State v. Mann

Today in class we had a mock trial of a court case that took place in 1840. Two teams were presented as the State of North Carolina and John Mann. The background of the case is that a slave named Lydia who was working for John Mann attempted to escape, to stop her Mann shot her in the back. The state is charging John Mann $10 for the assault and battery of the slave Lydia. Mann is appealing the $10 fine defending that the fine is a violation of his rights.

The abuse that slaves went through during this time

State:

The first argument that the State of North Carolina made was the comparison of past court cases that followed along the same lines of this case. In the U.S. Virgin Islands, a man named Hodges was hung for the brutal murder of his own slave. The slave dropped a mango and was requested to pay the amount of the mango he dropped. When the slave Prosper was not able to come up with the money, Hodges took the slave and whipped him day and night for three total days. Prosper then died shortly due to his injuries.

Notes I Made:

The big notice I made was that it seemed that even though court cases have been made, not much has been changed. Even though the slave in the U.S Virgin Islands Prosper was killed, unlike John Mann's slave who was almost killed. The big note in this situation however is that if Mann's intentions were to kill the slave or not. The variables to think about are that he shot her but however with the guns they had in that time, a shot in the back would not always be lethal. Maybe in fact Mann's intentions were to only injury the slave to stop her.

In the south the only was for slavery to work was for the "masters" to have total and extreme control over the slaves so that they would never try to rise up. If man simply just chased down the slave then it would give some slaves who would without a doubt think about escaping by simply outrunning their owners in a footrace. The comparison that I can only think of to modernize the case is the example of a car rental. When someone rents a vehicle they pay the dealership for the service of the car, just what Mann did to the owner of the slave for a specific time of about 1 year. If someone who rented the car and they did damage to in anyway to the rented vehicle they they must pay for it. In the court case, since Mann damaged the slave then he should pay for it. The only problem is that the initial owner of the slave is not pressing charges, the state of North Carolina is pressing charges.

Since slaves are defined as private property and Mann purchased the slave in a professional manner, then he has free will to do what he wants.

My Verdict:

My verdict in my own mind would be that Mann is not guilty of any crime. It would be different to me if the owner of the slave was pressing any sort charges then Mann in my mind would be guilty. He would be guilty for damaging property of the owner of the property. But since the government has no control of the People's property then why are they pressing charges. To me as bad as it sounds I think that was Mann was guilty. The final verdict of the court case in 1840 was that Mann was guilty which I think was the right decision in the long run for the fight of the freedom of slaves. Ethically it was the right decision which was the smart move to a brighter future.