What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Studies on the American Constitution
The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr
The Burr treason trial, one of the greatest criminal trials in American history, was significant for several reasons. The legal proceedings lasted seven months and featured some of the nation's best lawyers. It also pitted President Thomas Jefferson (who declared Burr guilty without the benefit of a trial and who masterminded the prosecution), Chief Justice John Marshall (who sat as a trial judge in the federal circuit court in Richmond) and former Vice President Aaron Burr (who was accused of planning to separate the western states from the Union) against each other. At issue, in addition to the life of Aaron Burr, were the rights of criminal defendants, the constitutional definition of treason and the meaning of separation of powers in the Constitution. Capturing the sheer drama of the long trial, Kent Newmyer's book sheds new light on the chaotic process by which lawyers, judges and politicians fashioned law for the new nation.
244 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 31, 2012
12 people are currently reading
90 people want to read
About the author
R. Kent Newmyer
9 books2 followersR. Kent Newmyer has been a professor law and history at the UConn School of Law since 1997 where he has taught a wide range of graduate and undergraduate courses in American history, specializing in the political, constitutional and legal history of the early national period. Professor Newmyer received his Ph.D. in history from the University of Nebraska in 1959. From 1960 to 1997, he taught American history at UConn. He has received two awards for teaching and in 1988 was named a Distinguished Alumni Professor for excellence in teaching and scholarship, the highest faculty honor bestowed by the University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
May 10, 2024
Aaron Burr On Trial
Described in 1919 by constitutional historian Edward Corwin as "the greatest criminal trial in American history and one of the notable trials in the annals of the law", the 1807 trial for treason of Aaron Burr continues to fascinate historians and legal scholars. R. Kent Newmyer,Professor of Law and History at the University of Connecticut School of Law, has written a detailed account of Burr's trial and its significance in his new book, "The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr: Law, Politics, and Character Wars of the New Nation", published as part of a series, "The Cambridge Studies of the American Constitution". Among Newmyer's other books is his 2001 study of Chief Justice John Marshall, "John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court." Marshall presided at Burr's trial and figures prominently in this new book.
Burr's activities between 1805 and 1807 which led to the trial were complicated and have never been fully understood. Although the underlying facts and the court proceedings are obviously closely connected, Newmyer gives more attention to the legal proceedings than to the underlying activities on which they were predicated. Early in the book, Newmyer offers a helpful "Chronology of the Conspiracy and Associated Trial Proceedings" together with a chapter devoted primarily to the facts underlying the treason and high misdemeanor charges against Burr. The remainder of the book discusses legal proceedings against Burr's associates prior to Burr's trial, the preliminary grand jury proceedings in Burr's trial, the three-phased trial itself, and the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall. The end result of the proceedings was Burr's controversial acquittal of both treason and misdemeanor charges.
The three primary characters of Newmyer's many-charactered story are Burr himself, President Thomas Jefferson, and Chief Justice Marshall. Newmyer describes their relationship during the Burr proceedings but he also sees these three figures as symbols for differing visions of a young United States in the turbulent first decade of the 19th Century. Burr, a man with boundless ambition and few if any scruples, provoked Jefferson's anger when he received the same number of electoral votes for president as did Jefferson in 1800 and did not withdraw from the contest Marshall had been appointed to the position of Chief Justice by outgoing President John Adams. Jefferson tried to curtail the power of what he saw as a political Supreme Court and even hoped to have Marshall impeached. For Newmyer, Burr tends to represent the unprincipled self-seeking politician while Marshall and Jefferson represent opposing views or republican virtue: Marshall as a respecter of precedent and legal tradition and Jefferson as an advocate of the will of the democratic majority. Newmyer shows effectively that these three competing visions played out during Burr's trial. He suggests that these three competing visions continue to influence American political life.
After his vice-presidential term, Burr went west. He allegedly committed treason by gathering a group of followers to attack New Orleans and separate off a portion of the United States' western territory which he would govern. There was a lesser misdemeanor charge as well, alleging that Burr wanted to foment a war with Spain, a nation with which the United States was at peace, and deprive it of its control over Mexico. The prime accuser was the General of the United States Army, James Wilkinson, of highly dubious veracity. He made his charges in a secret, doctored, and cyphered letter to Jefferson. The president publicly pronounced Burr guilty in advance of any legal proceedings, and he worked incessantly to control the presentation of the government's case at Burr's trial in Richmond. Burr, a gifted attorney, led his own defense together with a team composed of some of the best lawyers of the day. The gallery was full during the long trial with most of the spectators and the public convinced of Burr's guilt.
