MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143455084 · doi:10.1353/mwr.2015.0029

William Henry Harrison and the Conquest of the Ohio Country by David Curtis Skaggs (review)

2015· article· en· W2143455084 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Heath

Bibliographic record

VenueMiddle West review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCONQUESTFrontierHistoryState (computer science)LawClassicsAncient historyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: William Henry Harrison and the Conquest of the Ohio Country by David Curtis Skaggs William Heath David Curtis Skaggs, William Henry Harrison and the Conquest of the Ohio Country. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. 303 pp. $44.95. A professor emeritus at Bowling Green State University, the author is a distinguished scholar of the Old Northwest. The present book provides a valuable look at the role Harrison played in the War of 1812 on the Ohio River—Great Lakes frontier. Skaggs emphasizes the significance of Harrison’s use of mounted Kentuckians in his invasion of Canada and the crucial role of logistics in the successful conduct of any military campaign. He has an extensive knowledge of the period, and his forty some pages of footnotes cover most of the relevant primary and secondary sources. The opening two chapters are the weakest. Here the author tends to paint with too broad a brush instead of focusing on significant events that are more relevant to his thesis. The central theme of the book is the role of the militia in fighting Indians. The “well-regulated militia” of the Constitution was an exercise in wishful thinking. In reality, the militia were notoriously “ill-equipped, ill-led, and ill-disciplined.” The author’s brief references to Harmar’s Defeat in October of 1790 and St. Clair’s Defeat on November 4, 1791, leave out the behavior of the militia in those battles, which resulted in 180 and 650 deaths respectively. Instead he cites Charles Scott’s “devastating raids on native villages” as Harrison’s model. Scott led a single raid in 1791 against Wea and Kickapoo villages on the Wabash, claiming to have killed thirty-eight warriors; in truth, the dead were old men, women, and children. James Wilkinson attacked the Miami on the Eel River later that summer. These raids did demonstrate how quickly Kentuckians could ride into northern Indiana and destroy villages, but in neither case did they engage a significant number of warriors in a real battle. Harrison also admired Anthony Wayne, who held the militia in low regard and used them as little as possible. Nonetheless, Harrison was indeed convinced that mounted Kentuckians could play a significant role on the frontier. The second chapter focuses on events leading up to the battle of Tippecanoe. Here again more detail would be helpful. The author praises Harrison’s “talent for negotiations” with the Indians, but never looks closely at his suspect tactics, especially in the all-important Fort Wayne Treaty of 1809, where he deliberately kept the Shawnees away and used Potawatomi warriors as leverage. (Robert M. Owens’s Mr. Jefferson’s Hammer takes a more critical look at Harrison’s conduct.) Neither does Skaggs discuss secretary [End Page 95] of war Henry Knox’s faulty Indian policy and the unfair treaties that led up to President Washington’s costly Indian war in the 1790s. The result is that few of the just grievances of the Indians are presented. The author assumes Native Americans were “doomed” by demographics regardless of what the United States did or didn’t do. Harrison’s complex relationship to the Shawnee Prophet and his brother Tecumseh is too sketchy, as is the sequence of events that led up to Tippecanoe. We need a better sense of how Harrison outmaneuvered President Madison in order to provoke a battle. Although the causes of the War of 1812 are underplayed, once hostilities begin the book gains momentum. Harrison’s initial “campaign” to win command of the army from James Winchester is covered in telling detail. The greatest drawback in this part is that the book jumps around in time, thus losing narrative sequence. The siege of Fort Wayne, Hull’s surrender of Detroit, Indian raids on the frontier, and so forth are discussed in several places. There are also factual errors: in the battle of Fort Dearborn some ninety-five citizens and soldiers were involved, not two hundred; most of them, including William Wells, were killed during the fight, not afterwards. On the other hand, the author rightly stresses Robert Dickson’s role in keeping the Lake Indians on the British side as well as the strategic...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMiddle West reviewSame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207