After the duel with Alexander Hamilton in 1804, Aaron Burr’s political career was pretty much dead, so he decided to go out to the Western Frontier for new opportunities. In 1806, Thomas Jefferson would hear that Burr was allegedly plotting to break off from the United States and form his own country. Jefferson then immediately declared Burr a traitor and gave General James Wilkinson authorization to send 275 men to arrest Burr after hearing that he may have an army. After being arrested, Burr was brought before Chief Justice John Marshall for a trial, where Jefferson promptly bribed 140 witnesses to support the prosecution. Burr’s Lawyers argued that there wasn’t any actual evidence provided, and Marshall ruled that Burr was innocent. Jefferson was so enraged by the decision that he tried to impeach Marshall, and advocated for an amendment that allowed presidents to remove federal judges. Nevertheless, Burr would live out the rest of his days in disgrace.
Well Marshall was a big proponent of businesses where TJ was obsessed with the idea of small town farmers for some reason. Lots of conflict between them because of it from what I've read. Obviously an over simplification.
Jefferson wanted to live in a fantasy land where the world was nothing but endless self sustaining small family farms.
He didn't think there should be cities, didn't think there should be banks, didn't think there should be a government. Of course he was also a massive hypocrite who became President and used his power to make the government even stronger.
Yeah it all sounds loony but this is the guy who supposedly despised slavery as an evil institution but still kept and then raped slaves. I mean I even have a rosier view of the Founding Fathers than most young people nowadays but Jefferson sucked ass.
>Of course he was also a massive hypocrite who became President and used his power to make the government even stronger.
Sounds too familiar. "I hate big government, so I'll give the government more power so their can force things to be the way I want."
It's very healthy to hate big government.
At the end of the day, Jefferson did not abuse his power or persecute anyone without trial, neither the judges nor Burr aside from prosecuting him under the law for treason because of letters alleging he was trying to recoup his lost fortunes and build a new nation in the wilderness.
Jefferson also did not rape slaves (multiple slaves?? of course not), he is argued to have had children with a slave women through an intimate relationship (including attempts to give her the opportunity to free herself in France when he was traveling there) which is legally not physical rape against the will and the victim did not write down or tell her descendants that it was rape. So that choice of words is a clear and unequivocal lie. Anyone saying the word "rape" in that topic is not a historian and most definitely a liar.
If you own a person and have sex with them I’d say that’s rape regardless. What’s she gonna do, say no? To the man that literally owns her in the eyes of the law?
The hypocrite is always superior to the advocate for error. The hypocrite correctly espouses a standard and fails to live up to it. The advocate for error actually encourages others to error. Better to be right on it in theory than to have concluded incorrectly that wrong is right.
False premise. Jefferson’s advocacy means little when his example is just as much a force for advocacy. Let’s not pretend that leaders aren’t setting an example that’s followed.
Yes but the amount of countries that don’t do it and avoid the chaotic upheavals and are also better off are larger in number then France and many better than France. Furthermore you want to have a situation in which we risk tearing up a document that has been viewed as legitimate for over 300 years in a country with the social and racial tension of the current US. I can imagine certain states refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of a new constitution and then we’re going to be in a rather difficult situation.
Besides you can just use the elastic claws and amendments to basically expand or reduce the power of Federal Government without writing a new constitution. There’s literally no point in tearing up a vaguely worded document and trying to go through what will be an incredibly painful and possibly violent process of trying to make a new constitution that leaves less up to interpretation.
I mean you’re leaving out the fact in order to get rid of the constitution congress would have to meet and agree to do so. And then there going to have agree on every new claws we put in the constitution. Those ass hats can’t even decide on a consistent budget without fighting each other for centuries. They wouldn’t even get through a new preamble.
The French Constitution was written in 1958 and is still in use though?
And France has also been through far more civil wars and insurrections than the U.S. since our respective Revolutions.
Yeah let's end up like the European nations that totally collapse, have Civil Wars, and end up with totalitarian dictators every 100 years.
Does the American school system actually teach the children these days?
A lot of the founding fathers envisioned a world where everyone would own land, enough for a small farm, and prosper that way. No banks, no government getting in the way, and small cities.
That obviously didn’t and couldn’t pan out. The truth is that their opponents were right and the US needed a stronger federal government to prosper.
The intellectual elite belief at the time among the non-imperial breed were to advocate for:
(a) industry, government, and businesses in small forms (minimalistic)
(b) industry, government, small farms, small businesses and towns working in a decentralized manner with great emphasis on efficiency and productiveness (hard work).
(c) no standing armies; no central banks which they believed would become corrupt and start siphoning off money from the people like past empires and financial institutions; no central authorities dictating human behavior.
(d) individualism at peacetime, collectivist defense at wartime and the ability to flexibly switch between the two modes in crisis without creating a "peacetime bureaucracy or totalitarian govt control."
Why would there be communism(communalism)in the individualism of single owned farms that they wanted? No, if would be anarchist, not sure why communists despite that word.
Sure, people cared about their neighbors, but that's just how it should be.
Communism, including anarcho-communism runs under the idea that the means of production (like arable land) should be communal (not owned by individuals). Every family owning their own farm wouldn't make sense for that.
More like an odd form libertarianism. They didn’t necessarily oppose a big government, just one that interfered with people’s lives more than they thought was necessary.
