000			03998nam a22005655i 4500
001			200610
003			IT-RoAPU
005			20240316185343.0
006			m|||||o||d||||||||
007			cr || ||||||||
008			240306t20002000nyu fo d z eng d
020			_a9780814722121 _qprint
020			_a9780814722909 _qPDF
024	7		_a10.18574/nyu/9780814722909.001.0001 _2doi
035			_a(DE-B1597)9780814722909
035			_a(DE-B1597)548147
035			_a(OCoLC)179087875
040			_aDE-B1597 _beng _cDE-B1597 _erda
050		4	_aE449 _b.E73 2000
072		7	_aPOL004000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_a306.3620973 _qOCoLC _221/eng/20230216
084			_aonline - DeGruyter
100	1		_aEricson, David F. _eautore
245	1	4	_aThe Debate Over Slavery : _bAntislavery and Proslavery Liberalism in Antebellum America / _cDavid F. Ericson.
264		1	_aNew York, NY : _bNew York University Press, _c[2000]
264		4	_c©2000
300			_a1 online resource
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_atext file _bPDF _2rda
505	0	0	_tFrontmatter -- _tContents -- _tAcknowledgments -- _tPart I -- _t1. The Liberal Consensus Thesis and Slavery -- _t2. The Antislavery and Proslavery Arguments -- _tPart II -- _t3. Child, Douglass, and Antislavery Liberalism -- _t4. Wendell Phillips -- _tPart III -- _t5. Dew, Fitzhugh, and Proslavery Liberalism -- _t6. James H. Hammond -- _tPart IV -- _t7. The “House Divided” and Civil-War Causation -- _tNotes -- _tIndex -- _tAbout the Author
506	0		_arestricted access _uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec _fonline access with authorization _2star
520			_aFrederick 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.
538			_aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
546			_aIn English.
588	0		_aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 06. Mrz 2024)
650		0	_aAbolitionists _zUnited States _xHistory _y19th century.
650		0	_aAntislavery movements _zUnited States _xHistory _y19th century.
650		0	_aLiberalism _zUnited States _xHistory _y19th century.
650		0	_aSlavery _xPolitical aspects _zUnited States _xHistory _y19th century.
650		0	_aSlavery _zSouthern States _xJustification.
650		0	_aSouthern States _xIntellectual life.
650		7	_aPOLITICAL SCIENCE / Civil Rights. _2bisacsh
850			_aIT-RoAPU
856	4	0	_uhttps://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814722909.001.0001
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780814722909
856	4	2	_3Cover _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/cover/isbn/9780814722909/original
942			_cEB
999			_c200610 _d200610