Crompton 1

Gary Crompton (BOX 424)

American History I

November 22nd 2010

Historiography: The Aaron Burr Conspiracy

From 1804-1807 the most infamous man in the United States was Aaron Burr. The Vice

President turned murder fled west, and what happened next is a matter of debate. In summary,

rumors spread that Burr was raising an army to invade Mexico, and possibly separate the western

territories and states from the rest of the United States. Burr was arrested, tried for treason, and

acquitted. This historiography will look at the prospective of four different authors on what is

commonly called “The Burr Conspiracy.”

Thomas Perkins Abernethy’s book The Burr Conspiracy describes Burr overtly as a

villain. As this historiography considers other works on the topic it will become clear that not

everyone has such an antagonistic view of Burr. Abernethy’s perception of Burr is not

completely unfounded. At the very least Burr was a murderer, fugitive, rabble-rouser, and debt

evader. Abernethy attempts to take this one step further to make the case that Burr also had every

intention of using the explosive political environment of the American and Spanish West to start

his own country, by force if necessary (Abernethy vii).

The sources Abernethy cites in his book are largely from another book called The Burr

Conspiracy. So, this book is probably a rewording of someone else’s work, which brings with it

the possibility of embellishment. In Abernethy’s book General James Wilkenson shares the role

of villain, at times even stealing the spotlight in a book about Aaron Burr. If the things
 Crompton 2

Abernethy says about Wilkenson are true, then even the most dedicated historian would find it

difficult pick a more detestable character in all of American history. Wilkenson fought in the

Native American slaughter at Fallen Timbers, he was later made commander of the United States

Army, stationed in newly acquired New Orleans. Additionally Wilkenson had secretly sworn

allegiance to Spain, and received a sizable pension from them yearly to compensate him for the

moment he would betray the United States (Abernethy 5). On top of all that Wilkenson and Burr

plotted their military conquest of the West together as coconspirators.

All works considered in this historiography agree, Burr’s association with Wilkenson was

his biggest blunder, no matter what Burr intended to do with the army he was raising in the West.

On October 27th 1805 Jefferson’s cabinet met to discuss what to do concerning the rumors that

were surfacing in newspapers back East. They decided to send spies. These spies reported back

that Burr was constructing gunboats in Kentucky, stockpiling weapons and provisions, and

workers in the area said they expected the West to be capable of separating from the United

States within the next 5 years (Abernethy 95). Jefferson immediately called for Burr’s arrest.

Albernethy says that Burr’s efforts continued. He says Andrew Jackson resigned his

military post to assist Burr in recruitment, while Wilkenson began to quietly scout Mexico

(Abernethy 144). Burr and Jackson had reportedly recruited an army of 7,000, but Wilkenson’s

conclusion after scouting Mexico was that victory was unlikely with only infantry against the

Spanish navy and cavalry in the open plains of Texas. Shortly thereafter Wilkenson deciphered

two letters from Burr and sent them to President Jefferson, betraying his coconspirator

(Abernethy 151). Concerning the trial, Abernethy stresses the abundance of witnesses that

testified (140) against Burr (Abernethy 210).

 Crompton 3

In the end the presiding judge ruled that Burr’s accusers had “confused probability with

proof” (Abernethy 232). However, the newspapers had created such a stir the court began to fear

it would be dangerous to acquit Burr. Eventually he was found not guilty (Abernethy 248).

Comparatively, Abernethy questions the events of the past much less than the other authors

included in this historiography. Perhaps, as the next author accuses several authors of doing, he

was simply trying to make it a good story.

Nancy Isenberg’s book, Fallen Founder: the Life of Aaron Burr was not exclusively

written to address the Burr Conspiracy, but she devotes a significant amount of space in her book

to the events (pages 271-365). Isenberg makes two bold statements in the introduction to her

book. First, she says that (in the year 2007) she is the first professional historian to write a

biography of Aaron Burr (Isenberg vii). Second, she reveals that after researching Burr, she has

determined that most of what those amateur historians have written has led to Burr being

misconstrued into a villain (Isenberg viii). This book then, is to set the record straight about a

misunderstood American hero.

