Losing State V Mann

Did punishing John Mann for shooting a slave violate his rights as a slave owner? The answer to that question, in my opinion, is yes.  Our team, Team Nido, argued with that opinion.  Our arguments consisted of:

Judge Thomas Ruffin

1) Cruelty and inhumanity in slavery 

2) That John Mann did not own the slave therefore had no right to commit battery against Lydia 

3) That Lydia has higher stature than an animal and based on animal cruelty laws Mann deserved a punishment 

4) That the bible is economic not race based and states that abuse of slaves is wrong

Our arguments I thought were strong, however the opposing team had solid arguments that agreed with many opinions at the time of the case in 1830.  These arguments were economic based and incredibly logical at that time period. I could see how our team lost the case, although I did find it interesting to see how Mann initially was given a fine.  The fine was only five dollars, but it was a fine which was given to Mann by twelve white men who were also slave owners.  It is interesting to see that opinion is starting to shift in that time, even though that fine was eventually taken away. Another thing that I found very interesting was the animal cruelty laws which I researched. It was truly incredible, in a horrific way, to see that in some ways cruelty of animals was taken more seriously than cruelty inflicted upon human beings. In the United Kingdom in 1822, eight years prior to this case, Parliament passed the Cruel and Improper Treatment Cattle Act which prohibits improper treatment of horses, cattle, sheep, ox ect. and is enforced with punishments.  Yet, in the United States eight years later, a women can get shot in the back and the man who did it gets no punishment. I learned from this that it is hard to put your mind into a different time period, but it is essential to do so in order to understand decisions made.

Read about 1800's animal cruelty laws here