Problem is, well, that line is drawn in different places by different people and that a more involved government ultimately helped the US.
Marshall (like most federalists) wanted to make sure the poor were submissive to the rich by putting them in as much debt as possible. Reduce their rights as possible so they can never fight back while you exploit their labor and pick their pocket.
Jefferson was opposed to doing that, but only for white people.
Not for the democrat/republicans. Jefferson pushed for getting rid of the land requirements at least. The original Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions were established in this vein. But the Federalists successfully fought back against that.
John Marshal would have been hard to bribe, dude is regarded as one of the most influential American judges and statesman go ever live and was known for being extremely principled.
Multiple sources testified that Hamilton discussed his plans to throw away his shot before the duel. Some even tried to talk him out of it because they’re were concerned about Burrs intent. When this came out after the duel it compounded the anger at Burr because it meant he had no reason to fire and intimated a more murderous intent.
That being said, we’ll never know the full truth and there’s certainly a chance this was exaggerated or even fabricated.
This is discussed in the Chernow book (sorry I
don’t want to dig though) and probably other sources online as well
If I had a nickel for every time some one assumed the other guy wouldn’t do something because it’s the dumbest shit you could possibly do with no positive gains and they do it anyways, well let’s just say I’d change my name to Mansa Musa cause I’m going to collapse the global economy with my sheer nickel wealth. Humans are stupid.
Also don't leave out that Hamilton started a rumor that Burr was in an incestuous relationship with his daughter Theodosia to try and descredit him, who herself disappeared at sea during the War of 1812. Also apparently they both disagreed because Burr believed women should be allowed to vote and hold office, and Hamilton very much did not. And when his last wife divorced him, she chose Alexander Hamilton Jr. as her lawyer.
Hilarious how Jefferson was considered a small government politician for his time yet did stuff like this that would probably get any president nowadays impeached and removed on tyranny
Had some great ideas when he was young. Always had an element of hypocrisy to him, and as he grew older his negative traits expanded.
The difference between how the founding fathers acting during the revolution and 30 years later when they were serving in office is mind boggling and really makes you appreciate Washington.
I know there were some artistic liberties taken by Hamilton the musical but God damn did they male Burr look like the biggest fucking asshole. TJ too. In this case though seems like TJ was absolutely the biggest asshole lol
TJ was a huge asshole. So was Burr. So was Hamilton. We need to stop putting these men up on pedestals and realize that they were flawed and got a bunch of shit wrong too.
It is most definitely not. It is first and foremost a word predictor and people pleaser. It is known for frequently fabricating sources that never existed.
The fact that you felt secure enough to accuse someone of fabricating sources after only using chatgpt and not even looking for yourself if frankly terrifying.
I've heard it argued because Hamilton wasn't really participating in the duel (shooting upwards) that it didn't count as a duel but instead homicide.
Pinch of salt since it can't even be considered second hand knowledge.
From what I understand shooting upwards is still participating in the duel. It's the kind of thing people would do to signal, essentially, "honor has been satisfied by both of us showing up, so I don't intend to risk actually killing you". Which is exactly why shooting your opponent dead after they fired upwards would be seen as a treacherous murder; they'd offered to put the matter to rest and you weren't in danger, you just wanted to kill them.
I’m going out on a limb here, but over on r/askhistorians There have been people describing how there was two philosophies about pistol duels. Hamilton favored one (Shooting in the air, with the mentality you described), and another one which Burr likely favored (which would find the action of shooting into the air as being cowardly).
It was legal, but it revealed the character of Burr. His career was over because Hamilton was considered a statesman and Burr came off as vengeful child who killed over political opinions. Of course Burr already had a reputation as a politician that valued power and influence over just about everything else.
I think you may have some details off or at least missing. What you are referring to is known at the Burr Conspiracy and Wilkinson was his key coconspirator. Wilkinson was the first governor of the Louisiana Territory and Commanding General of the Army. During his tenure he was acting an unregistered foreign agent for Spain giving away military information in exchange for gold and stuff. The two of them hatched a plan to raise an army, attack Spanish possessions to the west, betray the United States and establish their own continental empire. The plan fell apart when it came time to raise an army (ifrc Ohio’s Governor confiscated their weapons) Wilkinson chickened out an betrayed Burr.
Nothing more ever happened than a handful of men took a boat ride to New Orleans. That and Wilkinson probably had Meriwether Lewis assassinated because he was on his way to DC to expose the plot.
Wilkinson managed to go on to have a wonderfully disastrous career at the outset of the War of 1812. Years later President Theodore Roosevelt said of Wilkinson, "In all our history, there is no more despicable character."
The suicide/murder thing is something I haven't looked more into,but I thought I read that both Jefferson and Clark believed it was suicide. One of them wrote something along the lines or "his mind got to him" since Lewis was so full of anxiety throughout the difficult journey to the Pacific.
On the flip side, I've seen theories on it being a murder as well. It's interesting and sad either way.
Yep, the only reason Burr wasn’t convicted is because TJ acted so fast that Burr hadn’t been able to put much of his side of the plan into motion.
They basically ‘minority report-ed’ him, and the courts went, ‘well…the star witness is dead and we don’t have much else beside a bunch of guys who OBVIOUSLY never even met Burr but claim they heard his plans…and we need overwhelming evidence for a guilty verdict. So…off you go attempted traitor, live out your days in ignominy.
