Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: supercat
is there any logical problem with interpreting "the people" as referring to all free persons,

I suppose not. But then why did not the FF, in their specific and infinite wisdom simply include the actual word "free"?

I find it important to remember that not all the FFs were for slavery and that slavery was a compromise that wasn't meant to stand the test of time.

I also did not post on this thread to debate this issue, but to give points of reference (Dred Scott and Fredrick Douglass) to the OP who can take note as s/he wishes.

12 posted on 10/27/2009 3:57:20 PM PDT by WKL815 (He may not be the answer to every question, but He is always the way to any answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: WKL815
But then why did not the FF, in their specific and infinite wisdom simply include the actual word "free"?

Had you read the REST of the article, you would have found this sentence:

The Founders pointedly avoided using the term “slaves,” for fear that would legitimize the institution.

To specify "free" would have done no less to give tacit approval to slavery.

20 posted on 10/27/2009 7:51:08 PM PDT by Don W (I will praise Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson