Hi Heidi:
He believed so strongly in Freedom for
men that he would have given his right
to life rather than live under the rule of
the Brits, or others. than under the
Freedom America was all about.
So, it was literally 'freedom or death'!
2006-09-11 10:55:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by vim 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
Not likely. Those guys were hard core. With them negotiating was done with guns, swords, or farm equipment. Tar and feathers in some cases. His contemporary said a man who trades liberties for safety deserves neither liberty nor safety, and I am sure he meant it.
2006-09-11 10:56:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
no. the reason he said it wuz cuz he wanted those civil liberties. but in the process of gettin them he mayve ignored a few other people's liberties .
2006-09-11 11:22:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
In today's terms, it means don't crap on the constitution just to make me
feel a little bit more safe. Wouldn't work anyway!
2006-09-12 04:11:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by wjscottjones 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
it was meant to live freely away from the reign of a tyrant king(taxes,tariffs etc)and able to pursue a democratic way of life or no life at all.(i.e "better to die on my feet,than live on my knees"..zapata)
2006-09-11 10:53:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by stygianwolfe 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
He'd rather die than to live under the British boot..
2006-09-11 10:50:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Chemmers 2
·
3⤊
2⤋
live free or not at all, people today have only lived free lives, so they dont know what the hell that means
2006-09-11 10:50:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by shut up dummy 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
he meant that life is not worth living if you cannot live it yourself. having someone control you is the same as being dead.
I personally disagree, but that's what he meant.
2006-09-11 10:53:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Borna F 2
·
0⤊
4⤋
lollipop poopiface
2014-12-13 14:11:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by tatiana 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
he rather be dead than not free
2006-09-11 10:54:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Voxtar 4
·
2⤊
0⤋