The means with which Isenberg attempts to clear Burr’s name are largely emotional and

at times appear to border an infatuation with the historical figure. “Once Burr killed Hamilton he

could do no right in the eyes of the public,” Isenberg writes empathetically (Isenberg 271). One

can hardly blame the American public for being unsympathetic to a murder, but Isenberg tries.

Whether right or wrong, Burr was ruined, and fled to the West where he began to raise and army.

Isenberg again makes a plea on Burr’s behalf by distinguishing treason (an attack on the United

States) from filibustering (an unauthorized military expedition into a foreign country to foment

or support a revolution). “Promoting a cross boarder filibuster to topple Spain’s New World
 Crompton 4

government is not the same as being a traitor” (Isenberg 272). This is accurate, but men do not

raise armies with the intention to do good.

Isenberg also attacks the perceived motivation for Burr’s activities in the West. She

points to evidence that Burr had planned, through a legal loophole to filibuster in Spain before he

shot Hamilton. She also talks about how his farewell speech to congress on March 2nd 1805 had

emotionally moved the legislature. Many in the Senate were even moved to tears, as he stepped

down and slammed the door behind himself (Isenberg 279). With this evidence to support her,

Isenberg concludes that Burr’s actions in the West were not the last ditch efforts of a desperate

man (Isenberg 287).

Finally, Isenberg blames the media for the misconception of Burr’s character and

intentions. She says that while Burr was investing in infrastructure in Kentucky (a canal on the

Ohio River near Louisville), two “hack journalists fanned the flames of an imaginary

conspiracy” (Isenberg 306). All authors seem to agree in one way or another it was Burr’s

association with General Wilkenson, himself a shady character, which led to Burr’s arrest and

trial. Isenberg pointed out the fear Burr had of going to trial in New Orleans, which was under

martial law of his main accuser/coconspirator (Isenberg 319). After being acquitted in Virginia

Isenberg quoted John Adams as saying Burr was, “either an idiot or a lunatic” (Isenberg 365).

Isenberg offers an interesting prospective, and takes a brave position, but even if Burr was not

the Napoleon of the West, his undeniable ambition draws the inevitable comparison.

The two previous authors were implicating conclusions about Burr’s character, but Roger

G. Kennedy is explicit in his take on the events in Burr, Hamiliton, and Jefferson: A Study in

Character. Kennedy also devotes significant space to the events of the Burr Conspiracy (pages
 Crompton 5

257-370). Because Hamilton has already been shot at the point in the book the allotted space

focuses on the relationship between Burr and Jefferson during the Conspiracy. The author

Kennedy’s attitude towards Burr can be described as a quiet respect. He is not attempting to tell a

story in which Burr is the antagonist as Abernethy did, and he is not affectionately trying to clear

Burr’s reputation as Isenberg did. Kennedy is simply examining Burr’s character throughout the

Conspiracy.

As with anyone worthy of a character study, the author sees Burr as a normal person but

at the same time so much more. This is illuminated by a quote from Andrew Jackson: “[Burr] is

as far from a fool as I ever saw, and yet is as easily fooled as any man I ever knew” (Kennedy

261). Kennedy’s assessment of Burr’s character echoes contemporary celebrity gossip and

perhaps rightfully so. Burr may not have loved New Orleans, but New Orleans loved Burr. The

clergy there were excited to talk to him as a Princeton trained theologian (Kennedy 263); the

women (even the nuns) were excited to talk to him as a handsome and charming man (Kennedy

265); and those who were interested in filibustering in Mexico were interested in hearing his

careful inquiries concerning political conditions in that country (Kennedy 262).

