In "The Liberal Tradition in America" (1955), Louis Hartz first put forth his thesis that the American political tradition derives essentially from consensual liberal principles. The many detractors to this theory include Bernard Bailyn, who argued that preliberal, republican values initially held sway in eighteenth-century American politics. In "The Shaping of American Liberalism," David Ericson offers an innovative reinterpretation of both positions by redefining the "terms" of the argument. Focusing on three critical debates in American history the debate between Anti-Federalists and...
In "The Liberal Tradition in America" (1955), Louis Hartz first put forth his thesis that the American political tradition derives essentially from co...
This text explores the full range and depth of the liberal tradition in America and how it has been perceived by political theorists and historians. The contributors weigh the various paradigm shifts in our understanding of American political development according to consensus, polarity and multiple traditions. They take into account African-American and pro-slavery thought, gender and identity politics, citizenship in the reconstruction and progressive eras, and models of Supreme Court decision-making. The Liberal Tradition in American Politics questions how viewing American history through...
This text explores the full range and depth of the liberal tradition in America and how it has been perceived by political theorists and historians. T...
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...
Frederick Douglass and George Fitzhugh disagreed on virtually every major issue of the day. On slavery, women's rights, and the preservation of the...
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...
Frederick Douglass and George Fitzhugh disagreed on virtually every major issue of the day. On slavery, women's rights, and the preservation of the...
Assessing the limits of pluralism, this book examines different types of political inclusion and exclusion and their distinctive dimensions and dynamics.
Assessing the limits of pluralism, this book examines different types of political inclusion and exclusion and their distinctive dimensions and dynami...
Assessing the limits of pluralism, this book examines different types of political inclusion and exclusion and their distinctive dimensions and dynamics. Why are particular social groups excluded from equal participation in political processes? How do these groups become more fully included as equal participants? Often, the critical issue is not whether a group is included but how it is included. Collectively, these essays elucidate a wide range of inclusion or exclusion: voting participation, representation in legislative assemblies, representation of group interests in...
Assessing the limits of pluralism, this book examines different types of political inclusion and exclusion and their distinctive dimensions and dyn...
Many scholars believe that the existence of slavery stymied the development of the American state because slaveholding Southern politicians were so at odds with a federal government they feared would abolish their peculiar institution. David Ericson argues to the contrary, showing that over a seventy-year period slavery actually contributed significantly to the development of the American state, even as a "house divided." Drawing on deep archival research that tracks federal expenditures on slavery-related items, Ericson reveals how the policies, practices, and institutions of the early...
Many scholars believe that the existence of slavery stymied the development of the American state because slaveholding Southern politicians were so at...