Newmyer develops the legal and factual issues involved in the Burr case. He discusses the testimony of witnesses regarding Burr's alleged treasonous activities on December 10, 1806 at a place on the Ohio border called Blennerhasset Island. The legal issue in the case turned primarily on the definition of "treason", the only crime defined in the Constitution. Marshall had ruled on the definition of treason, in a case involving associates of Burr's prior to the main trial. Midway in the government's case, Marshall ruled on August 31, 1807 that in order to prove treason, the government would have to show overt acts by Burr directed towards "levying war" against the United States, attested by two witnesses on Blenerhasset Island on the indicated date. The following day, September 1, 1807, the jury found Burr not guilty based upon the legal standard Marshall had articulated.
Marshall rendered another crucial decision in the case when he ordered President Jefferson to produce documents Burr's counsel sought for the defense. Jefferson produced the documents, but claimed to do so voluntarily without agreeing to the validity of Marshall's order.
The book concludes with Newmeyer's discussion on the witness and lawyers and of Burr following the long and draining trial. Burr's trial was important for the legal principles it established on the definition of treason, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary, among other things. Newmeyer shows great insight into early American law and politics. He clearly is an admirer of Chief Justice Marshall and his role in the proceedings.
Newmeyer's scholarly book tells an important and controversial story clearly and well. It will fascinate readers with an interest in early American history and in the legal history of the United States.
Robin Friedman
Described in 1919 by constitutional historian Edward Corwin as "the greatest criminal trial in American history and one of the notable trials in the annals of the law", the 1807 trial for treason of Aaron Burr continues to fascinate historians and legal scholars. R. Kent Newmyer,Professor of Law and History at the University of Connecticut School of Law, has written a detailed account of Burr's trial and its significance in his new book, "The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr: Law, Politics, and Character Wars of the New Nation", published as part of a series, "The Cambridge Studies of the American Constitution". Among Newmyer's other books is his 2001 study of Chief Justice John Marshall, "John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court." Marshall presided at Burr's trial and figures prominently in this new book.
Burr's activities between 1805 and 1807 which led to the trial were complicated and have never been fully understood. Although the underlying facts and the court proceedings are obviously closely connected, Newmyer gives more attention to the legal proceedings than to the underlying activities on which they were predicated. Early in the book, Newmyer offers a helpful "Chronology of the Conspiracy and Associated Trial Proceedings" together with a chapter devoted primarily to the facts underlying the treason and high misdemeanor charges against Burr. The remainder of the book discusses legal proceedings against Burr's associates prior to Burr's trial, the preliminary grand jury proceedings in Burr's trial, the three-phased trial itself, and the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall. The end result of the proceedings was Burr's controversial acquittal of both treason and misdemeanor charges.
The three primary characters of Newmyer's many-charactered story are Burr himself, President Thomas Jefferson, and Chief Justice Marshall. Newmyer describes their relationship during the Burr proceedings but he also sees these three figures as symbols for differing visions of a young United States in the turbulent first decade of the 19th Century. Burr, a man with boundless ambition and few if any scruples, provoked Jefferson's anger when he received the same number of electoral votes for president as did Jefferson in 1800 and did not withdraw from the contest Marshall had been appointed to the position of Chief Justice by outgoing President John Adams. Jefferson tried to curtail the power of what he saw as a political Supreme Court and even hoped to have Marshall impeached. For Newmyer, Burr tends to represent the unprincipled self-seeking politician while Marshall and Jefferson represent opposing views or republican virtue: Marshall as a respecter of precedent and legal tradition and Jefferson as an advocate of the will of the democratic majority. Newmyer shows effectively that these three competing visions played out during Burr's trial. He suggests that these three competing visions continue to influence American political life.
