[jeffersondem]

“Prepare to be bombarded with . . . nonsense about how the United States Constitution “enshrined” the practice and legitimacy of slavery.”

That is an interesting comment. “Enshrined” is another word for “included.”

You should be aware that there are those on this board that believe that slavery was included in the United States constitution through the use of euphemisms. The word “euphemism” is another word for “substitute.”

For example, in post 29 one expert that I respect wrote: “George Orwell would be proud of the torturous machinations required to find a suitable euphemism because they were too timid to say the word aloud: Slavery.”

So, critic answers critic.

[rockrr]

That is an interesting comment. “Enshrined” is another word for “included.”

Not by normal people it isn't.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "That is an interesting comment.
“Enshrined” is another word for “included.”"

"Enshrined" is an ethically loaded word implying reverence for and even worship of -- both ideas the opposite of our Founders' attitudes towards slavery.
Instead, virtually all Founders considered slavery a moral evil, the only disagreement being whether it was "necessary" or not.
Delegates to Philadelphia from the Deep South understood how necessary slavery was to their own existences, while such wealthy Northerners as, for example, Benjamin Franklin had come to see they could & should get along without it.

So "enshrined" is not the appropriate word for slavery in our Constitution.
"Surreptitiously euphemized" into the Constitution -- the way a man might sneak his mistress into his family home for a quick dalliance -- that's how our Founders' included slavery in the Constitution.

The term "enshrined" should be reserved for subjects which truly merit it, for example, these words:

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain..."

Those words are enshrined.
Slavery snuck in the back door.