"Steve Brown" <slsb1@sympatico.ca> wrote: >In the history of ancestors in Boston area around 1650 I see many men >"Became a freeman on MMDDYYYY". >These guys were not slaves, what does the note refer too? Here's a much better description; http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/GLOSSARY.htm From there; "A term which designated citizenship of the Colony, which was restricted to adult males. A freeman possessed the right to vote for the Governor and Assistants and the right to hold office. The laws did not provide any statutory requirement for freemanship, although the oath of allegiance to the Colony required indicated what was expected of those admitted (PCR 11: 156). To be admitted as a freeman appeared only to require approval by the freemen of the town where the person lived before their name could be presented to the General Court of Freemen for approval (PCR 11: 65; 236). Initially all stockholders in the joint-stock company that financed the Colony were freemen, but not all freemen were stockholders. (Fennell 1998: 7). Land ownership did not appear to be a requirement, although freemen may have been granted more land than non-freemen (Langdon 1966: 39n). Legislation could only be approved by the freemen who constituted the General Court, and consequently there were heavy fines imposed on freemen who did not attend the General Court sessions on a regular basis, and towns also imposed fines on freemen who did not attend town meetings. By 1638 the freemen, through the General Court, had passed legislation which allowed them to elect "deputies", representatives who could attend the sessions of the General Court for each town. Only freemen could hold the office of deputies, but the 1638 legislation allowed non-freemen who paid taxes to vote for candidates for deputy. Despite this, all freemen had to attend the election court held in June unless prevented by reason of age or any urgent business when they could vote by proxy; in any other case of default a fine of 10s was imposed (PCR 11: 157). If accused of a crime, a freeman not only had the right to be tried by a jury of twelve men, but could also challenge who served on it if he thought his best interests would not be served, without having to give a reason for this "peremptory" challenge (Fennell 1998: 10). Women and servants were not eligible for freeman status, nor were Quakers. From 1658 a freeman who became a Quaker would lose his status as a freeman, as would any freeman who aided Quakers, as would those convicted of lying, drunkenness or swearing (PCR 11: 177). Only freemen could serve as jurors, and for a capital case to proceed against a freeman, there had to be at least two witnesses against the defendant. It is probable that unmarried men over twenty-one who continued to live in their parental home were not eligible to become freemen. (Based on the Laws as set out in PCR 11, Langdon 1966 and Fennell 1998.)" Jim BTW-- For anyone with ancestors in the Plymouth Colony, I highly recommend the book which is linked on that page--- It is a real eye-opener. "THE TIMES OF THEIR LIVES: Life, Love, and Death in Plymouth Colony." By James Deetz and Patricia Scott Deetz