State v. Mann

My team had to argue from one of the six modes of argumentation (religion, economic, ethical, political, historical, and legal) and defend Mann in the State v. Mann case. To summarize this case, John Mann (slave owner) had shot his slave (Lydia) after she attempted to run away. He was charged with assault and battery by North Carolina authorities, and was told to pay a fine. Mann appealed, arguing that the assault of a slave should not be indictable because the slave is property of the owner. I took the legal mode of argumentation, and argued that Mann should not be charged anything. I believed that in terms of the law, Mann was absolutely in the right.

My argument was mostly based on the idea that slavery was legal in the state of North Carolina. Additionally, I noted that Mann did not harm a random slave, he had rented her. Therefore, the slave was his property - even if this was a temporary "renting." I also argued that slaves have no rights from their owners. Although this may affect people's emotions, emotions are to be left out of the court room. Being charged for damaging your own property is wrong.

Overall, the legal argument is what carries the most weight in court cases. As for State v. Mann, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that Mann was not to pay the fine. Judge Ruffin stated "the power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect.” Although many had a difficult time separating emotions from the law in this case, the Judge made it apparent that his argument was solely based on legalities.