LEADER 04159nam 2200733 a 450 001 9910455475003321 005 20211025222809.0 010 $a0-8147-2290-3 010 $a0-585-47187-8 024 7 $a10.18574/9780814722909 035 $a(CKB)111087027966292 035 $a(EBL)865381 035 $a(OCoLC)784884442 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000135685 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11139164 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000135685 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10062803 035 $a(PQKB)10899857 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC865381 035 $a(OCoLC)179087875 035 $a(MdBmJHUP)muse10891 035 $a(DE-B1597)548147 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780814722909 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL865381 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10032491 035 $a(EXLCZ)99111087027966292 100 $a20000710d2000 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurnn#---|u||u 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 14$aThe debate over slavery$b[electronic resource] $eantislavery and proslavery liberalism in antebellum America /$fDavid F. Ericson 210 $aNew York $cNew York University Press$dc2000 215 $a1 online resource (253 p.) 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 0 $a0-8147-2213-X 311 0 $a0-8147-2212-1 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 167-233) and index. 327 $tFront matter --$tContents --$tAcknowledgments --$t1. The Liberal Consensus Thesis and Slavery --$t2. The Antislavery and Proslavery Arguments --$t3. Child, Douglass, and Antislavery Liberalism --$t4. Wendell Phillips --$t5. Dew, Fitzhugh, and Proslavery Liberalism --$t6. James H. Hammond --$t7. The ?House Divided? and Civil-War Causation --$tNotes --$tIndex --$tAbout the Author 330 $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. 606 $aAntislavery movements$zUnited States$xHistory$y19th century 606 $aSlavery$xPolitical aspects$zUnited States$xHistory$y19th century 606 $aSlavery$zSouthern States$xJustification 606 $aLiberalism$zUnited States$xHistory$y19th century 606 $aAbolitionists$zUnited States$xHistory$y19th century 607 $aUnited States$xIntellectual life$y19th century 607 $aSouthern States$xIntellectual life 607 $aSouthern States$xRace relations 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aAntislavery movements$xHistory 615 0$aSlavery$xPolitical aspects$xHistory 615 0$aSlavery$xJustification. 615 0$aLiberalism$xHistory 615 0$aAbolitionists$xHistory 676 $a306.3/62/0973 700 $aEricson$b David F.$f1950-$01040204 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910455475003321 996 $aThe debate over slavery$92462877 997 $aUNINA