After his vice-presidential term, Burr went west. He allegedly committed treason by gathering a group of followers to attack New Orleans and separate off a portion of the United States' western territory which he would govern. There was a lesser misdemeanor charge as well, alleging that Burr wanted to foment a war with Spain, a nation with which the United States was at peace, and deprive it of its control over Mexico. The prime accuser was the General of the United States Army, James Wilkinson, of highly dubious veracity. He made his charges in a secret, doctored, and cyphered letter to Jefferson. The president publicly pronounced Burr guilty in advance of any legal proceedings, and he worked incessantly to control the presentation of the government's case at Burr's trial in Richmond. Burr, a gifted attorney, led his own defense together with a team composed of some of the best lawyers of the day. The gallery was full during the long trial with most of the spectators and the public convinced of Burr's guilt.
Newmyer develops the legal and factual issues involved in the Burr case. He discusses the testimony of witnesses regarding Burr's alleged treasonous activities on December 10, 1806 at a place on the Ohio border called Blennerhasset Island. The legal issue in the case turned primarily on the definition of "treason", the only crime defined in the Constitution. Marshall had ruled on the definition of treason, in a case involving associates of Burr's prior to the main trial. Midway in the government's case, Marshall ruled on August 31, 1807 that in order to prove treason, the government would have to show overt acts by Burr directed towards "levying war" against the United States, attested by two witnesses on Blenerhasset Island on the indicated date. The following day, September 1, 1807, the jury found Burr not guilty based upon the legal standard Marshall had articulated.
Marshall rendered another crucial decision in the case when he ordered President Jefferson to produce documents Burr's counsel sought for the defense. Jefferson produced the documents, but claimed to do so voluntarily without agreeing to the validity of Marshall's order.
The book concludes with Newmeyer's discussion on the witness and lawyers and of Burr following the long and draining trial. Burr's trial was important for the legal principles it established on the definition of treason, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary, among other things. Newmeyer shows great insight into early American law and politics. He clearly is an admirer of Chief Justice Marshall and his role in the proceedings.
Newmeyer's scholarly book tells an important and controversial story clearly and well. It will fascinate readers with an interest in early American history and in the legal history of the United States.
Robin Friedman
February 15, 2015
A sordid, and important, early battle in U.S. history, in which three major Revolutionary figures, former Vice-President Aaron Burr, Chief Justice John Marshall, and President Thomas Jefferson, would contend in Burr's 1807 trial. It's an ugly side of Jefferson's character not usually shown: that he would distort due process, declare guilt by decree, and revive the old English doctrine of "constructive treason" to try to pay off a personal grudge against Burr, and, since he obstructed that, to discredit John Marshall. American common law was still new, and still drawing on old English precedent, when Jefferson accused Burr of trying to carve out a new empire of U.S. frontier territory in the then-Southwest of Louisiana and Texas.
In several ways, it was frontier justice: Chief Justice Marshall had ruled, as a Supreme Court justice, on the limits of treason law in a case involving one of Burr's accused accomplices, ex parte Bollman. Now, as a circuit judge in Richmond, and Supreme Court justices rode circuit in those days, he would preside over a sensational trial of former vice-president Burr, with Jefferson already proclaiming Burr's guilt in the popular press and trying to manipulate the trial process. Out of a murky venture by Burr in New Orleans, with -- as the book shows -- little or no military means of success, Jefferson would try to conjure up an old English concept, that any conspiracy to attempt treason was indeed treason, whether or not the principals were present or even capable of carrying it out.
This trial would be important in establishing the Constitutional limits on treason accusations: that it was only when someone levied war on the U.S., in this case. During the trial, Marshall even issued a subpoena on the President, in essence, to put up or shut up. It would be a precedent cited in later decades: the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, in the controversy over the Sedition Act of 1918, the Cramer v. US treason trial of 1945, and, touching the accountability of the Presidency, Nixon v. U.S. in 1974. It would be a critical turning point in Chief Justice Marshall's vindication of an independent Judicial branch, as important as Marbury v. Madison, as Mr. Newmyer shows. It was a courtroom drama in which the most illustrious lawyers of the day contended, and it was a press sensation in its day, drawing young, lawyerly observers like Washington Irving and Winfield Scott. Winfield Scott, of course, would accomplish what Aaron Burr was accused of, 40 years later leading an American army to conquer Mexico.
All of this comes out in a scant 200 or so pages. It's an important revelation for students of American legal and government history, and, for that matter, those who are interested in an unusual facet of Thomas Jefferson's multifaceted personality. As the author shows, Aaron Burr came off badly because of Jefferson's accusations to history, more successfully than to Marshall's courtroom, and to this day it persists.
