(1981).

32.       Arthur Zilversmit, The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the North 124-37
(1967).

33.      Pennsylvania closed the loophole in the abolition statute in 1788 by forbidding the sale or
removal of negroes where it would result in the loss of the privileges of gradual
emancipation. See Leon Higgenbotham, In the Matter of Color - Race & the American
Legal Process: The Colonial Period 304-5 (1978).

34.       The vote was not on the enactment of gradual abolition, but on whether to receive the
petitions. Brackett, supra note 27, at 52.

35.       Id. See also Graham, supra note 11, at 20 on Chase's role in 1787.

36.       The Charter of the Society is reprinted in Poole, Antislavery Opinions before 1800 53-4.
Article XII stated that no person holding slaves shall be admitted as a member "but the
Society may appoint persons of legal knowledge, owners of slaves, as honorary
counselors." The Society appointed both Samuel Chase and Luther Martin as honorary
counselors. Despite their opposition to slavery as shown by Chase's advocacy of gradual
abolition and Martin's position in the Constitutional Convention, both men held slaves.
Chase held 3 [BC (Baltimore City) - 5 (section of city)] and Martin held a total of 23 at
three separate locations [A (Anne Arundel) - ph (patuxent and huntington) 9 slaves; B
(Baltimore County) - pi separate listings of 4 slaves and 10 slaves]. See 1798 list of
slaveowners on file at the Maryland Historical Society.

37.      Brackett, supra note 27, at 54-5.

38.       Id at 151-2.

39.       See Carroll, supra note 2, at 194-7, indicating that Methodists increasingly gave deeds of
manumission to take effect in the future, although not discussing wills.

40.       2 Har. & McH. 26 (1783). Ann Fisher had petitioned for freedom in 1734 on the ground
that her grandmother was white. The court held that Ann was a slave because her mother,
Mary, had married a slave and Ann was bom to them. Jeremiah Townley Chase argued
that there was no proof for purposes of Eleanor Toogood's suit that Ann's mother, Mary,
had married prior to 1681 since the deposition in Ann's case cannot be used against
Eleanor who had no opportunity to cross examine the deponent. There was no other
record of Mary's marriage. The Court found that the judgment in Ann Fisher's case was
no bar to her daughter's claim of freedom, that Ann's mother was a free mulatto and the
act of 1664 did not apply to her, that Mary was free during the life of her husband and
therefore her children were born free.

199