position that the marriage was valid implied that the slave had the capacity to contract marriage, at least with a white person. 200. William and Mary Boardman v. Butler, 1 Har and McH. 371 (1770). 201. A study of free mulattoes in Somerset County from 1745 .1755 revealed that none were known to have been born of slave mothers. Thomas E. Davidson, "Free Blacks in Old Somerset County, 1745 .1755," 80 Md. Hist. Mag. 151, 154(1985). 202. Bureau of the Census, supra note 1, at 1169. This was a greater percentage of old and disabled than in the population at large, lending credence to the claim that masters tended to free slaves during the period prior to the 1752 statute as a means of evading the duty to care for them when they were no longer a profitable asset. 203. See Jeffrey Brackett. The Negro in Maryland 148 (1889). 204. Kenneth L. Carroll, "An Eighteenth-Century Episcopalian Attack on Quaker and Methodist Manumission of Slaves," 80 Md. Hist. Mag. 139, 142-3 (1985). 205. David Curtis Skaggs, Roots of Maryland Democracy 1753-1756 64-65 (1973). 206. Laws of Maryland 1715, ch. 44, section 5, XXX Maryland Archives 283-92. 207. Supplementary Act 171, section 3, XXXm Maryland Archives 111-13. Chapter Two 1. United States Bureau of the Census Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970 1169 (1975). 2. J. Saurin Norris, The Early Friends (or Quakers) in Maryland 23 (1862) cited in Kenneth L. Carroll, "Religious Influences on the Manumission of Slaves in Caroline, Dorchester and Talbot Counties," LVI Md. Hist. Mag. 176, 178 (1961). 3. Id at 178-9. 4. Thomas E. Drake, Quakers and Slavery in America 81 (1950), cited in Carroll, supra note 2, at 180. 5. Minutes of the Third Haven Monthly Meeting of Friends, IE, 84, in Hall of Records in Annapolis, Maryland, cited in Carroll, supra note 2, at 182. 6. Carroll, supra note 2, at 183-6. See also Kenneth Carroll, "Joseph Nichols and the Nicholites of Caroline County, Maryland," XLV Md. Hist. Mag. 47-61 (1951); Carroll, "More about the Nicolites," XLVI Md. Hist. Mag. 278-89 (1951). 196