Disunion among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disunion among Ourselves closely follows the public debates and private conversations and correspondence of members of Congress from the first meeting in September 1774 through the end of 1783 after the peace treaty that ended the Revolutionary War and George Washington's resignation as commander in chief of the Continental Army. Eli Merritt brings together in one detailed account the many political controversies that competing local and regional interests generated during those years, some figuring in the political and diplomatic history of the time, and others less known. Throughout the volume, Merritt quotes Congress members who stated that those differences seriously threatened the unity of the colonies and states. The instances are so numerous that I wish I had counted them from the beginning. Divisions began at the beginning with a debate about voting in Congress, whether each colony should have one vote or if the number of residents of each should be considered in apportioning the votes among the states. Among the differences that risked the unity that most members of Congress believed was necessary to obtain independence were New England's insistence on a guarantee of access to Newfoundland fisheries; insistence by states with large western land claims to the navigation of the Mississippi River and use of the port of New Orleans; instructions to diplomats for negotiating alliances and the peace treaty to include or insist on those regional benefits; whether, on what, and how Congress might impose taxes; slavery; how to settle the competing claims of New York and New Hampshire to what eventually became the state of Vermont; and the location of the national capital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".