Why “Freedmen” Is a Superior Term to “ADOS” (American Descendant of Slavery)

The Revival of the Term “Freedmen”

At **Be The Power (BTP), our work has always been rooted in reconnecting the descendants of emancipated persons to their history and legacy. As part of this mission, we reintroduced the term “Freedmen” into the modern reparations discourse. Be The Power as a concept began as early as 2013, we then established BTP as a platform for political education and advocacy, culminating in the incorporation of our nonprofit, [United Sons & Daughters of Freedmen](https://www.usadof.org/)**, in June 2020. The decision to use “Freedmen” was intentional, reviving a historically grounded term that highlights the legal, institutional, and emancipatory legacy of our ancestors. By doing so, we tied present-day justice efforts to the Reconstruction era, reinforcing historical continuity and affirming the humanity of our ancestors who survived slavery and its systemic aftermath.

“Freedmen” reflects a condition of liberation and transformation, not an identity bound to the imposed realities of slavery. Slavery was never an inherent identity of the people subjected to it, but rather a system enforced by other humans. The term “Freedmen” speaks to an action — the movement from bondage to freedom — and emphasizes the empowerment of those emancipated. This terminology reclaims the narrative from one of subjugation to one of resilience and agency. At BTP, we have worked to ensure that “Freedmen” serves as a unifying identity, inspiring descendants of emancipated persons to reclaim their rightful place in the broader struggle for reparations and justice.

Why “Freedmen” Is a Superior Term to “ADOS”

The language we use to define a people is a direct reflection of how we shape identity, justice, and advocacy. Within the movement for reparations, two terms — “Freedmen” and “American Descendant of Slavery (ADOS)” — have emerged to describe the descendants of those who were emancipated from slavery in the United States. While “ADOS” focuses solely on lineage, “Freedmen” offers a framework grounded in history, legal precision, and empowerment. The term “ADOS” centers the imposed condition of enslavement, which risks framing identity around the harm inflicted by slavery. “Freedmen,” however, highlights liberation and the triumph of a people over systemic oppression, anchoring modern advocacy in the institutional history of emancipation and Reconstruction and the ongoing legacy of partiality against this class of persons.

“‘We have progressed one century, in one year’ said one freedman.” Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877, pg. 102

Slavery was an institution (not a people that one can lineally descend from) that defined individuals through imposed conditions. No one was born to be a slave hence the reason we reject the term “freed slaves”; humans created and sustained this system, using laws, economies, and culture to enforce it. “Freedmen,” too, reflects a condition, but one historically rooted in emancipation and the humanity of those who transitioned from bondage to freedom. By focusing on “Freedmen,” we emphasize the systemic changes that brought liberation and the legal recognition of formerly enslaved individuals as free. This narrative reinforces the progress achieved by our ancestors and positions their descendants within the context of systemic resilience and achievement.

Images showing the term American Freedmen used for our specific class of people in the annals of American history

Slavery as an Institution

Slavery was not just the experience of individuals; it was an institution that shaped laws, economies, and societies. This system implicated everyone within its reach — enslaved individuals, enslavers, lawmakers, and the communities that benefited from it. Recognizing slavery as an institution is crucial to understanding why “Freedmen” is a superior term. It ties the legacy of emancipation to systemic change, highlighting the ongoing impact of institutional oppression while emphasizing the progress made through abolition and Reconstruction.

“Slavery’s Descendants: America’s Family Secrets.” A Reuters investigation, as reported by NBC News on June 27, 2023, revealed that over 100 U.S. leaders — including lawmakers, presidents, governors, and justices — had ancestors who were slaveholders. This underscores slavery as a societal construct that extended beyond the enslaved, implicating those who benefited, legislated, and enforced its structures. Slavery’s reach was never confined to one group but was woven into the fabric of the nation, implicating all participants in its maintenance. “Freedmen,” as a term, directly acknowledges the systemic nature of this oppression while focusing not only on the actions that dismantled it, but that class of persons whose status changed from bondage, to freedom.

The Decline of the Term “Freedmen”

The use of the term “Freedmen” has diminished significantly since its prominence during the Reconstruction era. Historical tools like Google’s Ngram Viewer show a sharp decline in mentions of “Freedmen” in books beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This decline coincided with the rise of Jim Crow laws and cultural movements, such as those led by organizations like the Daughters of the Confederacy, which promoted romanticized narratives of the antebellum South and sought to minimize the realities of slavery and emancipation. These efforts contributed to the erasure of Reconstruction-era gains, including the Freedmen’s identity as a legally recognized class.

As segregation became entrenched, terms like “Negro” and later “Black” and “African American” became more commonly used, reflecting shifts in language and social attitudes. The term “Freedmen,” once a vital identifier of emancipated individuals and their descendants, faded alongside the dismantling of Reconstruction policies. This decline mirrors the broader marginalization of those labeled “Black/Negro” during this period, as well as the erasure of the institutional progress represented by the term.