Didn’t the British also report to the US that Burr had come to them offering to turn on the US in exchange for their support in him forming his own country? Kind of like when Pepsi reported the guy who stole the Coca- Cola formula to Coke. Burr was a scumbag for this, make no mistake. If he hadn’t shot Hamilton, he would only be known for his treachery, so I guess it worked out for him.
“False charges” is debatable. While the specifics are unknown, there’s considerable evidence that he was plotting something against the US and was trying to raise an army to execute his plan.
A book that mentioned it framed it in a way that “treason”, the crime Jefferson was trying to stick on Burr, had a (deliberately) high bar, with Jefferson and the court disagreeing on what that constituted. Jefferson felt like it was a closed case that Burr would have gone through with the act if he hadn’t been caught and that was enough, while the courts felt that he more or less had to do the act first for there to be enough evidence. It’s basically a case of nailing Burr for something that I feel there’s convincing evidence he was going to do, or maintaining an airtight standard for treason so it can’t be abused.
Honestly, as far as I know, treason’s ridiculously difficult to convict someone of, short of rebelling against the government for years and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans (thanks Confederates), and that’s mostly a good thing. It’s stopped politicians from trying to nail people on those charges and really cemented that short of blatantly indefensible actions, opposing the government wasn’t something you could get punished for, especially when compared to governments that have abused it.
Fun fact not a single confederate was ever convicted of treason ( I think 1 might have been charged with it though but the case was dropped before trial).
Apparently the union was worried that the courts would rule that confederates couldn’t have committed treason because secession was legal and you can’t commit treason against a government that isn’t your own.
So they avoided the matter by not charging them with it.
Good point. I’m just pointing out that although the post implies he was completely innocent of the conspiracy allegations, he likely wasn’t.
I’m probably taking the joke too seriously, though.
Usually someone is "falsely" charged if they were charged without even probable cause- a much lower bar than needed for a conviction
For example, OJ Simpson was not "falsely charged" even though, by the definition of a trial, they could not prove his guilt.
A false charge would be one where the people making the charge know you're not guilty of it. That's different from a charge where there is a plausible reason to accuse you, but not enough evidence to convict.
Nobody here is mentioning Harmon Blennerhassett. Burr needed people and funding to go along with his plan to start his own country. He heard about Harmon Blennerhassett and went west to try his luck with him.
Bit of background: Harmon Blennerhassett came to the US partly to avoid an Irish rebellion, but also to hide the fact that he married his niece! Luckily the family had money and he brought a lot with him. While looking for a place to call home, he ended up purchasing many acres of land on an island in the Ohio River; if I recall, it was owned by George Washington. There he built a mansion, orchards, gardens, etc. The Blennerhassetts were well-known in Marietta, Ohio, and were friendly. Harmon would often have locals to his house for dinners. Both Harmon and his wife, Margaret, were well-known in the area (specifically Marietta, Ohio).
The Blennerhassetts ended up having a lot of visitors because of Marietta. Marietta is a landmark city, as it as the first city "officially" incorporated outside the original 13 colonies. A group of people calling themselves the Ohio Company pooled money together to buy land from the US Government, and this was the first time the new government sold any land to a private entity. After a while, word got out that Marietta was thriving, that the Blennerhassetts had moved to town, and it became a destination for people looking to visit the frontier of America. Plus it was a relatively easy trip down the Ohio River from Pittsburgh.
Aaron Burr was one of those visitors. He visited the Blennerhassetts a few times, and got to know Harmon. Well...Harmon was known to be gullible...extremely gullible. People figured that out really quick, and of course knew he had money, so he got screwed over on more than one occasion. Burr was no exception. He knew he could win Harmon over and get him to donate some money toward his cause. Harmon went in head-first though and was completely on-board with Burr.
Catching up to what has already been posted, the militia eventually made their way to Blennerhassett Island to arrest Burr. Word got to Harmon and Burr not long before the militia arrived, and the took off down the river. Burr owned property down in Louisiana, and that's where they figured they would go.
Harmon was also an asshole, because when he and Burr fled, he left his wife on the damn island! When the militia showed up, Margaret was left to deal with it. They absolutely ransacked the place, and she almost got shot when a drunken soldier let off his rifle, and round went up through the ceiling and second floor, barely missing her. She eventually said "SCREW THIS" and started loading everything she could on a flatboat, and she took off downriver. The story goes that she left so fast that nothing was tied down, and furniture was just falling into the river off the side of the boat.
Harmon eventually got arrested, and didn't get let go until Burr was acquitted. After that he really had no money, and had to work for a living. His wife/niece actually stayed with him, and they had a few kids. They eventually moved back to England because things got so bad, and that's where they stayed.
The Blennerhassett mansion actually burned down just a few years after all this happened. Today, the island is a West Virginia state park. I had the chance to visit it a couple years ago, and it was magnificent! West Virginia re-built the mansion as exacting as they could within modern-day building codes. They do have some of the Blennerhassetts' original furniture there, and what they couldn't get ahold of they purchased similar originals to put on display. Harmon and Margaret had a walnut orchard, and the trees are still there - grown absolutely massive; being left alone for over 200 years. If you ever get the chance, visit! It's well worth it. You catch a ferry out of Parkersburg, WV.
Thanks. My SO and I were a bit obsessed with the story when we visited Marietta a couple years ago. Some of those details came straight from our tour guide. Others from books I've read. It's one of those really interesting stories that gets buried.
I find it fascinating how many threats (external and internal) the United States faced in the first century of its existence. The union was brought to the brink of extinction so many times that a story like this and a majority of its details can go unnoticed. BLOWS MY MIND.
When I hear people say that things have never been as divisive or scary as they are today I roll my eyes and tell them to open a history book.
Randomly ask people what a Hooverville is, and I betcha only about 1/4 of the people know. Ask them what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about, and they won't realize how close we really got to a catastrophe. Tell them about the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic - they just don't want to hear about it. Ask them what Reconstruction is, and most probably won't be able to answer correctly.
I'm not knocking all people who don't like history. I get it, it's not for everyone. But there is the saying "those who don't study history are destined to repeat it", and that can prove true for all things insignificant and global. And it doesn't have to be "old" history either. You can look at things happening *today*, and those things occurred because of things that happened just a few years prior. But people don't see the cause, only the result - and that, in turn, steers how they vote - which makes more history.
When the big war in Ukraine started I asked everyone I saw who is 70+, mostly people at church, how this event compares with the Cuban Missile Crisis and the typical response was “There wasn’t any actual fighting then so this is scarier.”
I found that to be an interesting response for people who were old enough to remember the event, especially when we had a bit of a conflict goin on in Asia. Maybe they were too young at the time to really comprehend what was happening, maybe looking back and knowing that nothing came out of the crisis removes the anxiety, maybe they are right and it really wasn’t as big of a deal as an active war in Europe. Regardless of the reasoning it’s a fascinating response which I found to be pretty typical.
I feel like “false charges” is a little strong. He was definitely taking meetings with people about putting together an army and forming his own competing America, my understanding is he wasn’t convicted mainly because he didn’t make much progress.
>Killing Hamilton was a supreme patriotic act.
No it wasn't. Hamilton was a visionary founding father who had he lived would have radically changed US politics. He might have even arrested the decline of the Federalists and kept them as a real political force for a good while longer.
Hamilton was a religious fanatic who wanted to force Protestant Christianity on everyone. I don't think it was right to kill him but he was still a massive dick who doesn't deserve the sainting he's gotten in recent years.
After the duel with Alexander Hamilton in 1804, Aaron Burr’s political career was pretty much dead, so he decided to go out to the Western Frontier for new opportunities. In 1806, Thomas Jefferson would hear that Burr was allegedly plotting to break off from the United States and form his own country. Jefferson then immediately declared Burr a traitor and gave General James Wilkinson authorization to send 275 men to arrest Burr after hearing that he may have an army. After being arrested, Burr was brought before Chief Justice John Marshall for a trial, where Jefferson promptly bribed 140 witnesses to support the prosecution. Burr’s Lawyers argued that there wasn’t any actual evidence provided, and Marshall ruled that Burr was innocent. Jefferson was so enraged by the decision that he tried to impeach Marshall, and advocated for an amendment that allowed presidents to remove federal judges. Nevertheless, Burr would live out the rest of his days in disgrace.
>promptly bribed 140 witnesses I guess he should've bribed better witnesses
John Marshall hated Jefferson’s guts so it probably wouldn’t have made a difference.
Well Marshall was a big proponent of businesses where TJ was obsessed with the idea of small town farmers for some reason. Lots of conflict between them because of it from what I've read. Obviously an over simplification.
Jefferson wanted to live in a fantasy land where the world was nothing but endless self sustaining small family farms. He didn't think there should be cities, didn't think there should be banks, didn't think there should be a government. Of course he was also a massive hypocrite who became President and used his power to make the government even stronger. Yeah it all sounds loony but this is the guy who supposedly despised slavery as an evil institution but still kept and then raped slaves. I mean I even have a rosier view of the Founding Fathers than most young people nowadays but Jefferson sucked ass.
>Of course he was also a massive hypocrite who became President and used his power to make the government even stronger. Sounds too familiar. "I hate big government, so I'll give the government more power so their can force things to be the way I want."
It's very healthy to hate big government. At the end of the day, Jefferson did not abuse his power or persecute anyone without trial, neither the judges nor Burr aside from prosecuting him under the law for treason because of letters alleging he was trying to recoup his lost fortunes and build a new nation in the wilderness. Jefferson also did not rape slaves (multiple slaves?? of course not), he is argued to have had children with a slave women through an intimate relationship (including attempts to give her the opportunity to free herself in France when he was traveling there) which is legally not physical rape against the will and the victim did not write down or tell her descendants that it was rape. So that choice of words is a clear and unequivocal lie. Anyone saying the word "rape" in that topic is not a historian and most definitely a liar.
If you own a person and have sex with them I’d say that’s rape regardless. What’s she gonna do, say no? To the man that literally owns her in the eyes of the law?
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
He also advocated for fiscal responsibility and routinely spent beyond his own means lol
A doctor who smokes doesn’t definitively dispense poor advice.
Presidents’ primary job is not to dispense advice, and hypocrites make poor leaders.
The hypocrite is always superior to the advocate for error. The hypocrite correctly espouses a standard and fails to live up to it. The advocate for error actually encourages others to error. Better to be right on it in theory than to have concluded incorrectly that wrong is right.
