I have to admit I didn't read through the whole article but, even as I have a couple of beers under my belt, I thought that perhaps I could offer a little commentary to promote (or provoke, take your pick) discussion.
I'm wondering: what is the difference between a slave, and a regular wage worker? At first glance, one could say that the difference is that a slave is forced to do as their master wishes, without being suitably compensated for whatever it is that they do. This is not the historical difference, of course, as no legal ownership relation exists, but we have to make some allowance for the times. Was this lady suitably compensated? Not really. After all, she didn't get paid for her time. Had the family provided her with the allowance that she asked for? Might muddy the waters a little bit, as it could be argued that she and her employer had reached an agreement, and that the family was living up to their end of the bargain. Though I guess that, as far as suitable compensation in a legal sense is concerned, that still would not have been enough, at least not according to what I suppose were the standards for domestic help in the US at the time.
Now, I imagine quite a good number of people in the first world of today feel that they are not being suitably compensated for their time in whatever line of work it is that they do, or at the very least not being provided by their employer with what they need in order to live the lifestyle that they feel is appropriate for the time invested, or at least the minimum acceptable. Are they modern day slaves? IMO, no. They can quit, and go search for better opportunities any time. If there are no better opportunities available for their particular skill set? Well, that is not really the problem of the employer, is it? An employer that was truly invested in their employees or the community might be conscientious about these things, but a poor employer does not need to be, and I doubt anyone could reasonably expect them to be so.
So, how does this relate to the lady in the article? Well, could she have quit? Could she, at one point or another, have packed her bags and said ”f you, I'm out”? I can certainly understand why doing so and going at it alone would have been daunting in her circumstances, but I think it was possible. There would have been no posse to drag her back to her 'owner', who would give her the lash for trying to escape. Perhaps her skills would not have been in high demand, but those are circumstances similar to what many people, who are definitely not slaves and not even illegal mexican gardeners who slipped across the border, are experiencing today.
Any thoughts?