State v. Mann

A two-hundred-year-old court case was rehashed in Talking About Freedom today, as we staged a Mock Trial of the State v. Mann case. The real-life case was a dispute over the state’s decision to fine a man by the name of John Mann for shooting a slave named Lydia in the back after she attempted to run away during a particularly vicious lashing. He was ordered to pay $10 after nearly killing the woman.

My team, the Women of Wisdom, took the side of the Court, arguing to uphold the fine. Anna went first, arguing that the incident with Lydia was an assault on the woman. His whipping was cruel and excessive, and her escape was just an attempt to spare her suffering. Slavery was in fact legal at the time, so the ownership and punishment of people wasn’t a crime, but “whether Lydia was property or a human, it was still assault.”

Naj was next, and she cited a biblical perspective in her argument. Exodus 21:20 states “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished,” and in this case we’re assuming a whip is a reasonable equivalent to a rod, making a gunshot an even worse strike. Discipline is understandable, though unpleasant to think about, when considering a master-worker partnership, but this verse is speaking of actions outside of discipline. As Anna said, Mr. Mann was beating Lydia, assaulting her, so in terms of the Bible he deserved to be punished.

Nastya followed with a complex argument reaching as far back as the fundamentals of being a human. Human autonomy is the notion that “every human being of adult years and sound mind shall determine was may be done with his own body.” There is absolutely no denying that Lydia was a human, property or not. She is made of the same fabric as Mr. Mann is, therefore she has the right to decide how her body is handled. She decided that his lashing was too severe, so she took her autonomy in her own hands and fled. Nastya’s point was that Mr. Mann violated her basic human rights by inflicting pain, and thus he was penalized for it.

I went with a slightly more proactive approach, anticipating the other team’s argument that Lydia was, technically and legally, property. A major issue within the case is that John Mann did not own Lydia, but rather had been hiring her for one year. She belonged legally to Elizabeth Jones. The presiding judge, Ruffin, has expressed the distinction that “Here the slave had been hired by the Defendant, and was in his possession; and the battery was committed during the period of hiring.” So, the assault on Lydia, property of Miss Jones, is considered damage to another’s property, which is a typical civil suit. Vandalism is defined as “an offense that occurs when a person destroys or defaces someone else’s property without permission.”

Though slavery is a perfectly legal institution, and the punishment of slaves are, unfortunately lawful, Lydia was not the property of John Mann, so he therefore did not have the right to hurt or “damage” her.

The other teams defense, Team Smith included points such as: Lydia was the legal property of Mann, common law did not apply to him because he had absolute dominion over her per the 3/5 Compromise; her running away was an illegal action, under the Escaped Slave Act so he could punish her as he saw fit; Mann was saving Lydia from escapee bounty hunters; She should’ve been obeying God by obeying her master as it was her Christian obligation; that she was stimulating the economy by being enslaved so she should’ve stayed to continue such financial prosperity; and finally, that the social norms, customs, and traditions instated by slavery made her property, and Mr. Mann’s shooting of Lydia was only in an effort to maintain his rightful property.

Ultimately, “Justice Ruffin” decided that slavery was a legal institution therefore Mr. Mann could shoot her as many times as he pleased because she was nothing more than property in the eyes of the law. Despite her human autonomy and her status as a hired worker, not the legal property of the renter, Lydia was deemed an exchangeable piece of property, and therefore not worth $10 damage.