Loading Likes... While reading the preface, I found myself interested in Douglass’s testimony, in which he stated that “A slaveholder’s profession of Christianity is a palpable imposture. He is a felon of the highest grade. He is a man stealer. It is of no importance what you put in the other scale” (1168). Particularly the term “man-stealer” which to me, proves more effective of a title rather than “slaveholder.” The idea of holding a slave connotes a privilege and duty being held. I remember hearing something about a movement from denoting victims of slavery as “slaves” to “enslaved people” and I find that it has a similar gut wrenching effect of emphasizing the humanity behind the titles. In a similar vein, Garrison’s questioning of the reader regarding whether or not they will side with “Human flesh-mongers” (1172) was particularly impactful. I find that such use of epithets accurately portrays a person-first discussion surrounding slavery, rather than separating the act of enslaving people from the title with terms such as “master” and “slaveholder.” Looking online, this article from the National Park Service (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/undergroundrailroad/language-of-slavery.htm#:~:text=or%20legal%20decisions.-,Enslaved%20Person,or%20loved%20ones%2C%20or%20death.) references the use of the terms “enslaver” and “enslaved people” as a way of putting humanity central to the identities of those involved in slavery. I find the idea of changing the narrative around slavery simply through word choice fascinating, as applied by both Garrison and Douglass in their abolitionist efforts.