Mock Trial: NC v. Mann

 The case before you rests of the shoulders not only of history, morals and norms but also on the law of the current time. The bottom line is that slaves are not people, they are property. It does not matter whose control they are technically under, they are still property of their masters whether that be temporary or otherwise.

As seen in Mima Queen v. Hepburn the judge ruled that freedom could not be obtained because there was no actual evidence. They ruled that nothing could be achieved off of hearsay evidence. In the case that stands before us, there is no actual evidence as to how the scenario played out. We do know that Ms. Lydia was shot in the back. However, by whom and for what reason we do not know because of the lack of concrete evidence. Therefore, no charges can be brought against Mr. Mann as the only evidence is hearsay. 

The North Carolina Slave Code was developed as a police system to control the slaves. This code became a method of controlling labor to ensure that slaves stayed in line and did their work as they were told. Under the Slave Code, masters had absolute authority over their slaves. Mr. Mann was simply expressing his right under the Slave Code to control his slaves when the incident occurred with Lydia. While Lydia was not technically his slave, he had bought her labor which would have made him her master and allowed him to have the same rights as any other master under the law. 

The contract clause in State v. Hale also stands in favor of Mr. Mann. This says that all kinds of property are protected under the law meaning the owner has absolute control and authority over them. Since slaves were considered property at the time, they would have also been protected underneath this clause as their owners property. In Fletcher v. Peck, it is stated that “the Contract Clause covered every type of contract” which would include the contract masters have over their slaves stating that they own them and that the masters have absolute authority. 

Judge Thomas Ruffin made the decision in State v. Mann not to convict Mr. Mann of assault under the law and belief that slaves were “insensible property, unworthy of any sort of protection from their owners, regardless of the form of cruelty or barbarity employed”. The ruling was made that slaves could be treated as “mere property with ‘no will of his own’ and ‘no appeal from his master’ to the courts”. Ruffin ultimately decided that “it would be the imperative duty of the Judges to recognize the full dominion of the owner over the slave, except where the exercise of it is forbidden by statute”. However, at this time battery or exertion of force are not forbidden by the statue. Under this same reasoning, I urge you to consider that Mr. Mann did nothing inherently unlawful. Ms. Lydia was under his authority at the time of the alleged accident and therefore he had the right to punish her however he saw fit.

In conclusion, I ask that you consider all the aspects of this case, but most importantly the law. Ms. Lydia is a slave who under the law has no right to petition the court and she also has no rights against her master. Therefore, Mr. Mann was justified because masters have absolute authority under the law to handle their slaves the way they see fit.