Moot Court I

Educate yourself please

State v Mann

Today we got our first taste of the legal prowess of  some of our bright class mates. For some quick background, let me summarize what the State v Mann was basically about. In 1829-1830 there was a case that was appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court about the legal right a slave owner has to harm or kill their slave. In this case, John Mann was accused of wrongfully wounding a slave girl that he has loaned from another slave owner. Mann argued that the slave was his property for the duration of the loan, and a slave owner has all rights to penalize their slaves at their own digression. He was fined ten dollars, and the ordinal ruling as in favor of the state.

            The side that was defending Mann gave a very articulated and structured argument listing all the legal backing that Mann had. They stated that a slave owner has “absolute power over their slaves”. This was further explained by saying how the state cannot interfere with the master’s power. They argued that slaves were property, and since the loan gave Mann the ownership over the slave, he was well within his rights to shoot her as he saw fit. They also used the Fugitive slave law of 1850 to back their argument for Mann. Under the Fugitive Slave Law, everyone was given the right to kill any slave that was thought to be a runaway with no punishment or reimbursement. Lastly, they stated that the state judge broke the law by ruling in favor of the state.

            The states litigation was a little more… dramatic than the one earlier.  They asked for the exact contract and wording, which I thought was pretty intelligent. But that attack was quickly shot down by a misshapen in wording between “hiring” and “ownership”… semantics. Their second argument was a morally shaking argument that asked a member of the opposite litigation to clear up the definition of “property”. He argued that a pen is property, but a person who lives and breathes, it not. Which he is correct in saying this, but legally it had no standing and should not would not be a deciding factor in the ruling, especially during the time period that they lived. Lastly, they attempted to make a argument using the bible and its connection to the US legal system. Even though it was nicely argued and thought out, it also had very little legal standing.

Obviously, the Mann litigation won. If you would let me digress, I would have to applaud both sides in their research and the molding of their arguments.

Court dismissed.