Jefferson vs. Burr 2: Who's the Bad Guy?

Henry Adams writes in his history of Jefferson's administrations:

"Among the other party leaders who have been mentioned,-Jefferson, Madison, Gallatin, Marshall,-not one was dishonest. The exaggeration or equivocations that Jefferson allowed himself, which led to the deep-rooted conviction of Marshall that he did not tell the truth and must therefore be dangerous, amounted to nothing when compared with the dishonesty of a corrupt man. Had the worst political charges against Jefferson been true, he would not have been necessarily corrupt. The self-deception inherent in every struggle for personal power was not the kind of immorality which characterized Colonel Burr. Jefferson, if his enemies were to be believed, might occasionally make misstatements of fact; yet he was true to the faith of his life, and would rather have abdicated his office and foregone his honors than have compassed even an imaginary wrong against the principles he professed. His life, both private and public, was pure" (Adams, 132-3).

 My comments:

What a remarkable statement from a man who, in this very history, repeatedly proves quite the opposite!  

Jefferson's “exaggeration and equivocations” were extremely dangerous and damaging to those against whom they were directed, and we need look no further than the example of Burr to see this; nor is it even arguable that Jefferson exaggerated and equivocated in Burr's case. Jefferson's “misstatements of fact” with regard to Burr are well-established and acknowledged even by those (as here) who continue to believe Burr was unprincipled. 

(For more on Jefferson's involvement in ruining other men, including assassination, see my review of Buckner Melton's book "Conspiracy to Treason" - http://www.amazon.com/review/R3J44MN9Y54AI9/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm. As I suggest in the review, this is a history that has not yet been written and deserves more attention.) 

Misstatements of fact should not be taken so lightly, especially when they are done with knowledge of their falsity, as we know was true in Jefferson's case, and most especially when such misstatements issue from the mouth of one in power against one without power (and particularly when the one in power had colluded with others to divest of all power the one now without power). That such wrongs can continue to be glossed over by biographers and historians is quite astounding and perhaps shows the limits of objective reason under the power of adverse suggestion. Jefferson should have been held accountable for such abuse of his office and for intentionally making misstatements of facts, which in essence is fraud. Barron's pocket legal dictionary: fraud - “intentional deception resulting in injury to another.” It “usually consists of misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure of a material fact, or at least misleading conduct, devices, or contrivance.”

Nor were either Jefferson's political or personal life “pure” in any positive sense. Most people know about Jefferson's "pure" personal life, and again, Henry Adams shows that Jefferson repeatedly undermined and violated his own principles throughout both his terms in office.

Adams continues (my comments inserted in red):

"His associates, like Madison, Gallatin, and Monroe, were men upon whose reputations no breath of scandal rested. [A questionable statement. Burr intervened for Madison to prevent a duel and for Gallatin when Federalists attempted to exclude him from serving in Congress. Neither of these were instances of “scandal,” but largely because Burr prevented them from becoming so.] The standard of morality at Washington, both in private society and in politics, was respectable. For this reason Colonel Burr was a new power in the government; for being in public and in private life an adventurer of the same school as scores who were then seeking fortune in the antechambers of Bonaparte and Pitt, he became a loadstone for every other adventurer who frequented New York or whom the chances of politics might throw into office. The Vice-President wielded power, for he was the certain centre of corruption."

My comments:

Adams does not even attempt to prove any of his assertions about Burr. He states them as matters of fact, without the least bit of evidence. 

Washington was respectable? But Burr was the center of corruption? As Nancy Isenberg shows in her biography of Burr, Washington was no more respectable than any other city in America at that time (233-5).

Nonetheless, it is likely true that Burr attracted fortune seekers. But what is wrong with that? Wasn't America built by fortune seekers?

Adams continues:

"A government restricted to keeping the peace, which should raise no taxes except for that purpose, seemed to be simply a judicature and a police. Jefferson gave no development to the idea further than to define its essential principles, and those which were to guide his Administration. Except the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, this short passage was the only official gloss ever given to the Constitution by the Republican party; and for this reason students of American history who would understand the course of American thought should constantly carry in mind not only the Constitutions of 1781 and of 1787, but also the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and the following paragraph of Jefferson's first Inaugural Address:—

'I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole Constitutional vigor, as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the People,—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority,—the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia,—our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts, and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected;—these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment; they should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety' (Adams, 138-9).

My comments:

Henry Adams, himself, shows (for over 1300 pages) how those who believed in Jefferson and followed his “revolutionary” precepts were deceived and later betrayed by each of his several and various courses of action. We forget today that Jefferson's experiment failed on all levels. Not only did his primary doctrine of “peaceful coercion” not work, but Jefferson abandoned the field all too readily, and not only turned tail but turned Benedict Arnold on his followers and violated most of the precepts he declared in his address: absolute acquiescence to the majority, supremacy of civil authority, and the guarantees of the right of habeas corpus and impartial trials. Worst of all, the person upon whom he practiced these abuses of his own doctrines was his own (r)ejected vice president: Burr. 

For those who haven't read about the final events leading up to Burr's trial, a brief look with a view to Jefferson's wrongs: Jefferson sanctioned Gen. Wilkinson's unlawful suspension of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law, unlawful seizures of property and persons without warrant, and unlawful transports of the seized persons hundreds of miles out of the district. He may also have ordered or sanctioned Wilkinson's order to capture Burr "dead or alive" (without trial), and he also announced to all the world Burr's guilt (again, before trial, and thus tainting the fairness of any jury comprised of an informed citizenry). (John Adams wrote a private chastisement of Jefferson's pronunciation. [I will dig it up & post it when I find it.])

Not only did Jefferson later continue to show complete support for Wilkinson, whom Jefferson also knew was an agent for the Spanish government (having been in their pay since the 1780's), but he went after Burr with such a vengeance that it has for two centuries perplexed historians. Jefferson not only personally directed the prosecution against Burr (improperly meddling in a trial where he had a personal stake) -- directing strategy, supplying witnesses, and literally ordering the prosecutors to continue even when their case clearly was falling apart -- but he went after Chief Justice John Marshall for his ruling on treason which led to Burr's acquittal, attempting to obtain the interest of his party in impeaching him. None of these facts is disputed even by Jefferson's advocates.

Jefferson's later statement to Burr that Jefferson would not support his endeavors because Burr had lost the confidence of the people was beyond unkind,* since Jefferson was the one who did his utmost to cause that loss. (*TJ's statement was in his Anas. Another quote for me to dig up & post here later.)

It is as easy to say today as it was then, after the purposeful destruction of Burr's name and career, that Burr was the one who would be dictator, emperor, tyrant. 

Easy to say because of the view of him that has stuck that he planned to invade and become emperor of Mexico. This just begs the question, as the assertion does not prove the fact, and there is no proof of the fact. [Note that I say there is no proof that "he planned to invade and become emperor." I am not saying that Burr did not plan an expedition that contained a contingency to march on Mexico if the U.S. went to war with Spain (which was deemed very likely at the time). He did not plan to do so without a war or without permission from the government. More on this at a later time.]

The evidence for Burr-as-emperor (or Burr-as-traitor) involves what he said to foreign consuls to whom he owed no allegiance. His statements to his fellow Americans about his intentions show the complete contrary. If one is to judge Burr's credibility, one needs to look backward in time when he stood on his reputation, not beyond when all opinion was turned against him:

“I am authorised in saying that it is the wish of Govt. that American setlers should go to the country west of the Mississippi in the Orleans Territory -- Indeed a man high in office, & in the confidence of the Pres[iden]t. told me that I should render a very great service to the public and afford pleasure to the administration, if I should take ten thousand men to that country -- (I wish it was in my power) -- Notwithstanding all this, I am told that the utmost alarm has been excited in your neighbourhood on account of preparations which I am making for about 100 or 150 Setlers -- The rumors of my building Gun Boats, Ships &ca. have been fabricated by a few designing men illy affected to the Govt. and I am surprized to hear that some well disposed and intelligent men have become the Dupes” (Burr to Edward W. Tupper, 18 Nov. 1806, Kline 2:1002).

Kline notes that "Most contemporary reports indicate that AB and his associates hinted that their friend "high in office" was [Secretary of War] Henry Dearborn" (Kline 2:1004n5). This would support Burr's statement that Jefferson sanctioned his expedition. (Jefferson sanctioned numerous such filibusters and was, in fact, at the time of Burr's, funding the unlawful Pike and Lewis & Clark expeditions into Spanish territory. See Roger Kennedy, “Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character,” 123-30.) (This issue may be up next.)

“The Reports which charge me with designs unfriendly to the peace and welfare of this and the adjacent Territory are utterly false, are in themselves absurd, and are the inventions of wicked men, for evil purposes – I do assure you Sir, that I have no such design, nor any other which can tend to interrupt the peace or welfare of my fellow Citizens, and that I harbour [neither] the wish nor the intention to intermedle with their Government or concerns – On the Contrary my pursuits are not only justifiable, but laudable, tending to the happiness and benefit of my Country Men and Such as every good Citizen and virtuous man ought to promote -- *** / If the alarm which has been excited for the most mischievous purposes should not be appeased by this declaration, I invite my fellow Citizens to visit me at this place and to receive from me in person such further explanations, as may be necessary to their Satisfaction, presuming that when my views are understood, they will receive the Countenance and Support of all good men -- / It is hoped Sir that you'll not suffer yourself to be made the instrument of arming Citizen against citizen and of involving the Country in the horrors of Civil War, without some better foundation than the Suggestions of rumor or the vile fabrications of a man notoriously the pensioner of a foreign government” (Burr to Cowles Mead [Acting Governor of Mississippi], Jan. 12, 1807, Bayou Pierre, Kline 2:1008-9).