Siding with Slavery (An Analysis of the State V. Mann Case of 1829)

Most recently in class we argued the case of State V. Mann in a mock trial, me being on the side arguing for Mann. According to a historical website, North Carolina History Project, "The 1829 decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Mann declared that chattel slaves had no rights from their masters. Thomas Ruffin authored the opinion of the court, in which he asserted the “full dominion of the owner over the slave.”The defendant in the case was John Mann, a North Carolinian who had been renting a slave named Lydia. When she committed a trifling offense, Mann whipped her. During the whipping, Lydia attempted to escape, so Mann shot her, gravely wounding her. North Carolina authorities deemed his response to her escape attempt disproportionate and charged him with assault and battery. In the criminal trial, the jury ruled against him. He appealed, claiming that assault on a slave by her master could not be indictable since a slave was property of her master...Nonetheless, Ruffin (the judge in the case) concluded that “the power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect.” He argued that inhuman punishment of slaves was indeed legal in North Carolina." (Jonathan Murray. "State v. Mann." North Carolina History Project. John Locke Foundation, n.d. Web. 3 Oct. 2016.)

(A short visual summary of the case and its impact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwg3pR3JWcE)

All this said, fighting for the side justifying historic inhumanity, harsh abuse and racism wasn't as easy as one may assume! In fact, it was a difficult task for our litigation team to defend Mr. Mann without repeating the same information and current-day-unacceptable-but past day-acceptable justifications. It was also especially hard being an African-American person and arguing for the justification of mistreating someone of your race because of it- race.

All in all though, I feel like this was a very necessary and informative discussion and case-reenactment. It gave me a crucial perspective and aspect of history that I no previous intention or desire to investigate, some of the reasons why it was thought okay to harm others and the justifications, other than property though mostly that, that they used while doing it. I would say that I'm actually pretty grateful for the experience, it gave me yet another piece of history, of my own history as well, in which to reflect on.