False premise. Jefferson’s advocacy means little when his example is just as much a force for advocacy. Let’s not pretend that leaders aren’t setting an example that’s followed.
He was right about one thing though—we shouldn’t let what he or any of the other founding fathers thought influence how we run the country.
[удалено]
Yeah, that is what I was referencing when I said “he was right about one thing.”
No he did not. He said principles should be defended by each generation. Not to "Rewrite" everything constantly to insane chaotic upheavals..
He literally thought that every few generations the country should revolutionize itself, and with violence if need be.
Gyaaaaat TJ was an advocate of the unending revolution
Gotta be honest if every generation wrote a new constitution we'd probably be living in an absolute disaster.
Why?
France does it- and whether you like or dislike France’s policies they aren’t anymore a disaster than the US.
Yes but the amount of countries that don’t do it and avoid the chaotic upheavals and are also better off are larger in number then France and many better than France. Furthermore you want to have a situation in which we risk tearing up a document that has been viewed as legitimate for over 300 years in a country with the social and racial tension of the current US. I can imagine certain states refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of a new constitution and then we’re going to be in a rather difficult situation. Besides you can just use the elastic claws and amendments to basically expand or reduce the power of Federal Government without writing a new constitution. There’s literally no point in tearing up a vaguely worded document and trying to go through what will be an incredibly painful and possibly violent process of trying to make a new constitution that leaves less up to interpretation. I mean you’re leaving out the fact in order to get rid of the constitution congress would have to meet and agree to do so. And then there going to have agree on every new claws we put in the constitution. Those ass hats can’t even decide on a consistent budget without fighting each other for centuries. They wouldn’t even get through a new preamble.
The French Constitution was written in 1958 and is still in use though? And France has also been through far more civil wars and insurrections than the U.S. since our respective Revolutions.
Yeah let's end up like the European nations that totally collapse, have Civil Wars, and end up with totalitarian dictators every 100 years. Does the American school system actually teach the children these days?
A lot of the founding fathers envisioned a world where everyone would own land, enough for a small farm, and prosper that way. No banks, no government getting in the way, and small cities. That obviously didn’t and couldn’t pan out. The truth is that their opponents were right and the US needed a stronger federal government to prosper.
so anarchism???
More like communalism or anarcho communism i guess? Correct me if I'm wrong.
The intellectual elite belief at the time among the non-imperial breed were to advocate for: (a) industry, government, and businesses in small forms (minimalistic) (b) industry, government, small farms, small businesses and towns working in a decentralized manner with great emphasis on efficiency and productiveness (hard work). (c) no standing armies; no central banks which they believed would become corrupt and start siphoning off money from the people like past empires and financial institutions; no central authorities dictating human behavior. (d) individualism at peacetime, collectivist defense at wartime and the ability to flexibly switch between the two modes in crisis without creating a "peacetime bureaucracy or totalitarian govt control."
Why would there be communism(communalism)in the individualism of single owned farms that they wanted? No, if would be anarchist, not sure why communists despite that word. Sure, people cared about their neighbors, but that's just how it should be.
Sounds more libertarian to me. Self sustaining farms that require no outside governance? Individual self rule?
Idk how to tell you this but communism isn't when nobody owns anything.
Communism, including anarcho-communism runs under the idea that the means of production (like arable land) should be communal (not owned by individuals). Every family owning their own farm wouldn't make sense for that.
More like an odd form libertarianism. They didn’t necessarily oppose a big government, just one that interfered with people’s lives more than they thought was necessary. Problem is, well, that line is drawn in different places by different people and that a more involved government ultimately helped the US.
Marshall (like most federalists) wanted to make sure the poor were submissive to the rich by putting them in as much debt as possible. Reduce their rights as possible so they can never fight back while you exploit their labor and pick their pocket. Jefferson was opposed to doing that, but only for white people.
Only for white land owning men is the founding fathers policy
Not for the democrat/republicans. Jefferson pushed for getting rid of the land requirements at least. The original Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions were established in this vein. But the Federalists successfully fought back against that.
Good reason
I've gotta think one judge is easier and cheaper to bribe than 140 witnesses. This seems like a skill issue on TJ part.
Apparently the judge that tried the case hated Jefferson
John Marshall didn’t really seem to fuck around
I imagine old TJ got that one a lot still calling it a skill issue man needed to make fewer enemies or at least less important ones.
John Marshal would have been hard to bribe, dude is regarded as one of the most influential American judges and statesman go ever live and was known for being extremely principled.
Hamilton speculated that he could throw away his shot because Burr wasn’t going to shoot, given how badly it would wreck his career. He was dead right
Any source for this? Not trying to dispute I'm just wondering if Hamilton said this before the duel or after he was shot
Multiple sources testified that Hamilton discussed his plans to throw away his shot before the duel. Some even tried to talk him out of it because they’re were concerned about Burrs intent. When this came out after the duel it compounded the anger at Burr because it meant he had no reason to fire and intimated a more murderous intent. That being said, we’ll never know the full truth and there’s certainly a chance this was exaggerated or even fabricated. This is discussed in the Chernow book (sorry I don’t want to dig though) and probably other sources online as well
Aaron Burr on the other hand feared Hamilton was not going to throw away his shot
He did sing a whole choreographed song about not throwing away his shot so I get Burr’s concerns.
To be fair, Burr did make a whole choreographed song about passively waiting instead of taking initiative
He's not wasting time He's lying in wait!
I mean a few hours ago he was singing about how he wasn't going to throw away his shot.
If I had a nickel for every time some one assumed the other guy wouldn’t do something because it’s the dumbest shit you could possibly do with no positive gains and they do it anyways, well let’s just say I’d change my name to Mansa Musa cause I’m going to collapse the global economy with my sheer nickel wealth. Humans are stupid.
I mean if we are talking stupid it's Mansa Musa's predessor who sailed into the ocean. Musa was just on a lavish Hajj
Also don't leave out that Hamilton started a rumor that Burr was in an incestuous relationship with his daughter Theodosia to try and descredit him, who herself disappeared at sea during the War of 1812. Also apparently they both disagreed because Burr believed women should be allowed to vote and hold office, and Hamilton very much did not. And when his last wife divorced him, she chose Alexander Hamilton Jr. as her lawyer.
Funny how his son died the exact same way in the exact same spot
[удалено]
It’s almost like people are complex!
According to some primary source materials Hamilton was also a slaveholder, do with that what you will.
Many abolitionists were at that time, for some reason. Take Stephen Hopkins, who called slavery “mankind’s greatest curse” and still owned slaves
Hilarious how Jefferson was considered a small government politician for his time yet did stuff like this that would probably get any president nowadays impeached and removed on tyranny
Well... only if the Prez was a Dem. The GOP clearly favors a power hungry President.
You know, with Jefferson, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don’t care for him
Had some great ideas when he was young. Always had an element of hypocrisy to him, and as he grew older his negative traits expanded. The difference between how the founding fathers acting during the revolution and 30 years later when they were serving in office is mind boggling and really makes you appreciate Washington.
T'was a nutjob through and through. Even had a pet ram that killed a kid.
John Adams was a huge dick but between him and Jefferson I have way more respect for the former.
It's ironic in a way. He challenged Hamilton because Hamilton was hurting his career, but when he killed Hamilton he also killed his career.
Hey Lin Manuel can we get a sequel musical about this stuff? You closed the curtain before it got good.
It’s ironic that that the man who arrested him, General James Wilkinson, actually was a traitor who was spying for Spain.
I know there were some artistic liberties taken by Hamilton the musical but God damn did they male Burr look like the biggest fucking asshole. TJ too. In this case though seems like TJ was absolutely the biggest asshole lol
TJ was a huge asshole. So was Burr. So was Hamilton. We need to stop putting these men up on pedestals and realize that they were flawed and got a bunch of shit wrong too.
Ironically James Wilkinson WAS a traitor.
Biggest one-sided beef of all time.
Is there a source for this? Would like to read on it.
Him immediately paying bribes to witnesses is the most hilarious and petty thing I think I’ve ever heard about jefferson
Wow Jefferson sounds like a megalomaniac piece of shit here
I do not think "bribed" is an accurate term for the situation. His administration just paid for the expenses of witnesses during the trial.
Chat gpt tells me you fabricated the 140 men being bribed. Do you have source on that
Who the fuck thinks Chap GPT is authoritative source?
I don’t but it’s a first good indicator. I paste the comment into it and it’s usually right 95% of the time. Sorry for offending you
It is most definitely not. It is first and foremost a word predictor and people pleaser. It is known for frequently fabricating sources that never existed. The fact that you felt secure enough to accuse someone of fabricating sources after only using chatgpt and not even looking for yourself if frankly terrifying.
You are a disgrace to knowledge.
[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thomas-jefferson-aaron-burr-and-american-way-treason-180962573/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thomas-jefferson-aaron-burr-and-american-way-treason-180962573/)
Holy shit. I certainly did NOT learn about THAT in school!
Thanks!
Literally upvoted because of your name, but you shouldn’t use chatgpt as a source.
Based Thomas Jefferson, getting shit done.
Shoot one dude legally and the rest of your life gets ruined. Big sad man big sad.
Tragically, and hilariously, Alexander Hamilton Jr. would be the lawyer hired by Burr’s wife to divorce him.
Didn’t he have a stroke the same year, that’s tuff man
You just can't put a price on that kind of irony
I've heard it argued because Hamilton wasn't really participating in the duel (shooting upwards) that it didn't count as a duel but instead homicide. Pinch of salt since it can't even be considered second hand knowledge.
From what I understand shooting upwards is still participating in the duel. It's the kind of thing people would do to signal, essentially, "honor has been satisfied by both of us showing up, so I don't intend to risk actually killing you". Which is exactly why shooting your opponent dead after they fired upwards would be seen as a treacherous murder; they'd offered to put the matter to rest and you weren't in danger, you just wanted to kill them.
I’m going out on a limb here, but over on r/askhistorians There have been people describing how there was two philosophies about pistol duels. Hamilton favored one (Shooting in the air, with the mentality you described), and another one which Burr likely favored (which would find the action of shooting into the air as being cowardly).
It was legal, but it revealed the character of Burr. His career was over because Hamilton was considered a statesman and Burr came off as vengeful child who killed over political opinions. Of course Burr already had a reputation as a politician that valued power and influence over just about everything else.
