freedomite

See also: Freedomite

English

Noun

freedomite (plural freedomites)

1. Alternative letter-case form of Freedomite
   • 1883 November, The Olive Branch, volume 8, [Milwaukee, Wis.?], page 204, column 2:

     If we remember rightly there was a strong effort made to class Mr. Beecher as a Social freedomite, and free-lover, but the attempt was a failure; but had it been done, we do not think the names of Beecher and Tilton would have been mentioned in this lecture, but rather would they have been held up to the world as the patron saints of the Social Freedom movement.

   • 1883, Juliet H. Severance, David Jones, A Discussion of the Social Question between Juliet H. Severance, M.D. and David Jones, editor of the “Olive Branch.”, Milwaukee, Wis.: Godfrey and Crandall, printers, →OCLC, page 30:

     So it does seem, after all, by the lady's own statement, that a promiscuous person can be a social freedomite.

   • 1912 August, “Medical Freedom”, in John William Keating, Reuben Peterson, editors, Physician and Surgeon: A Professional Medical Journal, volume XXXIV, number VIII, Ann Arbor, Detroit, Mich.: John William Keating, →OCLC, page 339:

     The eyes of the public are being opened toward those grafters who are preying on the gullibility of the sick and bed-ridden humanity. [...] [T]hey have banded together, and under the guise of injured innocence they bob up again as exponents of "medical freedom." [...] The medical freedomite officers are the proselytes of the medical fake nostrums who, like the vultures, live on the carcasses of incurable diseases.

   • 1912 August 15, George Stein, “[Report to the International Typographical Union from George Stein, Los Angeles Representative, for the period June 1, 1912, to April 30, 1913]”, in J. W. Hays, editor, Supplement to the Typographical Journal: Official Paper of the International Typographical Union of North America, volume XLIII, number 2, Indianapolis, Ind.: J. W. Hayes, published 1913, →OCLC, page 227, column 1:

     A notorious "industrial freedomite" will begin publication of a daily in Santa Barbara. The officers of No. 349, after interviewing the promoter and hearing his defiant declaration that he would run an "open shop," presented the facts to the Santa Barbara Union at the regular meeting on April 13, 1913, when the union decided unanimously that union men will not be permitted to work on the paper.