The advantage of Kennedy’s book is the consideration he gives to how Burr’s escapades

must have seemed to Jefferson. War with Spain was a real possibility, but without sufficient

naval force a costly defeat for America was very possible. The political climate in Europe had

changed and Napoleon, now allied with the Spanish threatened war with America if they

attacked Texas (Kennedy 282). This put Jefferson in a terrible position, given Burr’s now blatant

plans to attack Texas. As Jefferson would later find during the trial, stockpiling weapons and

supplies while talking about soon to be legal filibustering, was not treason, and in fact was not

even a crime.
 Crompton 6

During the trial, which Kennedy focuses in on, General Wilkenson admitted to forging a

portion of the cipher letter he had received from Burr (Kennedy 297). This tainted the most

important evidence the prosecution had: a letter from Burr himself discussing the plan to take

military control of the Western United States while Wilkenson was to take New Spain. Many

years later Burr was asked if these were in fact his intentions, to which he replied, “No, I would

as soon have thought of taking possession of the moon” (Kennedy 365). Kennedy seems to

conclude in agreement with Andrew Jackson, that Burr was in fact a very smart opportunist that

fell for the traps any ambitious man would, given the situation.

The final work considered in this historiography is a journal article written by Isaac Joslin

Cox in 1923. The article is titled The Louisiana-Texas Frontier During the Burr Conspiracy.

Cox focuses on attitudes and fears of the Spanish in light of what they were hearing about Burr.

Cox wastes no time pointing out that Burr had an unflattering reputation with the Spanish since

he bounced around the idea of taking Florida from them (Cox 274). The leadership in New Spain

figured any invasion would have to come by land from New Orleans, because an American

invasion from the North would involve fighting as many Indians as Spaniards, and a sea invasion

would be difficult without a proper navy (Cox 275).

When Burr mysteriously showed up in New Orleans the Spanish were scrambling to put

together some sort of defense. Mexico City only sent 49 men to reinforce the threatened area,

and spared no extra guns or artillery (Cox 279). Cox refers to Burr and Wilkenson as “ministers

of vengeance and apostles of freedom” (Cox 281). He also says that as war became less and less

probable, Wilkenson was free to betray Burr, forever attaching the stigma of “traitor” to Burr.

Cox presents Burr as the kind of man who can simply travel to a city and cause a world power to
 Crompton 7

rethink their defenses. The article is very academic, and would not make much sense to someone

reading about the topic for the first time.

All four authors wrote about the events from a different perspective, but there is one area

that was not explored by any of the authors: The motivation of potential filibusters living in the

New Orleans Territory. Burr was not interested in The New Orleans Territory. As noted by

Isenberg he referred to it as “vile country” (Isenberg 292). Anyone who has traveled to the

region will tell you the same. Characterized by brackish, unfarmable, and often unlivable

swamps, none of the authors asked the obvious question: Why would anyone want to live in New

Orleans? And furthermore, how does the answer to that question lend itself to the Burr

Conspiracy? Compared to other parts of the West, the New Orleans Territory presented more

problems than opportunities for its residents. The city was critically strategic, but the good land

and silver mines were just to the West in New Spain.

At one point Jefferson even noted that filibustering Mexico was such a popular idea that

Burr could have taken Mexico City in six weeks if war with Spain did in fact break out (Kennedy

269). Further study needs to be done to figure out why this was such an alluring prospect to the

average man, not just Burr and Wilkenson. Whether it was for wealth, or just a brighter future, it

is obvious geography and economics played a role in motivating people to support filibustering

with Burr. None of the authors explored these motivating circumstances, but rather attributed

local sentiment to Burr’s charisma or to the decrees of a far off government in Washington. The

clearest resolution to the events surrounding the Burr Conspiracy requires a study of how

filibustering, secession, or war with Spain would have affected the average settler in New

Orleans Territory.
 Crompton 8

The books The Burr Conspiracy, The Fallen Founder, and Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson

along with the article Louisiana-Texas Frontier During the Burr Conspiracy offer differing

views of the same historical events. Some of the authors agreed, but most of them differed on

specifics or motivational factors. The authors’ methods, purposes, and biases all came into play.

The only solid conclusion that can be made is that Aaron Burr was up to something and it made a

lot of people in from Mexico City, to Washington, to Spain very nervous. What he was up to

depends on who you ask.

 Crompton 9

Bibliography
Abernethy, Thomas Perkins. The Burr Conspiracy.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1954.

Cox, Issac Joslin. "The Louisiana-Texas Frontier During the Burr Conspiracy."

The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 10.3 (1923): 274-284.

Isenberg, Nancy. Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr.

New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2007.

Kennedy, Roger G. Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.