In 1829, Mann was wrongfully convicted when he shot his slave and was portrayed wrong. A year before that, in 1828, Elizabeth Jones, a slave owner, owned a slave named Lydia. Elizabeth gave Lydia to John Mann. Lydia was unhappy and tried to run away. As she was trying to escape, she was shot and wounded. Mann was indicted wrongfully for assault and battery against a slave. It was interpreted that what Mann did would be considered cruel and unwarrantable.
John Mann shot Lydia. However, she decided to run away when it was against the law. During to people in that period, it was common to know that slavery was constitutional and legal. It was ruled that slaveowners had absolute authority over their slaves and were not to be found guilty of commitment to a crime. There was also a ruling for slaves, including Lydia, in the late 1800s. The slave codes stated that slaves could not be away from their owners without permission, and they could not assemble unless a white person was present. The main focus right now is that slaves could not leave without permission. While Mann owned Lydia, this helped shape the social and economic relations, and Mann held her and helped make it profitable. She was a part of the system of stratification in which he rightfully owned her.
It might come to thought, and people would say, "but he did not fully own her." Would you say that if you were given a responsibility to take care and given a child for a certain amount of time, you would not consider it to be yours? That is what Mrs. Jones did for Mann with Lydia, and she was his, so in conclusion, Lydia was his slave too.
Looking now at the social and economic standpoint of this case, if Lydia ran away, Mann would be out of the cost their owner because Mann could not return her when the year was up. There is an economic loss because Lydia would not be working Mann. She is property, and the standard/state law allows for the defense of a person's property. Mann, as the possessor of the slave, was entitled to the same authority as the owner.
In conclusion, Mann would be right because state law says he has total control over her. The power of the master has to be the complete absolute for the slave to be submissive. The owner is liable for the battery of their slave or any type of authority. It is essential to the values of slaves as property to help the master, which was greatly dependant upon the slaves and the function of society.
Cites:
https://www.ncpedia.org/anchor/north-carolina-v-mann
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-state-v-mann
https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/state-v-mann/
Comments
Post a Comment