Whitman's critics

I looked over three criticisms they are as follows:
Norton, Charles Eliot. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." Putnam's Monthly: A Magazine of Literature, Science, and Arts 6
He was quite positive towards Leaves of Grass.
Hale, Edward Everett. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." The North American Review 82 (January 1856)
He was very positive towards Leaves of Grass.
Dana, Charles A. "[Review of Leaves of Grass (1855)]." The New York Daily Tribune
He had nice things to say but was, ultimately, negative in his response to Leaves of Grass.
I choose these three because they each bring up with in the first paragraph the way in which Whitman’s collection is presented. All three point to the anonymity of the work’s author, and some like Dana and Hale find that aspect a tad lacking. They find it this way for different reasons however. Hale believes it is a shame to have had it published this way as it makes it more difficult to find for the average reader. He truly enjoyed the collection and noticing the self-publication points to the desire Whitman holds in getting away from conventional poetry. All draw attention to this aspect, but Dana in particular makes its use abundantly clear. He draws attention to the picture describing it as the perfect image of the “loafer.” He does make it clear that there are good points in Whitman’s collection, but still leaves a lot to be desired. Dana has at least some admiration of Whitman’s work in it’s own as he says, “the taste of not over dainty fastidiousness will discern much of the essential spirit of poetry beneath an uncouth and grotesque embodiment.” He is pointing to the innovation Whitman has in his move from the overly eloquent and poetic and his use of various forms of speech. Still Dana finds issue in a number of the poems claiming that they aren’t quite up to snuff, but this claim is repeated by the other two critics in a more positive light. Hale was particularly pleased with Whitman’s use of language claiming he was, “one of the roughs,—no sentimentalist,—no stander above men and women.” He really did enjoy the poems and their use of language which leads me to believe that many American critics would have found Whitman’s use of vernacular at least intriguing; as it points to some aspects of the American experience. Norton also has an appreciation for this claiming that, while one might not want to read the book in mixed company it is still a delightful read. This in turn relates back to the picture of Whitman and the way in which the first copy was published. Whitman was greatly interested in finding the best way to get his name out there yet these critiques suggest that in the first publication he had no idea what he was doing. The picture and form of publishing then evoke the question of, who is the author. Each critic I have read had no real interest in attacking the author out right and, even in the negative criticism, found something enjoyable in the text. This suggests that the book itself may have simply sprung out of American soil.