TRANSFIGURATION OF MARYLAND CULTURE, 1791-1802	49

Her motive for this most horrid act appears to have been an expectation
of being free, if all the members of a particular family (the Bowers')
from whom she was possessed, were dead. She had been informed, that
a clause in the will of the late Mr. Bowers, of the same county [Kent],
had destined his slaves to be free, if all his family should die!

The moral of this 'shocking' story was clear.  Mixing the 'spirit of liberty'
with slavery could only produce dire consequences.66

For Maryland slave-owners there seemed to be only two options. Slavery
could either be abolished or protected. In 1797 Carroll attempted the former,
supporting a bill in the Maryland Senate which called for the 'gradual aboli-
tion of slavery'.67 Although Carroll and Jefferson were bitter political ene-
mies, their sentiments toward slavery were probably similar. In August 1797,
while Carroll made plans to drastically reduce his slave population, Jefferson
wrote to St. George Tucker:

...if something is not done, & soon done, we shall be the murderers of
our own children. The 'murmura ventures nautis prodentia ventos' has
already reached us; the revolutionary storm, now sweeping the globe,
will be upon us, and happy if we make timely provision to give it an
easy passage over our land. From the present state of things in Europe
& America, the day which begins our combustion must be near at hand;
and only a single spark is wanting to make that day to-morrow. If we
had begun sooner, we might probably have been allowed a lengthier
operation to clear ourselves, but every day's delay lessens the time we
may take for emancipation.68

Nevertheless, the Maryland Senate's emancipation bill was quickly reject-
ed. Eager to allay their fears, Maryland slaveowners saw no alternative but to
limit the privileges of free blacks and to strengthen the institution of slavery.
"The hysteria unleashed by events on Saint-Domingue', concludes the histo-
rian Ira Berlin, 'eroded the freeman's legal rights like a torrent of rain on a
grassless slope'. In the latter half of the 1790s, manumitted slaves were pre-
vented from voting, holding office, or giving evidence against whites; free
blacks were forbidden to distribute liquor, be 'idle', sell certificates of free-
dom, or give slaves 'advice'; and slaves were prohibited from being emanci-
pated unless they were under the age of 45, healthy, 'sound in mind and
body', and capable of supporting themselves and their families. In addition,
the right of the General Court to try petitions of freedom was removed to the
county courts, and supplementary costs were affixed, making it more difficult
for slaves to bring suit against their masters."11

It was in this atmosphere that the case of Mahoney v. Ashton reached the