Notice bibliographique
Résumé
From Slaves Slave Fugitive Settlers In the first Continental Congress in 1774 it was stated in the Articles of Association, that the United Colonies would neither import nor purchase any and that it would wholly discontinue the slave trade. In 1776, Congress voted that no slave be imported into any of the thirteen united colonies. The general sentiment at this time was against slavery, in part, because Blacks had fought so gallantly in the Revolutionary War. Many northern states attempted embrace the spirit of the of Independence, stating that, All men are created equal. The new constitutions of Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and New York contained emancipation acts and abolished slavery (David, 1924, p.20). After much passionate discourse and fiery debate at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, those who defended the institution of slavery and those who opposed it agreed the official sanctioning of the practice. Delegates at the Constitutional Convention, with resistance from the northern delegates, agreed that a slave would count as three-fifths of a White person for representational purposes in the lower house in the national legislature. Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution states that No person held service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party who such service or labor may be due. This means that the fugitive should be returned their owners. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of slaves would be permitted until 1808 and this could not be amended (Johnson, 1921, p. 161). In 1793, the Second Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act, An act respecting fugitives from justice, and person escaping from their masters. This law was based on Article IV, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, which provided the legal authority for the return of fugitive slaves. It made it lawful arrest and apprehend a fugitive and gave any magistrate of a county, city or town, the authority act on this matter. For anyone who aided a fugitive they were fined $500. Slaves were more of a commodity around 1793 because of Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin (Ridell, 1920, p.341). 1793 was the same year that the Upper Canada Abolition Act was established to prevent further introduction of Slaves, and limit the Term of Contracts for Servitude within this Province. The law stated that any child born of a slave mother would be free at the age of 25. Each of these acts had a significant impact on Canada being a safe-haven for slave fugitives (Bramble, 1988, p.21). Southerners complained that the initial Fugitive Act of 1793 was not being enforced. Consequently, a stronger Fugitive Slave Law was passed in 1850, which flared already heated tensions between the antislavery North and proslavery South. The Southerners felt there was a constitutional obligation return fugitive slaves back their rightful owners. Northerners felt the Act was degrading and contradictory the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (Rodriguez, 2007, p. 301). The stringency of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made the desire for runaway slaves escape Canada more intense. This law made the U.S. a vast hunting ground for bounty hunters and civilians. If slaves were caught trying escape they would often face horrid and unthinkable punishment when they were returned their masters e.g. excessive lashings and/or the amputation of limbs. This law outlawed safe-havens for slave fugitives in the northern states making it urgent for them make it Canada. In the immediate aftermath of the passage of this Fugitive Slave Law there was a dramatic increase in the number of Blacks escaping Canada. …
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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».