Great Events in the History of North and South America

by Charles A. Goodrich

Such were the plans of Burr, according to intelligence communicated from time to time to the government of the United States. On the belief of the guilt of Burr, or through utter hostility to him, Jefferson acted; and with an evident design to prevent his escape, he succeeded in procuring the passage of a bill in the senate for suspending the writ of habeas corpus; but it was rejected by the house, by the strong vote of one hundred and thirteen to nineteen.

Burr, to his dying day, denied any intention of dismembering the Union; but avowed the projects which did not involve the charge of treason. "In his latter days," says his biographer, "Colonel Burr had no longer any motive for concealment; nor did he evince the least desire to suppress the facts in relation to any of his acts, even where the promulgation of those facts was calculated to effect his moral character. According to his representation, repeated at a time, and under circumstances the most solemn and impressive, (Burr at this time was expected to survive but a short time,) his views were twofold, viz: First, The revolutionizing of Mexico; and, Second, A settlement on what was known as the Bastrop lands."

It is further added by his biographer, that "during the years 1806 and 1807, Herman Blennerhasset kept a private journal, in which are recorded the principal incidents arising out of his connexion with Colonel Burr. Portions of it are interesting and amusing. The entries confirm the particular statements of Truxton, Bollman,[69] and others, and repudiate the idea of treasonable designs. It appears that in December, 1805, Blennerhasset addressed a letter to Colonel Burr, expressing a wish to participate in any speculation in the Western country that might present itself to Burr. A Spanish war was hourly anticipated, and Blennerhasset proposed to join Burr in any expedition that might be undertaken against the Spanish dominions.

"In August, 1806, in consequence of this overture, Burr visited Blannerhasset at his home on the Ohio, and the next day rode with him to Marietta, and then separated, Burr being on his way to Chilicothe. From Marietta to Blannerhasset's was about fifteen miles. Some time after, Burr returned to Blannerhasset, to whom he said that an expulsion of the Spaniards from the American territory, or an invasion of Mexico, would be pleasing to the administration, if it could be accomplished without an open, formal war, which would be avoided as long as possible, from parsimony on the one hand, and the dread of France on the other."

We have thus given such a statement of this subject as our limits permit, and as seems due to the respective parties engaged in it. Different opinions will doubtless be entertained with reference to Burr's real designs. That he contemplated the dismemberment of the Union, and the founding of an empire, of which New Orleans was to be the centre, and himself the head, will be questioned by some. That he was capable of devising such a project, and would have accomplished it, if in his power, no one acquainted with the deep designing character of the murderer of Hamilton, can doubt. With exalted talents—with an early education and parental counsel, as liberal and watchful as ever, perhaps, fell to the lot of mortal to enjoy—with the favor and patronage of a people, seldom so generously conferred, or so long and uniformly enjoyed—Burr proved himself a selfish, unprincipled man. One thing is certain, and this he admitted—that he designed the invasion and overthrow of the Mexican government, and the erection of an independent power in its place. And to further his views, he induced not a few, by "inuendoes and otherwise," to believe that his arrangements for the accomplishment of this were with the knowledge, if not the approbation, of the United States' government.

France and England, 1806.—A contest between these two powers, which had been waging for some time, and which had involved the whole of Europe, began now seriously to affect the commercial interests of America. It being the obvious policy of the latter to preserve a strict neutrality in respect to these belligerent powers, every act of the American government had respect to maintaining the same. Being neutral, her vessels carried from port to port the productions of France and her dependent kingdoms; and also to the ports of those kingdoms, the manufactures of England, bringing, by means of this "carrying trade," vast wealth to the nation. These advantages were, however, too great to be long enjoyed unmolested. American ships, carrying to Europe the produce of French colonies, were captured by British cruisers, and condemned by their courts as lawful prizes; and now, several European ports, under the control of France, were, by British orders in council, May 16, 1806, declared to be in a state of blockade, although not invested with a British fleet; and American vessels, attempting to enter those ports, were also captured and condemned. France and her allies suffered from these proceedings, but far less than the United States. By way of retaliation, in November of the same year, Buonaparte issued a decree at Berlin, declaring the British islands to be in a state of blockade, and of course authorizing the capture and condemnation of all neutral vessels attempting to trade with them. Thus, from the retaliatory measures of these two rival powers, the commerce of the United States was seriously injured.

Although the relations of Great Britain and America were at this time ostensibly pacific, yet there existed, and had long existed, a claim on the part of Great Britain, and a pretence under that claim, which was denied by the several presidents during their administrations. This was what was denominated "the right of search"—founded upon the English principle, that no act of a subject can change his allegiance to the government under which he was born. Upon this principle, Great Britain, soon after the peace of 1783, claimed the right to board and search neutral vessels, and take therefrom all British seamen found therein. In the exercise of this pretended right, citizens of the United States had been seized, and, being transported to a distant part of the world, had been compelled to perform the degrading part of British sailors. Notwithstanding the remonstrances of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, the odious practice was still continued, and every year was adding to its aggravations.

Attack on the Chesapeake.—At length, an event occurred, growing out of this pretended "right of search," which roused the indignation of the American people.

A British armed ship, called the Melampus, while lying in Hampton roads, lost, by desertion, several of her crew, viz: William Ware, Daniel Martin, John Strachan, John Little, and Ambrose Watts. Not long after, the first three offered themselves for enlistment on board the Chesapeake, then at Norfolk, Virginia, preparing for the Mediterranean.

The British consul at Norfolk; being apprised of this circumstance, wrote a letter to the American naval officer, requesting these men to be returned. With this request the officer refusing to comply, the British agent requested an order from government for their surrender. An examination, however, into the characters and claims of the men in question, resulted in proof that Ware, Martin, and Strachan, were natives of America. The two former had protections, or notarial certificates of their being American citizens. Strachan had no protection, but asserted that he lost it previously to his escape. Such being the circumstances of the men, the government refused to surrender them.