What If: President Burr

Mrs. X likes to refer to these type of posts as my nerd posts. She's right, but I still like to do them.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (DR) defeated John Adams and Charles Pinckney (F). In the days prior to the 12th Amendment, the electors cast 2 votes for President and the runner up was supposed to be Vice-President. This was how Jefferson (a man of the opposite party) managed to be John Adam's Vice-President. In the election of 1800, the electors were supposed to game the system so that Aaron Burr received one less vote than Thomas Jefferson. Someone screwed up though and Jefferson and Burr received the same number of electoral votes, throwing the election to the House to be decided.

Burr deferred to Jefferson but he refused to withdraw from the race and even stated openly that if the House somehow elected him, he would serve as President. The procedure in the House was that every state received one vote and that a majority of states were needed to produce a President. There were sixteen states then. Seven were controlled by the Democratic-Republican party, seven were controlled by the Federalist party and two were split down the middle. For 35 ballots, the DR states (and Georgia,although it was controlled by the Federalists) voted for Jefferson while the Federalists voted for Burr (mostly to spite Jefferson since Burr was also a DR, but still seen as less abhorrent than Jefferson), while the two spit states could cast no vote. Finally, on the 36th ballot, the Federalists in Maryland and Vermont opted to abstain from voting and the DR members shifted the two split states to Jefferson.

But what if they hadn't? What if several of the DR controlled states blinked first and voted for Burr to get the process over with? Jefferson would have been enraged (although he would never have shown it publicly). The state of Virginia would likely have put on some sort of public display of rage (they had been grousing about assembling the state militia to get things on). But Burr was fairly popular in the South outside of Virginia (his son-in-law was from South Carolina) and the elevation of James Madison (who met his wife Dolly though Burr and considered him a good friend) to the Secretary of State position. Burr's other cabinet positions would probably have not varied much from Jefferson's.

Once the political dust settled, President Burr's focus would have probably shifted almost immediately to Spain. In those days, Spain controlled Florida, the entire Gulf coast, and the Louisiana Territory in addition to Mexico. However, Spain's control of these territories was more though inertia rather than heavy military investment. Spain was at the end of it's empire days and France was pressing heavily on them in Europe (France would essentially conquer Spain that same year). Spain had allowed a limited amount of trade from the Western United States to pass down the Mississippi and through New Orleans but the economy of the West was stagnated unless free trade could be established through the port. What's more, the national debt was piling up and conquest and plunder of the rich Spanish lands was seen as an easy way to settle the debt.

Burr would likely have summoned the most prominent military leader to the White House at the time: General James Wilkinson, head of the US Army and a paid agent of Spain. Burr might have also invited one of the loudest agitators for war with Spain: Andrew Jackson (currently serving as judge on the Tennessee Supreme Court and Colonel in the state militia). Wilkinson would likely have flattered Burr but demurred against an actual war with Spain. In addition to having an agent of Spain at its head, the Army of the US was only about 6,000 men at the time. Jackson, on the other hand, would have likely been enthusiastic at the prospect and spoke eagerly about raising forces in Tennessee for invading Spanish Florida.

Burr would likely have planned out a two prong attack. Wilkinson would a western army (made of most of the forces of the United States) to seize St. Louis and then float down the Mississippi to take Natchez, Baton Rouge and finally New Orleans. Jackson might have been appointed to a US Army generalship and then tasked with raising an army from Tennessee, the Carolinas and Georgia to invade Spanish Florida and take St. Augustine. Then it would march West and take Pensacola and Mobile before linking with Wilkinson at New Orleans. From there it could be assessed whether to stop there or to push on either South to Veracruz or overland to Santa Fe.

Madison would likely have insisted that they try to negotiate with Spain first (this would also give Jackson and Wilkinson time to build and train their armies). Burr would likely have agreed and postponed invasion until Spring of 1802, while telling Madison that he was free to use the threat of war to push Spain into a deal. Spain, under threat of French claims to Louisiana, would likely have told the Americans to piss off. Spain may have even been hoping that an American invasion of Louisiana might prompt France to aid Spain in an American war to protect the territory that France was claiming. This is unlikely as France viewed the territory in the same light as Spain, large and expensive to garrison while not yielding much to the treasury.

With the failure of negotiations, the Americans would likely have gone ahead with the war and invaded Spanish territory in 1802. Wilkinson would likely have dallied and done very little beyond the occupation of St. Louis without significant prompting. He likely would have made complaints about logistics or supplies or the state of his men. Anything that would have slowed him and prevented him from moving against Natchez.

Jackson would likely have had no such limitations. The population of Spanish Florida was still very small and St. Augustine would likely have fallen very quickly. Needing very little garrison, Jackson would have likely marched overland to Pensacola in short order. West Florida was more restive than East Florida as the British settlers resented Spanish rule. Upon marching into East Florida, Jackson would likely have received support from the locals which would have made taking Pensacola and Mobile significantly easier.

