In the spring of 1805 Aaron Burr was a man without prospects. Having been dumped from the 1804 Democratic-Republican presidential ticket, he faced an indictment for murder in New Jersey and an investigation in his home state of New York resulting from his famous duel with Alexander Hamilton. In the face of these developments, Burr followed the example of thousands of Americans similarly down on their luck by going west in search of new opportunities. Once there he embarked upon a scheme designed to restore his faded fortunes, one which ended with the former vice president on trial in a Richmond courtroom for treason against the United States.

Burr’s conspiracy was the most controversial episode in a life that had no shortage of controversy. Given the circumstances and the subsequent efforts by the participants to avoid complicity, the exact details will probably never be known. Nor does Peter Charles Hoffer endeavor in this book to untangle the conflicting claims to ascertain Burr’s intentions to determine exactly what happened. Rather, his focus is on the legal aspects of the case, specifically its legacy for our definition of treason today. This was a matter of considerable importance to the revolutionary generation. As Hoffer notes, that treason was the only crime expressly defined by the Constitution reflected the experience of its authors with it, which led them to establish a higher standard of proof than had existed in English law. This standard – requiring an “overt act” and “two witnesses” – would become a deciding factor in Burr’s trial.

This was in part because of the circumspect way in which Burr carried out his plans. Their nebulous nature allows for a wide range of interpretations, and Hoffer’s argument that the scheme was merely an attempt to defraud investors rather than a serious effort to seize the Kentucky territory reflects his generous view of Burr as a gentleman whose greatest flaw was that he was too clever by half. One consequence of this is that it makes Thomas Jefferson appear practically Javert-esque in his attempts to gain a conviction of Burr – arguably unnecessarily so given the numerous examples Hoffer documents of the president’s efforts to influence the outcome of the trial. And if Jefferson is the villain of Hoffer’s book it is John Marshall who emerges as its hero, as his decisions as the judge in both Burr’s trial and the related proceedings against Erick Bollman that preceded it proved important milestones in confirming the higher standard for treason that exists to this day.

Hoffer’s expertise as a legal historian is on full display in this book. In it he provides an extremely useful account of the evolution of treason in American law, as well as a damming autopsy of the proceedings against Burr and his associates. While his interpretation of Burr’s activities might be excessively generous, this does not detract from the book’s value as an account of the legal proceedings against Burr and their legacy in the American legal system. In these respects, the consequences of Burr’s dramatic activities are still with us today. ( )