- Editor’s Page
We’ve moved! It’s been a long time coming, but the editorial office can now be found on the eighth floor of Gladfelter Hall on Temple University’s main campus. Temple’s History Department has gone out of its way to provide support for the Journal of the Early Republic.
July, 2012, marked the official end of my tenure as editor. Adios with best wishes to all and gratitude for the support of a vibrant academic community as well as Temple University’s Department of History, SHEAR, the McNeil Center for Early American Studies, and Penn Press.
The editorship now passes to the recent JER book review editors David Waldstreicher and Jonathan Daniel Wells. Happily, Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg have agreed to assume the book review editorship. The journal will be in excellent hands. In addition, Kate Tyler Wall continues to serve as a meticulous managing editor, both organized and astute.
Brenna Holland and Patrick Grossi have served ably as editorial interns. Thanks to both! Aaron Sullivan will be taking over to work with the new editors.
Ralph D. Gray Article Prize for 2011—Report of the Prize Committee
It was a privilege and a pleasure to serve on the committee charged with selecting the winner of the Ralph D. Gray Article Prize for Vol. 31 (2011) of the Journal of the Early Republic. After a great deal of consideration, the committee has chosen to award the prize to Thomas N. Baker, for his painstakingly-researched and compellingly-presented article, “ ‘An Attack Well Directed’: Aaron Burr Intrigues for the Presidency.” In uncovering Burr’s “stealth campaign to compass the presidency for himself “ (556) during the election crisis of 1800, Baker not only provides a significant contribution to our understanding of the election and its aftermath, but also offers a sharp contrast with recent scholarly depictions of Burr as “the consummate gentleman whose [End Page 693] pledge of honor to Jefferson and his fellow Republicans in 1800 will not allow him to gratify his ambitions to be president” (557). The force of these arguments rests on the impressive breadth and depth of Baker’s research in both archival and published sources and on his finely grained and creative interpretations of often vague and circumstantial evidence. Baker’s rediscovery of unknown, unused, and previously misinterpreted materials, combined with his careful parsing of the extensive evidence he has compiled and his clear grasp of the political scenes at the national and certain local levels, allows him to confirm a long-standing suspicion while exposing how many contemporary actors and later historians came to accept Burr’s cover-up. Indeed, in many ways this article is as much about the creation, preservation, and organization of manuscript evidence and the production of history as it is about Aaron Burr and the election of 1800. Ultimately, the essay shows that meticulous archival work, coupled with the rereading (and re-rereading) of published sources, can yield new insights on even the most well-known of stories. Thus, it offers a strong affirmation of the fact that no history is completely settled, and that the search for new information and attempts at reinterpretation are worthwhile endeavors.
Our deepest congratulations to Dr. Baker.
Laura Keenan Spero (chair), Karim Tiro, and Sean P. Harvey (winner for 2010).
Class of 2013:
Catherine Allgor, University of California–Riverside
Bruce Dorsey, Swarthmore College
Kathleen DuVal, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Trish Loughran, University of Illinois, Champaign–Urbana
Kenneth E. Marshall, SUNY–Oswego
Simon Newman, University of Glasgow
Charles E. Rosenberg, Harvard University
Ex officio: Peter B. Knupher, Michigan State University
Class of 2015:
John Quist, Shippensburg University
Susan Juster, University of Michigan
Richard Newman, Rochester Institute of Technology [End Page 694]
Christopher Olsen, Indiana State University
Juliana Barr, University of Florida
Reeve Huston, Duke University
Bethel Saler, Haverford College
Thanks to all the Board members, both the old and the new, for your willingness to serve.
We have been delighted with the responses from reviewers, who overwhelmingly respond “yes” to our pleas to review . . . and then completed the reviews with alacrity. We deeply appreciate their thoughtful and detailed comments on submissions that...