Even at the time while it was actively happening (1805—1807), people were pointing out that the government had no evidence. Two witnesses against Burr were caught perjuring themselves (Jacob Allbright testified on behalf of somebody else, who happened to be in the room as a spectator and called him out; James Wilkinson forged and tampered with evidence). The other witnesses couldn't get a story straight, and none of them besides Allbright testified to having witnessed an actual act of treason. President Jefferson was known to have bribed a huge number of witnesses to testify against Burr. Several Constitutional amendments were also violated by the Jefferson administration. Burr was tried 3 times, and acquitted on lack of evidence each time; he also turned himself in twice, one of which didn't even make it to court. All anybody was able to prove is that Burr was likely in charge of an assembly of somewhere between 30 and 60 men, most of whom were unarmed, on Blennerhassett Island. And that he talked a lot of shit about the government and President Jefferson. All of this is theoretically known historical fact, and yet when people talk about the Burr Conspiracy, it's pretty much always to talk about how "Aaron Burr tried to be the emperor/king/dictator of Mexico/Texas/Louisiana/North America!" even though all the evidence suggests he did none of those things. Why is it that after 200 years, the Conspiracy is still remembered as a treasonous conspiracy by Aaron Bure, as opposed to a blatant government conspiracy against Aaron Burr? (feel free to ask about context and background and whatnot, I love talking about the Burr Conspiracy) (I've been studying the Burr Conspiracy for 4 years, best sources on it are 'Jefferson's Vendetta' by Joseph Wheelan and 'An Uneasy Alliance' by Dorcas K. Helms)
