Aaron Burr: A Great American Villain, Or Was He?

Aaron Burr, A Great American Villain, Or Was He?

Aaron Burr is considered a great villain of American history. He killed Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers, in cold blood, and attempted to create his own country in the middle of America. But is he really deserving of his cruel title?

Aaron Burr. A name that through millions of historical textbooks has been painted as bloodthirsty murderer and untrustworthy conspirator, but with the rise of the new hit musical Hamilton people are beginning to question if Burr was really as villainous as he’s been portrayed, or if he’s just a man who made a few terrible choices.

Burr certainly is far from an innocent man, but was Alexander Hamilton’s death really murder? Did Burr attempt to separate

the western states of America in order to form his own empire? Historians are beginning to re-evaluate his life and wonder how many of the allegations hold any truth.
A Formidable Foe?
In 1791 Burr entered politics by winning a senate seat in upstate New York that previously had been held by Phillip Schuyler, Hamilton’s father-in-law. Hamilton for some unknown reason, saw this as Burr making a personal attack on him, and thus began the long 13 year rivalry. Burr who had no intention to create the rivalry, continued to treat General Hamilton with respect and politeness in the hope that “the generosity of (his) conduct would have some influence on him” (Steiner, 1907). But it seems that Burr was “constantly deceived” (Steiner, 1907).
In 1800 Burr ran for president, but was defeated by Thomas Jefferson. The election of 1800 remains the only election in American History that resulted in a tie initially. Hamilton, a significant member of the Federalist Party, all throughout the election was quite publicly clear that he considered Burr “unprincipled, both as a public and private man” whose “integrity as an individual is not unimpeached”.
Much to Hamilton’s dismay, when the voting moved to the House of Representatives, the Federalist representatives refused to give Thomas Jefferson the majority. Burr himself was, like Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, but the opposing party preferred him over their own candidate, John Adams. So the Federalist’s continued to refuse to endorse Jefferson, until Hamilton stepped in and convinced the Federalist’s to negotiate with Jefferson.
The Federalists put forward a deal, which Jefferson accepted, and he became president while Burr settled for being the Vice-President. Unfortunately, Jefferson and the fellow Democratic-Republicans looked upon Burr with deep mistrust after that election, as the original deal made between Jefferson and Burr was that Jefferson would run for president and Burr would only campaign for Vice-President. Burr during the campaigning broke that deal, and this led to him gaining a reputation as a shady politician. However, Burr was completely within his rights to run for President, and like any man of great ambition, Burr seized an opportunity to advance his career.
As Burr’s term as Vice-President came to an end, Burr knew that his party wouldn’t allow him to run for President again, and instead turned his focus to the election for the New York Governor.
This election started with Burr being the public’s favourite over his opposition Judge Henry Lewis, however a few Lewis supporters were determined not to let the ‘shady politician’ win and started many rumours that began to effect Burr’s reputation, including that he was a spy for Britain and was sleeping with prostitutes, and these only hurt his reputation further.
Burr was fast becoming an untrustworthy figure in the eyes of the public, but still managed to hold onto his lead in the election. But the week before the vote, a letter by Dr. Charles Cooper to Philip Schuyler was published claiming that Hamilton “looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of the government” (Gaylord, 1804). Due to this letter, Burr lost almost all support and lost the election, gaining only a reputation of despicable, untrustworthy politician.
The Cold Blooded Murderer?
Since this was now the second election Burr had lost due to Hamilton, he sent Hamilton a letter asking for “unqualified acknowledgement or denial of the use of any expression which would warrant the assertions of Dr. Cooper” (Gaylord, 1804). Hamilton saw this simple request as a personal attack and claimed that he “could not without manifest impropriety make the avowal or disavowal” (Gaylord, 1804). He believed that without reference to a specific quote by him, he could neither accept nor deny that he had said anything that dishonoured Burr.
The two continued to correspond, with Burr inquiring if Hamilton had ever “uttered expressions or opinions derogatory to my honour” (Gaylord, 1804). Hamilton refused to acknowledge if he had ever made a statement that may have dishonoured Burr, which frustrated Burr, and led to him challenging Hamilton to a duel.
The two foes met at Weehawken, New Jersey at dawn on July 11 1804. Hamilton provided the pistols, and the two men, following the duelling code, fired at each other, Hamilton’s bullet lodging 6 feet to the right of Burr, above his head in a tree; while Burr’s hit Hamilton just above his right hip.
According to Nathaniel Pendleton and William P. Van Ness, the seconds, the two shots were fired within a few seconds of each other. However, nobody knows exactly who fired first, as all attendees faced away from the confrontation so they could not legally be charged with involvement. The most common assumption is that Hamilton fired first, missing Burr, then Burr fired, hitting him.
While this may seem to clearly be murder, this situation proved to not be that simple. Several days after Hamilton’s death, a statement that Hamilton wrote pre-duel was released in the New York Herald stating “I have resolved if our interview is conducted in the usual manner… to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thoughts even of reserving my second fire- giving a double opportunity to Col. Burr to pause and reflect.” (Gaylord, 1804)
The statement was only to be released if Hamilton died, and clearly made Burr out to be a murderer. How much of this statement is sincere is debatable, as Hamilton also in this statement claimed that his “religious and moral principles are strongly opposed to the practice of duelling” (Gaylord, 1804) but had involved in 10 duels prior. It is believed by some historians that this statement’s only purpose was to ruin Burr’s reputation and put an end to his political career, ensuring Hamilton still ‘won’ no matter the outcome of the duel.
This statement indeed ruined Burr, however, while Hamilton claimed that he intended to “throw away (his) shot” (Gaylord, 1804) in the duel, he didn’t. While shooting at a tree may seem to be a clear sign that he wasn’t intending to kill, according to duelling code, to throw away your shot you were to shoot at the ground, declaring that you weren’t going to kill, thus putting an end to the confrontation.
Hamilton did not do this, instead shooting at a tree, which poses the question, did Hamilton really intend to miss, or was that an accident?

