"Sagacious Beyond Praise"? Winfield Scott and Anglo-American-Canadian Border Diplomacy, 1837-1860
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General Winfield Scott is one of the important but underappreciated figures in U.S. diplomatic history.1 A hero of the War of 1812 and the Mexican War whose exploits largely have been obscured by the battlefield performances of generals on both sides of the Civil War, Scott was known as a vain and pompous man, one whose aristocratic bent and preference for professional armies over popular militias left him out of step with the growing democratization of American life.2 In contrast to William Henry Harrison's rugged sobriquet, “Old Rough ‘n Ready,” Scott was known as “Old Fuss and Feathers.” One biographer described Scott as “an aristocrat of the old school, and a good deal of a snob.”3 Theodore Roosevelt referred to him as “a wholly absurd and flatulent personage.”4 One of Scott's aides noted that “the chief ruling passion of the general was ambition and its uniform attendant, jealousy.”5 Ulysses S. Grant, once an officer under Scott's command, noted that his former commander “could bestow praise upon [himself ] with the least embarrassment.”6 After Scott finally claimed the Whig presidential nomination he long coveted in 1852, he was decisively thrashed in the general election by the eminently forgettable Franklin Pierce.7 When Scott died, one newspaper commented that Old Fuss and Feathers “acts like a god and talks like a fool.”8 In many respects, Scott and Jackson were diametrically opposed: where Jackson was seen as the champion of average Americans, Scott appeared an aspiring aristocrat; while Jackson used militia to good effect during his victory over the British at New Orleans, Scott believed war was a matter best left to professional soldiers. Their differences, in fact, led to one confrontation early in Scott's career that involved a heated exchange of letters and Jackson's issuance of a challenge to Scott to duel. Fortunately, the tension was defused without the discharge of pistols.9
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".