The+Northern+Response+to+Slavery

=
LM - In The Northern Response t o Slavery, Duberman asserts a mixed thesis, for he concentrates on how pre-civil war northerners were increasingly concerned for slavery, while at the same time they remained largely apathetic. This investigation is helpful in understanding the psychological motivation and atmosphere that catalyzed varying degrees of northern vigor for true abolition, but it proclaims the nature of the anit-slavery movement in a far too categorical manner. Perhaps the most complex and the most contested issue in American history, it is inaccurate by limitation to view the anti-slavery movement as a mere consistency with American political outlook. Missing in this article, a prime piece of this complexity was the influence industrialization had on the growth and the contention surrounding the movement to halt slavery. =====

=
Although Duberman does mention northern economic hesitation in considering the extent of their anti-slavery movement, he does not give it the weight that it deserves. Mainly homing in on the broad social tendencies of Americans to lazily advocate gradual correction of societal flaws versus immediate amelioration, Duberman presents a thorough perspective on how anti-slavery movements falls in line with other American reform movements whose pro-activity was beset by a belief that democracy was most effective and self-sufficient at implementing change over long time periods. It is true, the length of time the anti-slavery movement took to successfully eliminate slavery was quite long, spanning almost 80 years. However, the anti-slavery movement cannot be categorically labeled as another prime example of how Americans justified social laissez-faire with democracy. There were too many complexities, such as the dichotomy between northern and southern industrialization, that cast the elaborate shadow of the abolitionist movement on our history. =====

=
Because the north had the geographic, intellectual, and the material resources necessary to industrialize successfully, it became the manufacturing center of the nation. Requiring less skilled labor, the factories hired many immigrants, females, and children. While the south was angered at their inherent inability to have factories as prolifically as the north and their reliance on exporting cotton to the north, tension increased like it never had before once the wheels of industrialization started turning faster and faster. Combined with the proposition that the free states might gain advantage in the legislature in addition to the economy, the south became defensively aggressive against abolitionists. The American will to preserve the union and maintain relative socially placidity was what cause many anit-slavery northerners to be less abolitionist as they were non-expansionist. Clearly, analysis of the northern anti-slavery movement must extend beyond generalizations of social laissez-faire influence. ===== well written and thorough -- keep up this level of work!!

SFH – Although the North may be known for their fight against slavery, the abolitionist movement never became the major channel of Northern antislavery sentiment. Martin Duberman’s article “The Northern Response to Slavery” questions why a region infamous for fights for equality became a population turning their head, or trying to attack slavery indirectly rather than becoming abolitionists. Although this question could be debated for ages, inherently it comes down to human selfishness. For many Northerners a direct assault on slavery meant a direct assault on private property. Fear of these values clearly inhibited antislavery fervor, for if property could not be protected in a nation, neither could life nor liberty. The ambiguity of the Constitution and the founding fathers stance on slavery made Northerners uncertain how far they could go in attacking slavery, without attacking (their own) property. Another reason for the lack of abolitionists in the North is the derogatory connotation abolitionists held. Duberman illustrates becoming an abolitionist meant risking individual respectability. The insalubrious reputation of those already associated with the abolition movement was unlikely to encourage any converts. Hence the average Northerner, even if actively disapproving of slavery continued to be confined and nonchalant in his opposition of slavery. Blanche Glassman Hersh’s asserts a similar claim in her article “Abolitionist Beginnings” where she argues some of the women’s abolition movements were a ploy to enter into a male domain. This ploy was steamed by a desire to bring credibility to women only then helping in abolitionist reforms. Yet without the North and its mix of half hearted and genuine abolition movements America could potentially still be an institution of slave labor . need lots more on this part

J.R.C. - In the article, “The Northern Response to Slavery” by Martin Duberman, a perspective was given from northern America and in this perspective, one finds that Americans are trying to fix a problem that is much too complex to handle as a whole. Americans are known for their theory of gradualism, often using this theory as an excuse for why certain issues never appear to be solved at all. In the case of slavery, America uses this idea of gradualism as a tool of evasion rather than change. This ultimately exemplifies the idea that America has much too many problems to deal with and upon realizing this myriad of issues, officials initiate a plan to ultimately avoid dealing with slavery at all. This problem lasted for years, until war broke out, and again, the focus was taken off of managing the larger problem (slavery) and shifted towards Lincolns fight towards preserving the Union. This sheer hope for the absolute best of both worlds is ultimately another example that demonstrates America’s talents at managing the dispute over slavery. Adding to the fruitful evasion tactics made by the American government, American officials often aimed for what was right rather than what was possible. Though some may agree that the goals of a country should, in fact, be what are most beneficial, others believe that in order to truly succeed in benefitting the country, elected officials should aim for what is possible. In trying to do what is beneficial and right for the country, America lost sight of what was possible, adding to the weight of trying to fix the problem of slavery. This proved that the practice of slavery and the disputes that argue against it are far too comprehensive and complex, to the point where a change in ideology simply will not suffice. Ultimately, these evasion tactics committed by the American government revealed the surreal goals and overachieving aspirations often set to evade a problem, such as slavery, that is on America’s doorstep. well written but wish you had dug a little deeper

MRL - Upon reading __The Northern Response to Slavery__, by Martin Duberman, it can be speculated that the reason Americans were so hesitant to confront the issue of slavery was due to the notion that it was impossible to compromise upon the question of abolition, thus it is assumed that the answer to the issue of slavery would result in drastic repercussions in the United States. Radical abolitionists and radical slavery defenders were not enticed by the moderate idea of gradual emancipation. The idea that the solution of slavery would have to be extreme, either completely pro-slavery or complete emancipation, was foreshadowed by the thoughts of the Founding Fathers. For instance, in the book, __Vindicating the Founders__, the author Thomas G. West explicates in detail about how the Founding Fathers were unable to directly confront the question of slavery because they knew that whatever the verdict was, if slavery would continue or cease to exist, would result in turmoil that the infant nation could not endure at the time. Such thoughts remained alive throughout the decades and into the pre-Civil War Era, therefore one could deduce that the reason the majority of pre-Civil War Americans favored gradual emancipation or no emancipation at all revolved around the desire to avoid a potentially fatal rift in the Union between the North and South. From this, it is made clear that, as predicted by the Founding Fathers, the solution to the question of slavery had no glaringly practical or painless answer; regardless of how the issue was confronted compromise would be impossible and there would still be an infinite amount of disagreements and negative consequences. This perhaps frigntened the Americans in the North, thus prompting them to choose to support the most moderate and least confrontational of the options: Gradual emancipation. The reality of the fact the slavery would eventually have to be confronted in an extreme manner, like the Founding Fathers predicted, may have prompted an increase of amount of Abolitionists as northerners realized they must choose a side and not idle, thus illustrating the transformation that the North underwent, from the practical moderation, to an abolitionist force. well written but reads as in this book but in that book -- work on a stronger melding of the two checked