In a message dated 1/7/2002 8:15:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, rfhouston@mindspring.com writes: > How would one record the men who arrived in the Massachusetts colonies in > the 17th century who were > "admitted freeman" there at certain dates. How do you record that on a > facts page when documenting this fact in a family history? > > I can see it being a "fact," although that's not very descriptive. It's > Rhonda: I've come across the explanation in researching Connecticut history. Was a long time ago, though, so can't be exact; doubt that I have notes-at least that I could find! Young, unmarried men without property seem to have been in a slightly different, lesser category than men who were made "freemen." As I recall, a freeman could vote in town meeting. He may have been entitled to other privileges as well. Now I'm looking in Conn Hist cards. In Early American Rooms, Russell Hawes Kettell, ed., p 65: "The franchise, as applied to colonial officials, was very limited. Only those who could meet a property qualification and who would take the freeman's oath, which declared a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, were qualified to become freemen; and only freemen could hold colonial office and vote for colonial officials. Thus it is evident that colonial Connecticut was not a democracy, but a religious oligarchy ruled by a small group composed of the ablest men in the community, members of the Congregational church." Connecticut, by Albert E. Van Dusen, p 23-4: Colonial CT never a dmocracy its leaders strongly oposed to rule by masses Calvinistic concept of man as evil rule by "elect" Rigorous religious and property requirements 1702-Rev, a voter in a town or country must be an admitted inhabitant and of legal age, a householder, a man "of sober conversation," possessor of a freehold estate rated at 50 shillings a year also had to be a freeman (40 shillings a year freehold estate or 40 pound personal estate, and a certificate from the town selectmen attesting "quiet and peaceable behaviour and civil conversation" in 1766, probably about 1/9 of population were freemen. Connecticut's Years of Controversy, Oscar Zeichner: p 6-8 (Why no democracy in pre-Rev CT): Man was evil and corrupt only the elect fit to rule political rights rested on property and religion distinctions between "admitted inhabitants" and freemen rights of admitted inhabitants limited Town authorities were careful not to let undesirable newcomers acquire political rights participation in town affairs was privilege of a few 20-25% of adult males, 1761, in New Haven town meeting in 1740, only 4,000 votes (of freemen) when male population was 15,000.