Google Ngram showing a decline of the term Freedmen/Freedman over time, and a bump in modern day mentions

The Practical and Legal Advantages of “Freedmen”

Reclaiming the term “Freedmen” is not only historically significant but also legally and practically advantageous in the reparations discourse. Unlike “ADOS,” which frames identity through the institution of slavery and lineage, “Freedmen” represents a status-based classification tied to legal and historical designations. Black’s Law Dictionary notes that “lineage” can be interpreted as “race,” which may subject lineage-based classifications like ADOS to strict scrutiny under constitutional law. This standard is notoriously difficult to meet. In contrast, “Freedmen,” as a status-based classification, is rooted in Reconstruction-era legal frameworks and is less likely to face such challenges. Courts may evaluate it under the rational basis test, a much lower bar for constitutionality.

One of the earliest legal recognitions of “Freedmen” as a status occurred in Jeffries v. State, 39 Ala. 655 (1865), where the court stated, “The term ‘freedmen’ is descriptive of the status of the defendants, and does not vitiate the indictment. It has a legal signification.” This precedent reinforces the precision and legitimacy of “Freedmen” in legal settings, further solidifying its relevance in reparations discussions. By framing reparations eligibility through the status of “Freedmen,” we ground these claims in historical legal precedent, creating a stronger and more defensible framework for justice.

The term “Freedmen” carries a clear and authoritative legal definition rooted in historical jurisprudence. According to Corpus Juris (vol. 27, pg. 895, 1922), “Freedmen” refers to “that class of persons” who were formerly enslaved, subsequently emancipated, and their descendants. This definition underscores the term’s specificity and precision, distinguishing it as a status tied directly to the legal and historical realities of emancipation.

By defining “Freedmen” as a class, this legal precedent acknowledges both the individuals liberated from slavery and their progeny, grounding their identity in the institutional history of abolition and Reconstruction. It affirms the generational connection between those who directly bore the stain of slavery and their descendants, strengthening the term’s relevance for modern reparations advocacy and ensuring its applicability in both historical and contemporary contexts.

Freedmen in Modern Supreme Court Holdings

Justice Clarence Thomas has referenced the terms “freedmen” and “freedman” in some of his Supreme Court opinions, notably in discussions about constitutional history and civil rights. For instance, in his concurrence in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (2023), Justice Thomas pointed out that the 1866 Freedmen’s Bureau Act used the term “freedmen” as a specific and formally race-neutral classification. He emphasized that “freedman” referred to a category of individuals who had been enslaved, differentiating it from broader racial categorizations, highlighting that not all Black people in the U.S. at the time were former slaves.

This distinction forms part of Justice Thomas’s broader critique of how race-based policies are justified under the Constitution. By referencing “freedmen,” he underscored a historical approach to understanding classifications in constitutional law and their implications for modern civil rights issues, including affirmative action and reparative justice programs.

Justice Thomas referenced “freedmen” in the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which addressed the constitutionality of New York’s concealed carry licensing regime. In his majority opinion, Justice Thomas emphasized the historical context of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, arguing that the right to bear arms is deeply rooted in America’s history and tradition. He highlighted how the post-Civil War period, especially during Reconstruction, saw efforts to ensure that freedmen — the newly emancipated African Americans — had the right to bear arms for self-defense, particularly against threats from groups like the Ku Klux Klan and oppressive state laws designed to disarm them.

This historical perspective underscored his reasoning that firearm regulations must align with the “historical tradition” of the Second Amendment as understood during its ratification or Reconstruction. The decision fundamentally shifted the framework for evaluating gun laws, requiring governments to demonstrate that modern regulations have historical analogs from those periods.

Conclusion

We cannot be descendants of an institution like slavery because institutions, by their nature, are systems created and maintained by society — not entities capable of producing lineage. Slavery was an imposed condition, not a natural identity, and no person was born to be a slave. To define ourselves as descendants of such an institution reduces our identity to the systemic oppression inflicted upon our ancestors. Instead, we are descendants of the people who endured and overcame that institution — Freedmen — whose legacy is one of resilience, liberation, and humanity. Identifying as “Freedmen” honors the triumph over bondage and affirms our connection to those who fought for freedom and equality. Even the term “descendants of slaves” is reductive; limiting our humanity to one of subjugation, opposed to the right to pursue life, liberty, and property, while enjoying the privileges and immunities of American citizenship.

“Freedmen” is more than a historical term; it is a powerful and precise identity that connects descendants of the emancipated to their legal and institutional legacy. It is, what we call, the “perfect disaggregate” term where delineation must be made between the people called Black in America and their various backgrounds. Reclaiming this term reconnects us to the unfinished business of Reconstruction, emphasizing justice, accountability, and most importantly, the humanity of those who fought for freedom of themselves, and their kith and kindred. As language shapes advocacy and identity, “Freedmen” stands as a unifying and historically resonant term, providing a framework to advance the fight for reparations and honor the enduring legacy of those emancipated.