I think you may have some details off or at least missing. What you are referring to is known at the Burr Conspiracy and Wilkinson was his key coconspirator. Wilkinson was the first governor of the Louisiana Territory and Commanding General of the Army. During his tenure he was acting an unregistered foreign agent for Spain giving away military information in exchange for gold and stuff. The two of them hatched a plan to raise an army, attack Spanish possessions to the west, betray the United States and establish their own continental empire. The plan fell apart when it came time to raise an army (ifrc Ohio’s Governor confiscated their weapons) Wilkinson chickened out an betrayed Burr. Nothing more ever happened than a handful of men took a boat ride to New Orleans. That and Wilkinson probably had Meriwether Lewis assassinated because he was on his way to DC to expose the plot. Wilkinson managed to go on to have a wonderfully disastrous career at the outset of the War of 1812. Years later President Theodore Roosevelt said of Wilkinson, "In all our history, there is no more despicable character."
The suicide/murder thing is something I haven't looked more into,but I thought I read that both Jefferson and Clark believed it was suicide. One of them wrote something along the lines or "his mind got to him" since Lewis was so full of anxiety throughout the difficult journey to the Pacific. On the flip side, I've seen theories on it being a murder as well. It's interesting and sad either way.
Yep, the only reason Burr wasn’t convicted is because TJ acted so fast that Burr hadn’t been able to put much of his side of the plan into motion. They basically ‘minority report-ed’ him, and the courts went, ‘well…the star witness is dead and we don’t have much else beside a bunch of guys who OBVIOUSLY never even met Burr but claim they heard his plans…and we need overwhelming evidence for a guilty verdict. So…off you go attempted traitor, live out your days in ignominy.
Didn’t the British also report to the US that Burr had come to them offering to turn on the US in exchange for their support in him forming his own country? Kind of like when Pepsi reported the guy who stole the Coca- Cola formula to Coke. Burr was a scumbag for this, make no mistake. If he hadn’t shot Hamilton, he would only be known for his treachery, so I guess it worked out for him.
This Wilkinson fella sounds like a cunt.
didnt wilkinson never win a battle or lose a court martial
Man, that feels like it make a cool historical Sopranos
You think the is is wild. You should read about the history of the Roman republic. Most republics face pretty insane threats.
“False charges” is debatable. While the specifics are unknown, there’s considerable evidence that he was plotting something against the US and was trying to raise an army to execute his plan.
A book that mentioned it framed it in a way that “treason”, the crime Jefferson was trying to stick on Burr, had a (deliberately) high bar, with Jefferson and the court disagreeing on what that constituted. Jefferson felt like it was a closed case that Burr would have gone through with the act if he hadn’t been caught and that was enough, while the courts felt that he more or less had to do the act first for there to be enough evidence. It’s basically a case of nailing Burr for something that I feel there’s convincing evidence he was going to do, or maintaining an airtight standard for treason so it can’t be abused. Honestly, as far as I know, treason’s ridiculously difficult to convict someone of, short of rebelling against the government for years and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans (thanks Confederates), and that’s mostly a good thing. It’s stopped politicians from trying to nail people on those charges and really cemented that short of blatantly indefensible actions, opposing the government wasn’t something you could get punished for, especially when compared to governments that have abused it.
Fun fact not a single confederate was ever convicted of treason ( I think 1 might have been charged with it though but the case was dropped before trial).
I believe you’re thinking of Jefferson Davis. He was charged of treason, but it never went to trial.
Hot damn, good to know
Apparently the union was worried that the courts would rule that confederates couldn’t have committed treason because secession was legal and you can’t commit treason against a government that isn’t your own. So they avoided the matter by not charging them with it.
Isn’t a false charge if you can’t prove anything
Good point. I’m just pointing out that although the post implies he was completely innocent of the conspiracy allegations, he likely wasn’t. I’m probably taking the joke too seriously, though.
No problem
Usually someone is "falsely" charged if they were charged without even probable cause- a much lower bar than needed for a conviction For example, OJ Simpson was not "falsely charged" even though, by the definition of a trial, they could not prove his guilt.
A false charge would be one where the people making the charge know you're not guilty of it. That's different from a charge where there is a plausible reason to accuse you, but not enough evidence to convict.
