The 14th amendment did not free the slaves

[targa2]

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Persons are not men. A person is an artificial construct of government at law. Person comes from the word persona which means  "the mask of the actor " to put it simply.  Person is more of an adjective than a noun. In scripture when the word "person " is used it is used in this manner...."the person OF John" The person OF John is not John.  It is describing something ABOUT John.

The " United States " is an umbrella jurisdiction of Federal power.  By getting the people to volunteer into this jurisdiction they became Federal CITIZENS along with the former slaves. It was a trick. They created the new federal Jurisdiction and created new artificial entities called Federal Citizens.

This made everybody responsible to the debt and contractual obligations of the Federal Power. It also created a whole new class of people able to borrow money and get into personal debt.

If this article was meant to free anyone , why not just state it this way.  Any former slave shall now have the same rights and privileges as any state citizen.

[veritasvincit]

Love suffers long, and is kind; love does not envy, love does not parade itself, is not puffed up.
It does not behave itself unseemly; does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil.
Does not rejoice in inquity, but rejoices in truth, bears all things; believes all thing, hopes all things, endures all things.

But have not love, it profits me nothing.

Corinthians 13: 4,5,6,7

[QuiteCharming]

Perhaps they did not state it so plainly because they had a different manner of speaking at that time.

"This made everybody responsible to the debt and contractual obligations of the Federal Power. It also created a whole new class of people able to borrow money and get into personal debt."

If you're refering to this:
"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

This had more to do with relieving the South of their debts to foreign countries than anything else.

As far as the "persons" wording, although it is fairly standard terminology, maybe they truly meant to convey that our physical bodies were to be free (at the time), but our souls would always be subject to greater control.

[targa2]

Quote  "Perhaps they did not state it so plainly because they had a different manner of speaking at that time."

The meanings of words do not change over time. Only the usage does. All one needs to do is look at a law dictionary from that era to know what they meant. This is simple to do.

Quote  "As far as the "persons" wording, although it is fairly standard terminology, maybe they truly meant to convey that our physical bodies were to be free (at the time), but our souls would always be subject to greater control."

Actually, it is the other way around.  They enslaved the body and mind and the soul follows eventually because it resides within.

There is a Supreme Court ruling that states it absolutely. I cannot find it right now but I have read it many times. It states in the judges dialogue the following.... " every person is a man but not every man is a person ".

I understand your doubt about this subject but there is no mistake about what I am telling you. It is your understanding of it that is incorrect.

Never presume to know what the law says. The law is very, very specific about what it says.  We have all volunteered for this enslavement. Doubt it not.