Wringing Rights out of the Mountains: Colorado's Centennial Constitution and the Ambivalent Promise of Human Rights and Social Equality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On February 28, 1861, United States Congress created Territory of Colorado. (1) As one of last states to be organized into a territory prior to Civil War, (2) Colorado's petition for statehood would play an instrumental role in bringing Civil War and its Reconstruction era of hostilities to a psychological end. (3) Recognizing 1876 national presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden would be close, national Republican leaders pushed through a proposal for Colorado statehood in 1875. (4) Critically, without Colorado's three electoral votes, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes may not have become President of United States. (5) Severely weakened by election controversy, Hayes and Republican leaders negotiated Compromise of 1877. (6) The Compromise, which removed remaining federal soldiers stationed in South, ensured promise of equal rights and legal protections found in recent amendments to Federal Constitution on behalf of nation's Southern black citizenry would be drastically restricted and largely ignored. (7) During this formidable period, Coloradans, like their national counterparts, were deeply divided along regional lines. In rural southern expanses of territory lived a Catholic, Spanish-speaking population, while Anglo migrants from states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Missouri and countries of Canada, Ireland, and Germany settled in urban and increasingly industrial sectors in northern half of state. (8) The tone of this regional split was reflected in state's territorial jurisprudence. In 1868, for instance, Territorial Supreme Court of Colorado objected to use of Spanish in Territory's courtrooms. (9) According to court, the Spanish language ... is not to be tolerated in this country. (10) The court accordingly expressed shock that judicial proceedings should be in any other than adopted language of nation. (11) Mirroring some of detente of national sectional struggle and prominent role played by Colorado's Spanish-speaking citizenry in formation of its state constitution, (12) however, Colorado Supreme Court in 1879 limited holding of 1868 case solely to use of English in pleadings. (13) It should come as no surprise this same ambivalence about human rights concerns of its diverse citizenry would become embedded in both political construction and jurisprudential development of Colorado's Centennial Constitution. Accepted by voters of Colorado on July 1, 1876, (14) state constitution has expressed over time both boundless promise and deep discord of an age immensely concerned about individual freedom and social equity. The document's Article II contains most explicit declarations of basic equality guarantees held by state's citizenry. (15) Given constitution's creation in years after Civil War, it is notable Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment to Federal Constitution do not have a counterpart in state's text. Nonetheless, Colorado framers were animated by Populist demand for human rights. (16) The original 1876 Constitution thus includes freedom of elections, (17) equality of justice, (18) due process of law, (19) prohibition against slavery, (20) and property rights of aliens (21) guarantees. In addition, original constitution explicitly provided publication of laws be printed in Spanish and German (22) and right of suffrage could be extended by state legislature to women of lawful age. (23) Perhaps no issue was as contentious, or as representative of ambivalent meaning of social equity, than issue of women's suffrage. First advocated by Territorial Governor Edward McCook and his wife in 1870, (24) movement to extend suffrage to women in Colorado gained momentum after U. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".