Mock Trial State V. Mann Reaction: 

In the courtroom today we heard many arguments for and against John Mann. John Mann had been accused of assault and attempted murder of a slave named Lydia. Lydia was on loan to him from one Elisabeth Jones, and after a particularly bad beating when Lydia attempted to run away, John Mann shot her in the back. 

The state charged John Mann with assault and attempted murder and fined him $10. Mann appealed the fine and the following arguments were presented in court today: 

Firstly, the state presented a religious argument postulating that America is built on Judeo-Christian values, the belief that we are all God's children, and moral codes such as the golden rule. John Mann displayed a disregard for those fundamental values and a direct defiance for those principles. In analyzing Mann's actions through the lens of religion, he is clearly guilty and should be forced to pay the fine. 

Some other valuable points were made such as America being behind the rest of the world in terms of abolition and how we need to look toward the future and not the past. The rest of the world is moving forwards and so should we, because slavery is leaving an emotional hole in our society. 

Another good point was made on the subject of the economy. If slaves are of such value to the Southern economy, why are they beaten brutally and treated horribly? Why are they not held in higher respect? Slavery is even claimed to be an example of human trafficking and abuse. 

All of these arguments however are moral or ethical and therefore only appeal to emotion, not the law. The two most powerful arguments from the state side had legal backing. 

The first was the simple distinction that what John Mann did was assault and battery plain and simple. Focusing on those criminal statutes and how they should apply to African Americans as well was a powerful argument. 

The second was the argument that Lydia was not actually John Mann's slave, she belonged to Elisabeth Jones, thus, John Mann did not really have the right to punish her without Elisabeth's explicit permission. The plenary right is non-transferable, which was perhaps the strongest argument the State had on their side. 

On the side of John Mann, the arguments were a lot more legal in nature, referring to specific statutes of this time. 

The first argument being that enslaved people are property under the law and therefore, Mann was within his rights to beat her, and when Lydia ran away, she broke the slave code of travelling without permission, presenting a possible danger to others, therefore, Mann was within his rights to shoot her. 

Essentially, Mann's argument could be seen as self-defense in multiple ways. Firstly, Lydia's escape could have presented a threat, because she could have been a danger to others, robbed people, or started a slave revolt. Secondly, Mann's living revolves around his slaves, and he should not be punished for trying to protect his livelihood. 

Additionally, Lydia did not die, therefore, on Biblical and moral standing, he did nothing wrong, as according to Exodus 20-21, masters can beat their slaves as long as the slaves do not die. Slaves are not allowed to run from their masters according to the Bible, therefore, Mann was morally sound in his decision. 

This is why the court ultimately decided to rescind John Mann's fine and reimburse him.