Convergence of Contradictions: Abolitionism in Maine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1837 a trading sloop arrived home in Thomaston, Maine, from Savannah, Georgia, carrying a fugitive slave, Atticus, who had hidden on board. In violation of federal law, Atticus remained and worked in Maine until he was betrayed and his owner, in pursuit, reclaimed his “stolen property.” When Georgia’s governor demanded the captain and first-mate stand trial in Georgia for theft, the case drew national attention and grew into a fierce political and legal fight that reveals the competing interests and contradictory attitudes Mainers held toward race and slavery. Like most of the North, Maine owed its economic success to the South’s slavery-based economy and robust North-South trade. While Southern sympathies and deep-seated racism entrenched themselves in Maine, so did antislavery sentiment and a strong interracial abolitionist movement, described in private diaries, contemporary journals, local histories, as we l as minutes for church and town meetings. A rare example of Maine’s Underground Railroad accounts for which documentation exists through letters, court records, and newspaper coverage, Atticus’s es cape questions whether Maine’s coastal trading routes were used more frequently in self-emancipation than currently substantiated. Also considered is Maine’s proximity to Canada and the role borderland culture played in race relations and abolitionist activism. The story of Atticus reflects as much about the inherent contradictions within Maine’s antebellum past as it does about the myths it used to reinvent its past after the Civil War. Eileen Kurtis-Kleinman is a Maine-based freelance writer, whose works include Life on an African Slave Ship (Lucent Books, 2001).
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".