The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr :: essays research papers

In the months between and including May and September, in 1807, Aaron take away was tried by the Supreme Court in Virginia on the come of treason against the joined States. During the period of 1804 to 1807, bur allegedly committed several(prenominal) indubitable fares, which are actions, that may be innocent in themselves, hardly in combination with the intentions and results of that act, become criminal actions. The trial was about treason, which the temperament defines as levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them precaution or comfort, (Art. III, Sect. 3) and the pursuance must prove that take away committed the overt act with the testimony of two witnesses, for the treason conviction to stand. In this trial, Burrs actions outside of the state of Virginia have no bearing on the overt act of assembling troops to levy war against the United States, and therefore the majority of his admissible actions occurred on Blennerhassets Is ground in Virginia. (Doc 108) Although the prosecution made a strong case for Burrs guilt, the speciality between his intentions and his actions, his background as an American patriot and the lack of concrete evidence, one must conclude that Aaron Burr is not guilty of treason. He perhaps was hitherto the victim of a larger governmental camarilla to rid him of all prestige, honor and legacy.The prosecution tried to prove that Burr used his power to assemble an army of men to conquer sassy Orleans, then Mexico and scourtually found a new nation serene of the Western American states and Mexico. The fault in their argument is that his actions do not necessarily point directly towards this conclusion. It is true that Burr wrote letters and even discussed a new war with Spain and the formation of a new nation, but this does not constitute treason for individuals may meet together and traitorously determine to make dispositions to bring forces into the field, and levy war against their country this is a conspiracy, but not treason. (Doc 108) Therefore, even if Burr intended to eventually consecrate his plan, the simple act of planning it does not constitute treason. But even the true intentions of Burr remain unclear, for he had recently purchased 400,000 acres of land in the Western states and perhaps he assembled these men to settle it. (Doc 33) His actions of recruitment men, arming them and supplying them does not constitute treason because the overt act remains innocent without confirmation of intent to harm the United States.