H. ROBERT BAKER. The Rescue of Joshua Glover: A Fugitive Slave, the Constitution, and the Coming of the Civil War. (Law, Society, and Politics in the Midwest.) Columbus: Ohio State University Press. 2006. Pp. xiv, 251. $38.95
Bibliographic record
Abstract
H. Robert Baker's study of the legal and constitutional issues surrounding the case of fugitive slave Joshua Glover is a fascinating and riveting account of a complex set of questions that deeply divided Americans in the 1850s. In the course of his study Baker shows himself to be well versed in nineteenth-century constitutional questions and an able writer. He also reveals that an interpretation of events raised by the capture in Wisconsin of a Missouri slave can be as controversial in the twenty-first century as it was in the nineteenth. Glover, the slave of Benammi Garland, had lived near Racine, Wisconsin, for two years when captured on March 10, 1854. Within hours demonstrators, led by abolitionist editor Sherman Booth, freed Glover from a Milwaukee jail and sent him on his way to safety and obscurity in Canada, even as the city prepared to host a stage version of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852). So began a six-year legal battle to punish Glover's rescuers, initiated with Booth's conviction for violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The struggle also involved the constitutional rights of the people of Wisconsin and the larger issue of federal versus state authority. The suit against Booth led the Wisconsin Supreme Court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court under Roger Taney to strike down the state ruling five years later. A bizarre series of events saw Booth serve several months of his sentence before rescuers freed him. Booth was then recaptured in October 1860, before outgoing President James Buchanan issued an eleventh-hour pardon in March 1861 as the country teetered on the brink of civil war.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.025 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".