Significance Of The Burr Trial

Aaron Burr, former Vice President to President Thomas Jefferson, was put on trial in 1807. Burr was accused of conspiring to commit treason by leading an expedition to establish an independent nation in western United States territories. The trial question was whether Burr committed treason and should be punished for it. The prosecution argued that Burr's plans to form a separate nation directly threatened the security of the United States. The defense argued that Burr did not commit treason and that his plans were a peaceful exploration of Western territories rather than a military operation. The trial is often described as a turf battle. The accusations against Burr were severe, especially since he was a well-known figure in the United States

Throughout the trial, we could see how it was a turf battle of power and authority of the federal government. The United States was a relatively young country then, so there was significant debate about the extent of national power versus state power. The Burr trial brought this debate forward, and many argued that the federal government was overstepping its bounds by charging Burr with treason. The Burr trial was a turf battle in that it was a dispute over the federal government's jurisdiction versus the states. It was questioned if Aaron Burr was violating federal or state law. The federal government wanted to maintain its supremacy over the states, and many states were worried about giving too much power to the government. The Burr trial was seen as an opportunity for the federal government to assert its authority over the states; however, the defense argued that Burr's actions were not a violation of federal law. Burr motioned to limit the prosecution's evidence in the trial. He says, "Before the gentleman proceeds with his evidence, I will suggest that it has appeared to me that there would be great advantage and propriety in establishing a certain principle founded upon the facts which have been presented to the court." By this, he means that "If advising to levy war be a common law treason, (that is, a treason created by the common law,) and the common law have no force in this country, how can the common law be said to have created this treason in any court of the United States?" This quote from Charles Lee's argument shows us the power struggle between different legal authorities in the trial. This quote shows us the tension between common law, the basis of English law, and the Constitution, which does not recognize common law. He argues that the court has no authority to try Burr for a crime based on a legal tradition with no force in the United States. "The common law of England is not in