Strongest recommendation.
In several ways, it was frontier justice: Chief Justice Marshall had ruled, as a Supreme Court justice, on the limits of treason law in a case involving one of Burr's accused accomplices, ex parte Bollman. Now, as a circuit judge in Richmond, and Supreme Court justices rode circuit in those days, he would preside over a sensational trial of former vice-president Burr, with Jefferson already proclaiming Burr's guilt in the popular press and trying to manipulate the trial process. Out of a murky venture by Burr in New Orleans, with -- as the book shows -- little or no military means of success, Jefferson would try to conjure up an old English concept, that any conspiracy to attempt treason was indeed treason, whether or not the principals were present or even capable of carrying it out.
This trial would be important in establishing the Constitutional limits on treason accusations: that it was only when someone levied war on the U.S., in this case. During the trial, Marshall even issued a subpoena on the President, in essence, to put up or shut up. It would be a precedent cited in later decades: the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, in the controversy over the Sedition Act of 1918, the Cramer v. US treason trial of 1945, and, touching the accountability of the Presidency, Nixon v. U.S. in 1974. It would be a critical turning point in Chief Justice Marshall's vindication of an independent Judicial branch, as important as Marbury v. Madison, as Mr. Newmyer shows. It was a courtroom drama in which the most illustrious lawyers of the day contended, and it was a press sensation in its day, drawing young, lawyerly observers like Washington Irving and Winfield Scott. Winfield Scott, of course, would accomplish what Aaron Burr was accused of, 40 years later leading an American army to conquer Mexico.
All of this comes out in a scant 200 or so pages. It's an important revelation for students of American legal and government history, and, for that matter, those who are interested in an unusual facet of Thomas Jefferson's multifaceted personality. As the author shows, Aaron Burr came off badly because of Jefferson's accusations to history, more successfully than to Marshall's courtroom, and to this day it persists.
Strongest recommendation.
October 14, 2012
The contest between the branches of government has been going on since before the Constitution. Dr. Newmyer's book adds to the understanding of the development of America's system of judicial review. Marshall in his numerous decisions strengthened the Supreme Court's power by logically, though not always clearly, supporting a defendant's right to a fair trial. His work discusses the contest between Jefferson, Marshall and Burr. Jefferson, while President, essentially ran the government's case against Burr attempting perhaps to get even with Burr (for not stepping down in the 1800 election) while trying to weaken the power of the courts. It is a very good read adding to one's understanding of the Supreme Court.
January 24, 2022
This is a good account of a somewhat forgotten moment in history that examines the legal meaning of treason in the US and the meaning of the court's power in the early constitutional system. The trifecta of personalities John Marshall-Thomas Jefferson-Aaron Burr provide high drama and legal conflict in the treason trial of former Vice President Burr. I think this book does a great job of explaining the events and the legal complexities in an easy-to-understand manner. I will say there are several repetitions in the book - so it may have needed one or two more passes by an editor. And the author goes slightly in chronological order, but they do reveal the ending throughout the book, which does throw one's understanding about. While context helps, I think a more strictly straightforward chronological telling with then solid conclusion chapters calling back might have helped the reader's journey. So - if you're interested in early constitutional America, US law, or the drama of these historical figures, this will be an interesting book.
August 28, 2025
I enjoyed reading this book up to the point where the author went on to justify Justice Marshall’s opinion and definition of treason and “levying war” at that point the subject matter got to be very dry. The author also repeats himself several times making the same point over and over again.
I almost gave this book a two Star rating but came to appreciate how the book provided evidence as to how this case became relevant in more recent court cases specifically US vs. Nixon. Considering this I decided to give the book a three star rating.
Another redeeming aspect of this book was how the author portrayed the divergent personality traits of the various characters (Jefferson, Wilkinson, Bollman, Blannerhassett, etc) in the trial and how that played into the overall proceedings of the trial.
The author also did a very good job of explaining how significant this trial was in defining the separation of powers between the Executive and Judicial Branches of Government.
I almost gave this book a two Star rating but came to appreciate how the book provided evidence as to how this case became relevant in more recent court cases specifically US vs. Nixon. Considering this I decided to give the book a three star rating.
Another redeeming aspect of this book was how the author portrayed the divergent personality traits of the various characters (Jefferson, Wilkinson, Bollman, Blannerhassett, etc) in the trial and how that played into the overall proceedings of the trial.