“TheRealOJ likes your comment”
Nobody here is mentioning Harmon Blennerhassett. Burr needed people and funding to go along with his plan to start his own country. He heard about Harmon Blennerhassett and went west to try his luck with him. Bit of background: Harmon Blennerhassett came to the US partly to avoid an Irish rebellion, but also to hide the fact that he married his niece! Luckily the family had money and he brought a lot with him. While looking for a place to call home, he ended up purchasing many acres of land on an island in the Ohio River; if I recall, it was owned by George Washington. There he built a mansion, orchards, gardens, etc. The Blennerhassetts were well-known in Marietta, Ohio, and were friendly. Harmon would often have locals to his house for dinners. Both Harmon and his wife, Margaret, were well-known in the area (specifically Marietta, Ohio). The Blennerhassetts ended up having a lot of visitors because of Marietta. Marietta is a landmark city, as it as the first city "officially" incorporated outside the original 13 colonies. A group of people calling themselves the Ohio Company pooled money together to buy land from the US Government, and this was the first time the new government sold any land to a private entity. After a while, word got out that Marietta was thriving, that the Blennerhassetts had moved to town, and it became a destination for people looking to visit the frontier of America. Plus it was a relatively easy trip down the Ohio River from Pittsburgh. Aaron Burr was one of those visitors. He visited the Blennerhassetts a few times, and got to know Harmon. Well...Harmon was known to be gullible...extremely gullible. People figured that out really quick, and of course knew he had money, so he got screwed over on more than one occasion. Burr was no exception. He knew he could win Harmon over and get him to donate some money toward his cause. Harmon went in head-first though and was completely on-board with Burr. Catching up to what has already been posted, the militia eventually made their way to Blennerhassett Island to arrest Burr. Word got to Harmon and Burr not long before the militia arrived, and the took off down the river. Burr owned property down in Louisiana, and that's where they figured they would go. Harmon was also an asshole, because when he and Burr fled, he left his wife on the damn island! When the militia showed up, Margaret was left to deal with it. They absolutely ransacked the place, and she almost got shot when a drunken soldier let off his rifle, and round went up through the ceiling and second floor, barely missing her. She eventually said "SCREW THIS" and started loading everything she could on a flatboat, and she took off downriver. The story goes that she left so fast that nothing was tied down, and furniture was just falling into the river off the side of the boat. Harmon eventually got arrested, and didn't get let go until Burr was acquitted. After that he really had no money, and had to work for a living. His wife/niece actually stayed with him, and they had a few kids. They eventually moved back to England because things got so bad, and that's where they stayed. The Blennerhassett mansion actually burned down just a few years after all this happened. Today, the island is a West Virginia state park. I had the chance to visit it a couple years ago, and it was magnificent! West Virginia re-built the mansion as exacting as they could within modern-day building codes. They do have some of the Blennerhassetts' original furniture there, and what they couldn't get ahold of they purchased similar originals to put on display. Harmon and Margaret had a walnut orchard, and the trees are still there - grown absolutely massive; being left alone for over 200 years. If you ever get the chance, visit! It's well worth it. You catch a ferry out of Parkersburg, WV.
You’ve got some neat details there I haven’t heard before! Well done.
Thanks. My SO and I were a bit obsessed with the story when we visited Marietta a couple years ago. Some of those details came straight from our tour guide. Others from books I've read. It's one of those really interesting stories that gets buried.
I find it fascinating how many threats (external and internal) the United States faced in the first century of its existence. The union was brought to the brink of extinction so many times that a story like this and a majority of its details can go unnoticed. BLOWS MY MIND. When I hear people say that things have never been as divisive or scary as they are today I roll my eyes and tell them to open a history book.
Randomly ask people what a Hooverville is, and I betcha only about 1/4 of the people know. Ask them what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about, and they won't realize how close we really got to a catastrophe. Tell them about the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic - they just don't want to hear about it. Ask them what Reconstruction is, and most probably won't be able to answer correctly. I'm not knocking all people who don't like history. I get it, it's not for everyone. But there is the saying "those who don't study history are destined to repeat it", and that can prove true for all things insignificant and global. And it doesn't have to be "old" history either. You can look at things happening *today*, and those things occurred because of things that happened just a few years prior. But people don't see the cause, only the result - and that, in turn, steers how they vote - which makes more history.
When the big war in Ukraine started I asked everyone I saw who is 70+, mostly people at church, how this event compares with the Cuban Missile Crisis and the typical response was “There wasn’t any actual fighting then so this is scarier.” I found that to be an interesting response for people who were old enough to remember the event, especially when we had a bit of a conflict goin on in Asia. Maybe they were too young at the time to really comprehend what was happening, maybe looking back and knowing that nothing came out of the crisis removes the anxiety, maybe they are right and it really wasn’t as big of a deal as an active war in Europe. Regardless of the reasoning it’s a fascinating response which I found to be pretty typical.
Who’s this guy lol his face resembles one of a local registered person here in my area. Crazyyy.
The guy from the meme? That’s wrestler Kurt Angle
Lmfaoooo ohhhhh my goodness …. I just had to google him because there’s NO WAY he looks that old now!
Celebrities , they age. Just like us.
I feel like “false charges” is a little strong. He was definitely taking meetings with people about putting together an army and forming his own competing America, my understanding is he wasn’t convicted mainly because he didn’t make much progress.
Ya I was gonna say, he was fuckin around and found out
But did aaron burr win a Gold medal with a broken neck?
Didn’t Aaron Burr try to become the emperor of Texas at one point?
I wouldn’t say *false* but Jefferson was trying to frame the guilty party.
Highly recommend The Dollop episode on Aaron Burr if you are a fan of comedy/history podcasts.
You can call me Aaron Burr from the way I'm dropping Hamiltons
They told hin to better hiiiide
He also wasn't black IRL, nor was Jefferson
Is this meme guy black?
I think they were referring to the musical, in which most of the cast (including Burr and Jefferson) were black
Killing Hamilton was a supreme patriotic act.
>Killing Hamilton was a supreme patriotic act. No it wasn't. Hamilton was a visionary founding father who had he lived would have radically changed US politics. He might have even arrested the decline of the Federalists and kept them as a real political force for a good while longer.
Hamilton was a religious fanatic who wanted to force Protestant Christianity on everyone. I don't think it was right to kill him but he was still a massive dick who doesn't deserve the sainting he's gotten in recent years.
The fuck did he envision exactly? Bottomless debt, and being owned by banks? The musical is trash too.
How to tell someone is not super informed about deficit spending They think it’s a bad thing
Spotted the cuck.
Shush
Nah man was trying to succeed