Southern Heretics: The Republican Party in the Border South During the Civil War Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the emergence and establishment of the Republican Party in the Border South slave states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri during the Civil War era.As regional and national tensions over slavery began to consume American political life, Frank Blair and other likeminded antislavery leaders attempted to build a Republican organization within the Border South.This dissertation argues that to become a viable political alternative, Republicans in the Border South developed a particular ideology of liberal political antislavery.This ideology promoted a message of white supremacy and free white labor, and reinforced a desire to see the economic progress of their states untrammeled by slavery.As a result, this ideology attracted enough antislavery men to form the only viable contingent of Republicans in the southern slave states.This dissertation also argues for the political importance of Border South Republicans during the Civil War era.Despite being small in number, they played an outsized role in the political and strategic direction of the Republican Party.Border South Republican leaders took an active role in party formation, and influenced major political decisions made during the war.Furthermore, Republican policy concerning black civil and political rights during Reconstruction were often made with Border South Republican concerns in mind.Taking a chronological approach to tell the story of the Republican Party in the Border South, this dissertation examines how the liberal political antislavery consensus was shattered by the Civil War.As emancipation, black civil rights, and disenfranchisement emerged as political issues during Reconstruction, Border South Republicans would find themselves struggling to reconcile their ideological goals with political reality.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".