MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4377818944 · doi:10.1162/tneq_r_00988

Making Maine: Statehood and the War of 1812

2023· article· en· W4377818944 sur OpenAlex
Zachary M. Bennett

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe New England Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFederalistState (computer science)DemocracyPower (physics)PoliticsLawTheme (computing)Spanish Civil WarCommonwealthNarrativeHistoryPolitical scienceEconomic historySociologyLiteratureArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Imagine an America where police and military officers are appointed solely on the basis of their political allegiances. Imagine an America so politically polarized that opponents are labeled as advocating for an “infidel philosophy” (206). Now, imagine an America that reacts to the invasion of its territory by a foreign power with indifference. Hard to imagine? Well, readers of Joshua M. Smith's fifth book, Making Maine, may be surprised to learn this is precisely what Mainers endured in the first two decades of the nineteenth century. This remarkable episode has been overlooked because it runs counter to the western trajectory of the nation and the “insistence on American success” as the theme of nineteenth-century U.S. history (237).Making Maine takes a chronological approach spanning from the Jefferson Administration through Maine's first years as a state in the 1820s. Although the book has several themes, it defies a clear narrative arc, which gives some sense to the chaos of those two decades. Before the War of 1812, the commonwealth of Massachusetts was a divided state. Long a Federalist stronghold, Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party were ascendant in the state, especially in its non-contiguous district of Maine. Its influence fading at home and nationally, Federalists jealously guarded their power and even discussed seceding from the Union to avoid what was, in their view, the apocalypse of Democratic-Republican rule. In turn, Democratic Republicans labeled their Federalist opponents as “aristocrats” and as enemies of principles won in the American Revolution (21). Growing religious divisions only further fanned these flames. Methodist and Baptist denominations gained popularity across Massachusetts, yet all citizens were required to pay taxes to support the stalwart Congregational Church. The theme of intense partisanship pervades the book and should help twenty-first-century readers put contemporary ideological divisions in perspective.Massachusetts was not in a suitable posture for war, yet it came in 1812. Chaos and disorder reigned on land and sea in Maine. Canadians and Americans frequently smuggled resources across the border and privateers waylaid ships regardless of the flag they flew. Mainers often saw their political opponents as a greater threat than the British with whom they were at war. Federalists who saw the war as the folly of the Democratic-Republican president, James Monroe, were particularly resistant. They refused to pay taxes, and even in one instance beating a recruiter “with the butt end of a whip handle” (111).Sensing the divisions in Maine and seeking to avenge the several American invasions of Upper Canada, the British invaded Maine in 1814 and met with indifference. Encountering little resistance, British forces successfully captured Downeast Maine. Most Mainers “preferred property to pride,” opting to take neutrality oaths and ride out the war rather than engage in a patriotic defiance (161). Mainers looked to Massachusetts to relieve them of the indignity of occupation—Boston's influence and resources, after all, were the reason many Mainers had curbed statehood efforts up to that point. Massachusetts’ response was uninspiring. Boston Federalists failed to muster the necessary funds or initiative to challenge the British occupation of Maine. Mainers accused Massachusetts’ Federalist governor of “tamely submitting to the invasion of his territory” (204). Massachusetts Federalists’ perceived apathy toward its Maine citizens and their bungling of the militia tipped the scales in favor of statehood, which was achieved in 1820. Smith notes that the separation was not necessarily as acrimonious as one would assume, since “the Massachusetts ideal of an orderly Boston-oriented society lingered in Maine” after independence—seen in the state's constitution and state house imitating the Bay State in both an ideological and physical sense (223).Making Maine will be of interest to scholars and lay readers of the state's history. The amount of research in Making Maine borders on encyclopedic, and the primary sources in the book are impressive, coming from an impressive number of archives. Making Maine seems written for Mainers with an intimate knowledge of the Pine Tree State's geography. Those interested in placing Maine's experience during the War of 1812 within the wider national experience may note that the encyclopedic coverage of the war and the events surrounding it do not lend itself to a narrative structure. Smith vividly describes exciting battles and confrontations but could have also spent more time convincing readers why those events mattered with greater context. As a native Mainer, I fear that those “from away” will have a hard time seeing the relevance or importance of this forgotten episode from a largely forgotten war. Overall, Making Maine brings long overdue attention to an important moment in American history. Unlike Maine's cries for help in 1814, one hopes that this book is heard by scholars beyond the state's borders, because it helps us understand a critical crossroads not just in Maine's history, but the nation's as well.

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.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,883
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,621

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
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 GPT0,304
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · 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