At this point, things get tricky. Jackson might have become aware at this point that Wilkinson had not moved from St. Louis. Rather than waste men and material marching overland up to Natchez, Jackson would likely have enlisted the support of the locals in West Florida and marched straight for New Orleans. New Orleans would have had a significant garrison as well as some artillery. However, there would have likely been confusion as to whether the Spanish or French actually owned the city at that time. Dissension over control would likely have weakened the defenders. Things might have been bad enough that elements of the city would have simply invited Jackson in as a liberator from either side.

With these captures, Wilkinson would probably have given up on his Spanish masters and set down to take Natchez and Baton Rouge. If New Orleans had already fallen by this point, both cities might simply have surrendered rather than risk any loss of blood. Negotiations would have been reopened with Spain and France. Likely, the French would have said good riddance and just asked for some monetary compensation, likely in terms not that different from the actual Louisiana Purchase. Burr would also have probably instructed Madison to push for ceding of all Spanish territory North of the Rio Grande. Spain would have objected harshly but with an American army of likely over 10,000 men ready to march on either Santa Fe or even go down to Mexico City, there was little they could do.

Negotiations would have continued into 1803 but by then the United States would have been in control of nearly all the continental territory that it currently has. Only the disputed regions in the North with British Canada would have remained to be settled.

With all these feathers in his cap, Burr would likely stood for and easily won reelection in 1804. Although he would have burned in humiliation, Jefferson would probably have not bothered to challenge Burr for the party nomination off such a significant victory. On the Federalist side, Alexander Hamilton would likely be operating heavily on the sidelines to try and undermine Burr. He likely would have thwarted Burr in some aspects, although not directly since Hamilton was out of the government and barred from running for the Presidency himself. However, because of the prominence of the position and because of the work involved, it is unlikely that Burr would have had a chance to engage in a duel with Hamilton (at least until after his term as President was over).

One other thing that might have changed historically is the War of 1812. British impressment and seizure of American ships was becoming more and more of an issue. In 1807, the USS Chesapeake was fired upon by the HMS Leopard when she failed to submit to being searched for British deserters. If Aaron Burr were President at the time (and especially if he was being harried by Hamilton's Federalist Party) Burr might have mobilized General Jackson and his army (which would have still be seeing to the establishment of American sovereignty over the vast reaches of former Spanish territory) to march North and lay waste to Detroit and other parts of Canada in retaliation for British attacks on American interests.

Because the British were so heavily tied down with Napoleon in Europe, the British would probably never have been able to do more than the same modified defensive strategy they did in the first two years of the War of 1812. It is not impossible that the British might have simply settled things with a minor treaty in 1808 or 1809 simply to get the Americans off their back while they were fully invested in Europe. It is unlikely that the Americans would have gained more than pushing out British influence from Michigan (although some areas of Ontario might have been taken as well), especially if the British settled quickly. But the seeds would probably have been sown for a subsequent war after 1814 when the British were free to exercise their full strength.

Unless things were going badly with the war with Britain, Burr probably wouldn't have stood for the Presidency in 1808. Assuming the friendship with Madison had stood the test of the Presidency, Burr would probably have recommended that he be nominated in 1808.

The long term effects of a Burr presidency in this line are harder to surmise. The taking of Spanish territory north of the Rio Grande before the formation of Mexico would mean no war with Mexico in 1844. Indeed, Mexico might have declared her independence even earlier than 1810, once it was shown that the Spanish were impotent against a determined force. Mexico might have sparred a bit with the United States over the territory taken, but since it would have come directly from Spain and not from Mexico (and was very lightly populated outside of Santa Fe and a few California missions), Mexico would probably never bothered to risk all out war over territory that she had very little claim to either.

Settlement of the West would have probably continued at about the same pace. California might have been settled a bit sooner and that might have lead to the discovery of gold sooner and a stronger westward migration as much as 20 years earlier than the historical model.

Because there would likely not have been a significantly decisive engagement in the war between the United States and Britain (such as there was in the Battle of New Orleans) Britain and the United States would likely have renewed hostilities at some future date. The US would likely be feeling pompous and Britain would likely be feeling a strong disdain for the United States' uppity nature. Likely the conflict would have come over Oregon territory. In this case, the fight might have actually come in "54'40" or Fight."

The largest issue would have been slavery. The southern states would have pushed for slavery in all of the new territories but the same objections that were raised in the 1840's would probably be raised earlier. Burr was a known opponent of slavery (although he kept a few slaves himself) and would have respected the argument that the Constitution kept slavery out of the Northwest Territory. In the end, a form of Missouri compromise would likely have been settled on. But the settling of the American West earlier than in the historical model would have likely brought conflict and civil war sooner than 1860.