything south falls to Jefferson.

Unlikely, but could be a possibility.
 
So Decades of Darkness early?

Sounds like it would probably be a blow to democracy, first the French go crazy, then the Americans have a coup and a violent civil war.
 
Well, the British have proven that a written constitution is not strictly necessary for a liberal democracy. And I actually think that the North, however bitter and grumbling, would probably accept a Jefferson presidency under the circumstances. Real civil war this early is unthinkable, Perfidious Albion is still waiting and planning to reconquer them dontchaknow. But yes, I think the USA would gradually have become a darker and creepier place without its constitution, and separation is not impossible.
 
I suppose it doesn't even require the constitution to go; the precedent has been set that when push comes to shove it's a piece of paper and nothing else.

I imagine that things could get quite unpleasant especially when regional divisions come to a head, now that it's clear elections can produce the "wrong" result.

Actually- what happens if Jefferson forces Burr out of office but then does something incredibly stupid and pig-headed, like Jefferson tended to around Burr? Trumped up treason charges like OTL could send the situation to very bad places.
 
Really? That little tidbit of information i didn't know.

Be interesting to see what kind of effect this would have if Jefferson actually used this. You did say that he would most likely make use this threat and send in the militia....so, if the Union becomes divided, Jefferson in the South and atm, we will say Burr in the north, it would be an interesting way to see how the country develops.

New England is firmly federalist, New York would have to be supporters of Burr, so perhaps everything south falls to Jefferson.

Unlikely, but could be a possibility.

I whish I had known about this for my own timeline! The split i have is around 1804 with the Brits holding the Louisiana territories around New Orleans. The North breaks from the South in a Confederation of states run by Burr and others.
Still, I can incorporate TJ as the leader in the south still; i think? :confused:
 
I hadn't considered the possibility of Jefferson putting Burr on trial after the fact. There's no way he'd get a conviction, but yes, it could be a bad precedent. And yes, the Constitution wouldn't be simply thrown away, but as you say, it's now a guideline, not a set of rules.
 
A great deal depends on what the historically taciturn Burr says between the election and the formal count on the House floor, and during the House's deliberations. OTL he shut himself up in his house and declined to take callers, while Jefferson had the Virginia and Maryland militias called out and threatened to march on Washington if the election was "stolen" from him. Burr wins on class and manners, but he loses support by appearing weak or unwilling to fight.

If one or two minds change on the House floor while nothing changes outside, I take Jefferson at his word. He'll use the militia to "overturn" the House's decision, and all hell breaks loose, potentially dissolving the Union.

If Burr makes some statesmanlike speech, or even matches belligerence with belligerence, then Maryland for certain and possibly Virginia as well will recalculate in the face of real opposition, and I expect everyone will eventually settle down, have a beer, and acknowledge the Constitutionality of Burr's win. The 12th Amendment remains a certainty either way.

Which option did you want to explore? Extraconstitutional Jefferson or a Burr administration?

Joining in here--you have to make Burr actually want to win the Presidency here, instead of not necessarily objecting if it falls into his lap, but taking the official tack of 'Jefferson was running for the office, and he should win it'. And that's a mighty BIG change.

Hell, a part of me thinks that having Anthony Lispenard coming up with a saner variation on his plan to throw the election to Burr might be a better bet...
 
Keeping Burr's apathy, keeping Jefferson's threat legit, and yet having something like goading of a friend leading to Burr giving a statesmanlike speech that sways key votes in the Congress could lead to an interesting timeline.

If Burr wins, but is still pretty apathetic about it, yet maintains his reputed passion for creating a pocket empire in the West, then recognizing his victory, his Presidency, and allowing Jefferson to march on D.C. could give him the basis, as Legitimate President, to get militias in the Old Northwest and Louisiana up in arms to aid him in separating from the Eastern pretender regime.

And New England Federalists who nearly seceded OTL can actually secede, DoD style.

Basically, I think a President Burr who doesn't want to be President might use his status as prez-elect to get the doors opened to a few armories and as the basis for the secession of Louisiana and perhaps the attempted succession of the Midwest as well. The West was where he was best loved, wasn't it? And he reputedly had several plots to either detach Louisiana with British aid or create an empire out of New Mexico or so on.

If Burr was elected President and Jefferson made himself President in DC by force, would John Adams also declare himself President to join in the fun? Would Hamilton take advantage of New England secession and Burrite bleedover from the Midwest to make New York independent of all of the above? Does Pinckney's number of EV in that election show that there would be a considerable Federalist resistance in the South against Jefferson after he seized power, perhaps occupying D.C. with consolidating the South long enough for the West, New England, and New York to detach?
 
Having become President of the USA, by whatever accidental or bizarre series of events, why on earth would Burr entertain for a moment the idea of chucking that away to carve some personal frontier fiefdom out of the Louisiana Territory?

Louisiana would still fall into his lap without a shot in 1803. That'll pretty much guarantee his reelection in 1804. He'll declare war with Britain at the first provocation in 1807, which is actually much better for the USA than 1812. He'll seek a third term in 1808, and is likely to actually get it if we're still at war with the UK, as seems likely. And at this point it gets really weird for the friends of the early republic, because the OTL "era of good feelings" will contain no good feelings. Despite an effective record in the Presidency, Burr is starting to look worrisome...he's taken a couple of huge gambles with the nation, and he obviously will keep running for more terms. Those who remember Colonel Burr from Valley Forge will be getting very uneasy.

So in 1812, we have President Burr seeking a fourth term, a left-opposition, presumably Madison, trying to unseat him, and a right-opposition, the remaining Federalists. None of whom trust the others any farther than they can spit them. Political junkies' dream.

What Burr does after he loses the Presidency is always the $64,000 question.

Bonus: Burr was an ardent proponent of female equality because of his daughter. Can a President demanding that women should have the vote make much headway in the 1800s?
 
Virginia's militia versus New York's and New England's. Seizing a largely undefended DC first will be easy, but the Virginia boys need to be getting home to plant crops, I don't expect them to stand and fight when the north shows its spine. It will be a messy, ugly scene, but I expect it will also be a swift Burr/North success. The regular army, such as it is, will back Burr over Jefferson if the House voted Burr and Burr accepted (Jefferson seriously overestimates what he can accomplish with the Virginia militia, and the amount it's willing to bleed for him, in my opinion). Of course, I suppose events might have proved me wrong...
 
Don't be so sure that New York will automatically side with Burr--the Clintons are a big power in the state, and they do not like him. That stated, Jefferson actually marching on Washington (if he does that instead of merely going on to cement his position in history as Worst VP ever) is probably going to see his followers deserting him. (Also, what's Hamilton doing in all this? IOTL, he was suggesting the Federalists use the 'crisis' as an excuse to stay in power--if things go pear-shaped, he's going to be saying it a bit louder.)
 
Hamilton doesn't have many friends left, though. It's hard to imagine even his fellow Federalists taking him seriously at this point - and While Hamilton may hate Jefferson and Burr about equally, the Federalist party as a whole sees one as much less objectionable than the other. Since no one can credibly argue that the Federalists won the election, whipping Jefferson and installing Burr is literally a best case scenario for them.

By 1800, Burr has broken George Clinton. DeWitt can stage a comeback for them, but Jefferson approached Burr rather than George in 1800 because George wouldn't have carried his own state.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I don't see Burr fighting against the UK; it's Mexico he was after. People often tend to forget that most Americans didn't really see Britain as their archfoe in the aftermath of the Revolution; that honor went to the Dons ruling all of that land (the Floridas, Louisiana, Cuba, Texas, Mexico) that Americans so craved. If there's going to be a war under Burr, it would be a Hispano-American one.
 
Top