Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
That was not a freeman, at least as defined.
If one is without and working for another, that's servitude. Not freedom.

I offer you to further investigate definitions in greater detail;


Freedom does not mean everything is without labor, freedom is not free.
Boyd K. Packer, a prominent religious educator, said: "Freedom is not a self-preserving gift. It has to be earned, and it has to be protected."
Agreeing to work to take care of ones self and his family is not enslavement.

------

"Freedom" was earned after an allotted time, or until the person demanding "payment" was satisfied – this was known as indentured servitude, and was not originally intended as a stigma or embarrassment for the person involved since many of the sons and daughters of the wealthy and famous of the time found themselves forced into such temporary servitude.

An indentured servant would sign a contract agreeing to serve for a specific number of years, typically five or seven. Many immigrants to the colonies came as indentured servants, with someone else paying their passage to the Colonies in return for a promise of service. At the end of his service, according to the contract, the indentured servant (male or female) usually would be granted a sum of money, a new suit of clothes, land, or perhaps passage back to England. An indentured servant was not the same as an apprentice or a child who was "placed out."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_%28Colonial%29