An examine of the pistols century and a half later reveals that the pistols contained a secret hair trigger that could be used, that only required half a pound of pull instead of the usual 10-12 pound pull. These pistols were also not Hamilton’s, instead belonging to John Church, his sister-in-law’s husband. Why would Hamilton use Church’s pistols when he had his own? And why go through all that trouble of getting them if he was planning to throw away his shot? Some historians believe that he may have intended to shoot at Burr, and the use of the hair triggers (which can be quite temperamental) may have led to him shooting early, before he had a clear shot at Burr.

Most historians believe that Burr also missed, shooting Hamilton where he may have meant to miss. Burr was a very career focused man, and would have known that killing Alexander Hamilton would lead to his downfall. It was stated by Hamilton’s second that after the duel Burr “advanced towards General Hamilton, with a manner and gesture of regret, but without speaking” (Gaylord, 1804), showing that Burr almost certainly did not mean to shoot Hamilton. So it seems that maybe both men missed their mark, with Hamilton leaving the field a dying martyr, and Burr a bloodthirsty

murderer.
The Conspirator?
On February 13 1807 Aaron Burr was arrested in Wakefield for conspiring to separate the Western States of America and create his own country. 200 years on, historians are still unsure about Burr’s intentions.
The conspiracy was believed to have started in 1804 where he apparently contacted Anthony Merry (the British ambassador) offering to separate the states for Britain. This plan fell through, as Britain didn’t take up Burr’s offer. During this time Burr also recruited General James Wilkinson, who was commander of the U.S. Army and had been appointed Governor of Northern Louisiana (at Burr’s insistence).
In 1805 after completing his term as Vice-President, Burr travelled through the western states gathering supporters. Rumours were beginning to circulate around what was occurring in the Western States, but Burr, who now had an army of supporters and control of the military, denied them.
When disputes occurred between the American and Spanish borders in 1806 President Jefferson sent troops to Louisiana. Burr, who was in Washington, sent a coded letter to Wilkinson that told him to prepare to attack.
Burr also sent a letter to one of his supporters, Harman Blennerhassett, who owned an island asking him to prepare for a large influx of military men and weapons, and then word to his supporters and they all rushed to the island, preparing to fight.
Unknown to Burr, Wilkinson was doubting his plans and made the decision to send a letter to President Jefferson outlining the conspiracy, and claiming innocence. In December 1806 Jefferson sent authorities to attack the island, scattering the rebels and destroying the supplies, so when Burr met up with Blennerhassett there was less than 100 men. Burr found out he was a wanted man and fled from the authorities until they caught him in February.
Burr was charged with treason for the conspiracy, but was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

The only piece of evidence they had was the letter from Wilkinson which he had “to admit that he doctored” (Wikipedia, 2016) which he no doubt did to remove himself from the conspiracy. Chief Justice John Marshall believed that this was not enough to charge Burr with treason.

Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Burr was innocent as according to the first amendment citizens had the right to voice opposition to the government, and therefore to suggest war or to engage in a conspiracy was not enough, as no “overt act of war had been committed” (Gale Research Inc., 1997).

So does conspiring to make his own country really make Burr a villain? Nothing explicit was committed, and the fact that people were willing to follow implies that it may have occurred with or without Burr’s involvement. While this act seems to be a very unlawful act, the fact that he never started a war means it doesn’t really qualify him for being a villain.

The

‘Villain’
2 centuries later historians are re-evaluating his title, analysing what makes a villain. Does killing one man, even if he was one of the most influential figures at the time really make you a villain? Is conspiring to start a war just as bad as starting one? Since the discovery of the secret hair triggers in the pistols historians have been reanalysing the information on the duel and his life, and what makes a villain.
At the time of the events, the public viewed Burr as a villain but looking back at the history, many historians believe that the events that once seemed villainous aren’t. Killing a man and conspiring to create a country, while being terrible acts don’t exactly qualify as being villainous. So is Aaron Burr, really a great American villain, or just a man who made many mistakes?