TY  - BOOK
AU  - Ericson,David F.
TI  - The Debate Over Slavery: Antislavery and Proslavery Liberalism in Antebellum America 
SN  - 9780814722121
AV  - E449 .E73 2000
U1  - 306.3620973 21/eng/20230216
PY  - 2000///]
CY  - New York, NY : 
PB  - New York University Press, 
KW  - Abolitionists
KW  - United States
KW  - History
KW  - 19th century
KW  - Antislavery movements
KW  - Liberalism
KW  - Slavery
KW  - Political aspects
KW  - Southern States
KW  - Justification
KW  - Intellectual life
KW  - POLITICAL SCIENCE / Civil Rights
KW  - bisacsh
N1  - Frontmatter --; Contents --; Acknowledgments --; Part I --; 1. The Liberal Consensus Thesis and Slavery --; 2. The Antislavery and Proslavery Arguments --; Part II --; 3. Child, Douglass, and Antislavery Liberalism --; 4. Wendell Phillips --; Part III --; 5. Dew, Fitzhugh, and Proslavery Liberalism --; 6. James H. Hammond --; Part IV --; 7. The “House Divided” and Civil-War Causation --; Notes --; Index --; About the Author; restricted access
N2  - Frederick Douglass and George Fitzhugh disagreed on virtually every major issue of the day. On slavery, women's rights, and the preservation of the Union their opinions were diametrically opposed. Where Douglass thundered against the evils of slavery, Fitzhugh counted its many alleged blessings in ways that would make modern readers cringe. What then could the leading abolitionist of the day and the most prominent southern proslavery intellectual possibly have in common? According to David F. Ericson, the answer is as surprising as it is simple; liberalism. In The Debate Over Slavery David F. Ericson makes the controversial argument that despite their many ostensible differences, most Northern abolitionists and Southern defenders of slavery shared many common commitments: to liberal principles; to the nation; to the nation's special mission in history; and to secular progress. He analyzes, side-by-side, pro and antislavery thinkers such as Lydia Marie Child, Frederick Douglass, Wendell Phillips, Thomas R. Dew, and James Fitzhugh to demonstrate the links between their very different ideas and to show how, operating from liberal principles, they came to such radically different conclusions. His raises disturbing questions about liberalism that historians, philosophers, and political scientists cannot afford to ignore
UR  - https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814722909.001.0001
UR  - https://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780814722909
UR  - https://www.degruyter.com/document/cover/isbn/9780814722909/original
ER  -