The author also did a very good job of explaining how significant this trial was in defining the separation of powers between the Executive and Judicial Branches of Government.
November 13, 2023
I am surprised at the low ranking I gave this book. It has everything that I usually love in a book:
Political intrigue --- Check
Legal Drama --- Check
John Marshall --- Check
Pivotal court case that helped define what the Constitution means--- Check
This book was, for me, a no brainer.
Unfortunately, I couldn't get into it. The writing just didn't capture me and I found myself putting the book aside more often than not---and each time, finding it harder and harder to pick back up.
*I* should love this book, but I don't.
Legal histories, despite being dry, fascinate me.
But this one didn't capture me.
Political intrigue --- Check
Legal Drama --- Check
John Marshall --- Check
Pivotal court case that helped define what the Constitution means--- Check
This book was, for me, a no brainer.
Unfortunately, I couldn't get into it. The writing just didn't capture me and I found myself putting the book aside more often than not---and each time, finding it harder and harder to pick back up.
*I* should love this book, but I don't.
Legal histories, despite being dry, fascinate me.
But this one didn't capture me.
October 14, 2021
A very thorough exploration of the legal and political issues surrounding the astonishing downfall of the third Vice President of the United States. Full of drama and intrigue and interesting characters. New insights into aspects of those we might think we know like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Chief Justice John Marshall. Important growth pains in the development of our young nation. All wrapped together in part history, part analysis, and part courtroom drama that remains a compelling, interesting, and even amusing read. What more could you want?
October 12, 2024
Excellent analysis
An excellent analysis of the key points in the Burr trial, how they related to the law and politics of the time, and how they affected the future course of the US. Unlike many books, this also mentions Burr’s subsequent trial and acquittal for misdemeanour.
An excellent analysis of the key points in the Burr trial, how they related to the law and politics of the time, and how they affected the future course of the US. Unlike many books, this also mentions Burr’s subsequent trial and acquittal for misdemeanour.
April 17, 2013
Aaron Burr is one of the most intriguing characters of U.S. history. Though never president, he came close to having this position. He moves from being Jefferson Vice President (in Jefferson’s first four year term), to being tried for Treason (in one of the first such trials in U.S. history). End up beating this charge but later kills the person on the current U.S. Ten Dollar bill (Hamilton). This book narrowly focuses on the Treason trial of Burr (as the title suggests). Amazingly Burr represents his self in this trial (but employees several well recognized co-councils. Before the trial Jefferson publicly declares Burr 100% guilty, which sets up a bizarre scenario where Jefferson feels compelled to make sure Burr is convicted so micro manages many aspects of the prosecution and even influences the prosecution start witness in an in appropriate manner. If this story presented as a TV miniseries it would be considered too strange to be considered real, but this book goes through the many unusual and interesting twists and turns of the trial.
Read
May 7, 2021Aaron Burr, sir, was a cur: an electoral college loser, the damn fool who shot Alexander Hamilton and (wait for it) called out by the president as a traitor. In the early 19th century, a filibuster was not a parliamentary but a military maneuver; Burr was said to have organized a guerrilla force against Spanish rule in Mexico. (A parallel effort in Venezuela was led by someone named Miranda.)
Thomas Jefferson called out the militia to lock him up, claiming Burr aimed to stir rebellion in the West. Then he took over Burr's prosecution, dangling pardons for witnesses. John Marshall, having newly minted the separation of powers doctrine as chief justice, still was conducting circuit court trials. He caught the case and subpoenaed the president. Good thing the courts don't get this political anymore, right?
Thomas Jefferson called out the militia to lock him up, claiming Burr aimed to stir rebellion in the West. Then he took over Burr's prosecution, dangling pardons for witnesses. John Marshall, having newly minted the separation of powers doctrine as chief justice, still was conducting circuit court trials. He caught the case and subpoenaed the president. Good thing the courts don't get this political anymore, right?
August 6, 2019
A VERY thorough history of the legal aspect of the Burr trial(s). I am by no means an expert on the Burr Conspiracy, but I had read a biography about Burr and he's a supporting "character" in a few histories of the era I've read. I mention this because many people/events are mentioned with very little background. If this was the first book you ever read about the Burr Conspiracy I don't think you'd get much out of it.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews