Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is generally recognized that among of antebellum United States, Illinois was one of more conflicted in regard to excluding and involuntary servitude. While known as a a detailed study of subject has suggested that, up to middle of nineteenth century, Illinois was most accommodating of states in regard to slave owners bringing their within its borders, perhaps equaled in this respect only by New Jersey. Indeed, story of lingering incidence of during Illinois statehood has been well told from history of long term indentures created during territorial period to so-called slaves and their descendants (Africans held as of pre-1787 French and Canadian settlers) held in southwest of state, and to variety of circumstances in which were temporarily held in Illinois. It has been pointed out that, when other northern free states from New York to Indiana were eliminating granting of comity that allowed out-of-state slave owners to travel through a free with their slaves, in 1843, Illinois Supreme Court explicitly recognized just such a right under Illinois law.1 Indeed, difficulties that Illinois had with persistence of in a state began in earliest time of its territorial period. As a part of Northwest Territory-land north of Ohio River ceded by Virginia to United States in 1784-the territory of Illinois became subject to 1787 Northwest Ordinance that, by its terms, barred slavery. The well known Article VI of Ordinance provided in pertinent part that, There shall be neither nor involuntary servitude in said territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof party shall have been duly convicted. ...2 This might have been expected to exclude altogether within Northwest Territory but this broad exclusionary language was ignored or circumvented in important respects so that, not just in land that became Illinois, but throughout southern tier of this Northwest Territory-from Ohio to Illinois - some slave holding lingered. The number of such was never large-one estimate suggests 2,000 to 3,000 blacks who remained enslaved in Northwest between 1787 and 1848-but it was clearly in violation of letter and spirit of Ordinance and Illinois was most prominent offender in this regard. Indeed, it has been said that in Illinois, slavery remained vigorous throughout territorial period.3 The vigor of slave holding in Illinois was manifested almost immediately upon adoption of 1787 Ordinance and its ban. Despite unqualified language in Ordinance, slave holding interests in southwestern Illinois who held French pressed for an interpretation that ban was prospective and did not affect already present. By 1790, this effort had succeeded when territorial governor, Arthur St. Clair, declared his view that law was prospective only. St. Clair was never challenged on this by national government so that, ten years after Ordinance, the status of slaves in Illinois and elsewhere in Northwest Territory remained largely unchanged. It was not just French and their descendants who came to be excepted from ban of Ordinance. In 1807, Indiana Territory (that until 1809 included what became Illinois) legislated to allow slave owners from slave states to bring their into territory as indentured servants for a term of years agreed to by both parties. While some considered this 1807 law and lifetime or near lifetime indentures made under law to be disguised slavery-as we shall see Illinois Supreme Court would later call it just that-when Illinois was established as a separate territory in 1809, it continued this indenture system even as separate Indiana Territory had moved to abandon it. …
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».