WI: Burr in 1801?

[Flubber]

If there's going to be a war under Burr, it would be a Hispano-American one.

Agreed, and it's going to be a disaster when you remember that James Wilkinson is in the picture and will probably be assigned to a major command.

 

[Space Oddity]

Agreed, and it's going to be a disaster when you remember that James Wilkinson is in the picture and will probably be assigned to a major command.

Actually, no. Wilkinson is a rather sketchy adventurer, and he is not getting close to President Burr. In all likelihood, Wilkinson is going to keep working on his first 'partner'--Alexander Hamilton. (Small funny world, ain't it?)

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.

Oh, I agree that Hamilton is largely a spent force by this time. However, in the situation people are describing, with armies and militias marching to decide the Presidency, a sense of 'anything goes' is likely to start up. Hamilton is likely to start making his "suggestions" a bit louder. Does anyone listen to them? Or does he just destroy whatever shreds of credibility he has left?

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.

If the Constitution holds, yes, most certainly. If not, the matter grows murkier.

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.

While Burr is definitely the dominant figure in New York politics at this time, the Clintons are far from gone. And again, if fighting starts--as people on here are suggesting--it becomes a matter of does New York want to bleed to get Burr the Presidency?

(If fighting DOESN'T start, then, yeah, New York is Burr's powerbase, and likely to remain as such.)

 

[Shawn Endresen]

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.

I don't see Burr having actual plans regarding war with anybody. He simply takes the first war offered with a smile and says thank you.

The hostility against Spain is entirely based on their nominal control of New Orleans and thus the Mississippi River system. It evaporated completely with the Louisiana Purchase. Since the factors leading to the purchase are largely undisturbed, the purchase is still very likely, and even if Burr started actively planning an offensive war against Spain from his first day in office (not implausible, but he's no more a warmonger than Jefferson), events will outpace him and render such planning irrelevant.

I was thinking of the continuing impressment difficulties and the Leopard incident in 1807. Jefferson gritted his teeth and delayed war with Britain. I don't think Burr would. Which is good for America.

Of course, if New Spain goes as OTL, its revolution will begin during Burr's third term, and now I can imagine him feeling the need to become directly and intimately involved in it. To the gibbering horror of many Americans, who are starting to see that the Burr administration could be war with out end, with whoever's up for it this year...

Wilkinson was, regrettably, the highest ranking active service member of the regular army during this period. His involvement is extremely hard to get rid of. On the other hand, his utter self-absorption at least precludes loyalty to any foreign power.

 

[Flubber]

Actually, no. Wilkinson is a rather sketchy adventurer, and he is not getting close to President Burr.

I'm talking about the proposed war with Spain and not Wilkinson sitting Burr's cabinet.

Wilkinson is a high ranking army officer, he served as the Army's chief twice in the OTL, he fought in the Revolution and with the Legion of the US along the frontier, he was tapped during the Quasi War to raise a troops which would be used to seize New Orleans, he built and occupied a fort in Illinois along the Ohio for those troops, and he's been an agent in the pay of the King of Spain since 1787.

So, he's got the military credentials to serve at a high level in the war, he's been active in the region where the war will be fought, and he's being paid by the US' prospective opponent in the war.

Yup, everything will turn out just fine...

 

[IchBinDieKaiser]

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.

This is a very interesting incident. Could you point me to a source that talks about this?

 

[Wolfpaw]

The hostility against Spain is entirely based on their nominal control of New Orleans and thus the Mississippi River system. It evaporated completely with the Louisiana Purchase. Since the factors leading to the purchase are largely undisturbed, the purchase is still very likely, and even if Burr started actively planning an offensive war against Spain from his first day in office (not implausible, but he's no more a warmonger than Jefferson), events will outpace him and render such planning irrelevant.

The hostility by no means dissipated; there was Jefferson's illegal seizing of the Floridas (because they were our "God-given land"), and you almost immediately had plots stirring up to drive the Dons out of Mexico (Hamilton dreamed of it, Burr dreamed of it, Wilkinson pretended he did, Jackson always had a thing for Texas) and this hostility was transferred seamlessly to the Mexicans post-independence.

I was thinking of the continuing impressment difficulties and the Leopard incident in 1807. Jefferson gritted his teeth and delayed war with Britain. I don't think Burr would. Which is good for America.

Burr was keen enough to New England sensibilities (and NE secessionist tendencies) IOTL that I don't think he'd risk a war with Britain as president. And for what, the Canadas? Burr didn't care about the Canadas; his was a trans-Mississippi eye. Nobody wants war with Britain; America's chosen foes were the tribes and the Dons.

Wilkinson was, regrettably, the highest ranking active service member of the regular army during this period. His involvement is extremely hard to get rid of. On the other hand, his utter self-absorption at least precludes loyalty to any foreign power.

Wilkinson was loyal to Spain in the end, dying an opium addled Bible salesman in Mexico City. He was a Spanish triple-agent who managed to dupe Burr, Jefferson, and a great many other intellects for quite some time. Burr would likely keep Jamie on because 1) he thinks he's smarter than Jamie, 2) He has a history with Jamie, 3) he believes that Jamie is ultimately loyal to the U.S., not the Dons. His major use is in provoking a war with Spain along the Sabine River. I see Burr giving most of the military responsibility to Gen. Jackson and possibly removing Jamie if he's as awful a governor of New Orleans as he was OTL.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

This is a very interesting incident. Could you point me to a source that talks about this?

Madison's diary is always my favorite contemporary source. The man wrote diligently, it takes up about 12 feet of shelf space at my library. I am also fond of Milton Lomask's two-volume biography of Burr (the first volume being the relevant one here, and generally the more interesting).

As to Wolfpaw...your reading of early American culture must be completely different from mine.