MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1980226225 · doi:10.1353/jmh.2008.0072

“That Ever Loyal Island”: Staten Island and the American Revolution (review)

2008· article· en· W1980226225 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ira D. Gruber

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Military History · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpanish Civil WarIndependence (probability theory)NavyHistoryGeorge (robot)Administration (probate law)Government (linguistics)LawEconomic historyPolitical scienceArchaeologyArt history

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: “That Ever Loyal Island”: Staten Island and the American Revolution Ira D. Gruber “That Ever Loyal Island”: Staten Island and the American Revolution. By Phillip Papas . New York: New York University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8147-6724-5. Map. Illustrations. Appendixes. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xi, 184. $45.00. In 1775 the 3,000 residents of Staten Island, New York, were among the most loyal of British subjects in North America. Secure on their island, prosperous with farming and trade, and comfortable in a deferential Anglican society, they opposed the rebellion that had broken out in British North America. They refused to support economic sanctions against Britain; sold provisions to the Royal Navy; and instructed their delegates to the New York Provincial Congress to vote against American independence. In the summer of 1776 they welcomed the British army that landed on Staten Island to begin the restoration of royal government in New York—burning George Washington in effigy, enlisting in Loyalist units to serve as auxiliaries with the king's forces, and punishing the few rebel sympathizers left on their island. But they soon suffered for their loyalty. When the British army moved on to capture New York City and mount offensives along the Atlantic seaboard from Rhode Island to Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, Staten Islanders were [End Page 565] caught up in a bitter civil war. Their provincial units and a small British garrison were unable to protect them against attacks by the rebel forces that controlled New Jersey through most of the war. Beyond that, they were vulnerable to their friends—to the British, Hessian, and Loyalist corps that used their island as a staging area, commandeering supplies, spreading diseases, imposing martial law, plundering private and public property, and abusing individuals. Gradually, the residents of Staten Island began to question their allegiance to the crown. By the time that the rebels had won their independence, Staten Islanders were ready to celebrate the withdrawal of British forces and to resume their lives as citizens of the new United States. Few emigrated to Canada or the British Isles. This is an admirable history—thoroughly researched, clearly written, and persuasively argued. It adds significantly to what we have known about the identity of Loyalists and the intensity of the hostility that they faced during the Revolutionary War in the middle colonies. Papas might have done more to locate Staten Island in the larger history of the war: to explain where the provincial forces raised on the island served and what place they had in British strategy, to consider the impact of skirmishing around the island on rebels as well as Loyalists, and to continue the story of the island as a British staging area beyond 1776 (including Sir William Howe's incursions into New Jersey and invasion of Pennsylvania in 1777 as well as Sir Henry Clinton's attempts to surprise Washington in New Jersey in June 1780, exploit the mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line in January 1781, and relieve Cornwallis at Yorktown in September 1781). But if tightly focused, this is a most readable and valuable book: about the most intimate account we are likely to have of Loyalists in the Revolutionary War. Ira D. Gruber Rice University Houston, Texas Copyright © 2008 Society for Military History

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,366
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,006
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,254
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Military HistoryMême sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207