The trial of State v. Mann was a pivotal case that significantly influenced slave law by reinforcing the authority of slaveholders. It involves John Mann, a man who had rented out an enslaved woman named Lidia from her owner for a period of time to work for him. When Lidia attempted to flee from Mann after the abuse she was being put through, he shot her in the back with a pistol. Fortunately, she survived, but Mann was charged with attempted murder and battery and fined $5.
This case went to court primarily because Mann's legal team argued that he should not be fined for harming an enslaved woman under his control. The prosecution, however, made claims concerning that whether Lidia was enslaved or not, she was still a human being.
The prosecuting council emphasized that Mann shot her in the back while she was unaware of the attack. Moreover, they pointed out the cruelty in Mann's actions and his complaint about the fine after inflicting harm on "property" that was not his in the first place. Furthermore, a council member highlight the prevailing racial hierarchy by stating that all bleed the same blood and come from the same place, but in the end, the white race is lifted above the black population.
On the other hand, the defense argued that slavery was essential for maintaining the economy and way of life at the time and questioning why Mann should be punished for exerting control over an "essential item." They stress that plantation management required strict discipline of slaves, whether rented or owned, to ensure Smooth operations. Therefore, they claimed Mann had as much right to discipline Lidia as much as any other master would have.
The defense also brought up a religious argument, asserting that Christianity condoned Mann's action. On top of this, Mann had every right to discipline Lidia because at the end of the say, she was there to serve him and not the other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment