State V Mann

We look at this case from 4 different perspectives, the legal, the economic, the religious, and the normalcy of what occurred in this particular case.

On the side supporting the State, we see that the general premise is that the case is about personhood, property and precedent. We delve deeper into the legal arguments by saying that there are several felonies punishable by death in the State of North Carolina, some of which, Mann was convicted of: battery and perhaps attempted murder. The State takes this side seeing as how Lydia was running for fear that she would be severely beaten or worse, therefore the defendant, Mr. Mann, should be charged with battery and attempted murder in the second degree. They also turn to a case which took precedent outside of the United States, the trial of Hodge in which a slave owner was charged with murder of his slave.

The side supporting Mann argues that Lydia was mere property and that he cannot be charged with assault due to the fact that Lydia is a slave and has no rights. This side also argues with the Primacy of Property and that property rights are of utmost importance in terms of law and telling Mr. Mann that he cannot punish his property, temporary property or not, violates his property rights. In the state of North Carolina it is perfectly legal to own and punish your slaves and it is in fact illegal for a slave to run away and they are able to be subject to whatever punishment their owner sees fit. The defendants side also argues that the master is able to do whatever they deem fit in order to have the slave be under perfect submission of their owner, however, slaves should be protected from those who are not their owners to prevent further complications and loss of property. Finally the defendants side argues that the Hotch case holds no authority in the court of the United States as it did not occur here, they argue that the accusors should not use bible verses in the court due to the separation of church and state but also that the bible even mentions that slavery is acceptable in the quote "As truly as your bodies have become the property of your masters, in consequence of his paying down a price for you; so sure you are now the Lord’s property, in consequence of your being purchased by the blood of Christ.”

The religious/moral argument that the accusers made was that Lydia was of no harm to Mr. Mann and that he could have done it in a more civilised manner rather than being excessive, immoral, and unnecessary. The accusers also mention that it goes against the religious virtues that this country upholds so dearly and proceeds to mention bible quotes from Peter, John, Proverbs, Matthew, and Corinthians.

Next we look at the economic standing of the State V Mann case at the acussors side first. They go into great detail about how the price of a slave depends greatly on their health, sex, age, how much the slave is likely to produce, and the price of output in the slave market. The accusors also mention that any harm or damage that is done to the slave can greatly decrease the value of the slave and that he should pay the fine to make up for the money that he had cost the slaves true owner. They also go into the aspects that female slaves are able to birth children who would then by law also become the slaves of their mothers owner and there is the potential that the bullet wound could have impaired their ability to do so costing the owner of Lydia even more money.

The defendants side of this case states that the accusers have kindly reminded the court that Lydia was in fact property and told the judge an estimate of how much money Lydia's original owner lost which means that someone with a set value could be nothing other than property. The defendants also say that to say a slave has the same rights that a white person does shakes the nation down to it's core seeing as how this nation has used slavery to rapidly expand their lands and ask themselves how they would do this without slavery. They also say that a farmer wouldn't be punished for slaughtering a cow so how is punishing a slave any different, they are both property and are owned by their master so neither one should be punished. The cow produces milk and meat and the slave produces labor and for an economy to run smoothly, a master must have full dominion over their slave like a farmer does his animals.

The defendant also mentions that there was already a slave rebellion and that giving this case to the accusors might lead to another slave rebellion which would be a detriment to the economy and if you take away the owners ability to govern his power over his property, the value of the property would decrease. They then proceed to remind the audience and the judge that when they go back to their beautiful home, remind yourself who built that house, slaves.

Finally we get into the normality of what Mr. Mann did to Lydia when she decided to attempt running away. The defendants argue that when Mr. Mann shot and injured Lydia, it was within what is normally done to runaway slaves even if those from the outside might view it as brutal, unnecessary, or immoral. They also argue that even though the judge might feel bad for the slave, however Mr. Mann was hiring the slave and was in possession and this is when the battery occured meaning that tehre is no rule in place to interfere with what Mr. Mann did to lydia and that it was all to show his authority and power over her.