State V Mann Review

 

(Thomas Ruffin wrote the opinion of North Carolina)

State v Man was an 1829 case between the state of North Carolina and Jhon Mann. John Mann had shot Lidia a slave after she attempted to run away. However, Lidia was not Jhon Mann’s Slave he was rented to him by Elizabeth Jones and Lidia did not die in the shooting but was instead injured. Originally the court ruled against Mann but after being taken to the supreme court the state later ruled in favor of Mann and stated that slaves had no rights from their masters and did not have protection under the law.

During the mock trial, both sides made drastically different opinions but argued from the same angles. For this post, I would like to review arguments made on legal terms and arguments made on moral and religious terms.

 

(North Carolina Supreme Court)

Legal arguments

 North Carolina

Legally North Carolina used the property law to argue that since Lidia was not Mann’s property but rented to him, he had no right to punish her. Just like if someone were to rent a house, they are to return the house to the owner the same way that it was given to him. Therefore, Jhon Mann had broken his promise because he could not return Lidia the way he rented her since he shot her. Finally, despite the status of Lidia being a slave and Mann being a slave owner the law still applies the same under no matter their status.

John Mann

Legally Jhon Mann’s side used the black codes to argue that Mann was within his right to shoot Lidia. Since Lidia was Jhon Mann’s property he was her master for that time, and it is his right as a master to punish Lidia as he sees fit. According to the black codes slaves were on the same level as cattle and if your cattle were running away, you would be with every right to shoot the cattle if it meant stopping them from running away. Mann was acting as Lidia’s owner for the time he rented her so he should be able to punish her as he sees fit.

 

Moral and Religious arguments

 North Carolina

Morally North Carolina argued religiously that the bible does not support slavery because it states “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:37–39). Another point that North Carolina made was that if God gave you the land you should work it, God did not give the land to have someone else work it through bodily harm. Finally, North Carolina states that slavery is the devil's work and it’s a barbaric practice that we should move away from.

 

John Mann

I feel that in terms of John Mann there were more moral arguments to gain sympathy for Mann’s finical situation. Jhon Mann argued that since Jhon Mann rented Lidia he does not have the finically means to pay for Lidia if she had escaped nor does he have the means to pay for the court fine. Second, he showed mercy and restraint to Lidia by not killing her in the shooting but instead just injuring her. Finally, Lidia proved she was untrustworthy and had to be taught a lesson to not run again meaning that John Mann had taught Lidia a lesson thus returning Lidia in better conditions than given him.

 

In conclusion, I found that both sides had done a great job arguing from the same angles but different perspectives. However, I would have liked to see North Carolina represent Lidia as an actual human, meaning any human would have that same reaction to run away from a brutal beating. I also feel that Mann’s side played more on the personal level on how this affects man and the norms of his time to push their case while North Carolina argued more on how this looks on the overall state of North Carolina.

 

Additional Links

https://www.ncpedia.org/state-v-john-mann

https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/state-v-mann/