Refuge, Raids, and Confederates on Sleighs: How the Confederacy Exploited Canada and the International Border and Shaped the American Civil War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation expands historians’ geographical understanding of the American Civil War to include British North America, specifically, Canada. My study shows that the physical boundaries of the Confederacy did not outline the full range or coverage of its supporters, nor did the physical boundaries of the battlefield define the extent of war making and wartime action. Raids were executed from Canada against the United States home front prompting the United States Army, government, and American civilians to confront these Confederates and stop their insidious presence and violence. Where slavery thrived, a lack of official Confederate government did not prevent enslavers and Confederates from exercising and extending their influence and extending that influence to the international border to secure a military victory for the Confederate States of America, especially in the state of Kentucky. Treasonous individuals, and their wives and families, maintained their disloyalty and avoided imprisonment by American authorities by fleeing to Canada. Magnifying the wartime actions at the international border between Canada and the United States, and in the borderlands, shows the limitations of borders and the incomplete power of nations to govern and control people—a lesson enslaved men and women taught enslavers by their constant resistance and challenging of the institution of slavery. This study moves chronologically from the Antebellum Era to the Civil War years and ends during Reconstruction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".