STATE V. MANN
It is without a reasonable doubt that the defendant John Mann should not be convicted and fined $10 for shooting and wounding the slave, Lydia. A slave is not a citizen of the United States or a person at all; they are property of their owner and, as such, are subject to the whims of their property owner. Although not the original possessor of the slave Lydia, John Mann was allowed to hire Lydia from Elizabeth Jones, making her his property. This means that Mann is entitled to the same authority as the owner of the slave. He should not be held liable for battery against the slave or his exercise of authority on the slave because that is his property, and he is allowed to do with his property what he wants.
When drafting the Constitution itself, Jefferson relied heavily on the works of the philosopher John Locke called the Two Treaties of Government. In these works, Locke clearly states, "things that exist ‘in the state of nature’ become property through the work put into them and so the value added to them. This can either take the form of our personal labors [sic] or through the value we place upon items through investing our money in them." One can use this when making the argument that slaves are their property; therefore, they have the right to do what they want with them like in the case of John Mann. African-Americans are things that exist in the state of nature. As such, they become the property of someone, such as John Mann, through the work they put into the slave. They invest money, time, and resources into caring for the slaves well-being and should be allowed to discipline them as they see fit.
In order for the decency and security of society to be upheld, I believe it is absolutely necessary for masters to have complete dominion over their property. Imagine if owners didn't discipline their dogs, for example? The dog would be allowed to run amuck and cause all sorts of problems: biting children, attacking other animals, and striking fear into the hearts it came across. The same could be said for parents. If parents didn't discipline and hold their children accountable, the world would be filled with criminals, breaking the law and wreaking havoc. It is because of this that I agree with the actions of John Mann and do not believe he should be fined this outrageous $10. I say it's John Mann's legal duty to have the full dominion over the slave, except where the exercise of it was forbidden by statute. I find that absolute dominion is essential to the value of slaves as property, to the security of the master, and to the public tranquillity, which is greatly dependent upon the subordination of slaves.
I truly believe that the law will agree with me in the case of the State of North Carolina v. John Mann. John Mann broke no law and did not commit battery against his slave. How can someone be responsible for battery against their property? I ask: can you be responsible for battery against a chair? Responsible for battery against your house? A horse? Then why would John Mann be responsible for battery for something that he was loaned and owned for the short amount of time. He is allowed to make whatever decision he deems fit when it comes to his own property, and that includes shooting it. It would be a mockery of justice and the laws that govern our very nation if John Mann were have to pay the $10 fine for choosing what he wants to do with his property.
Comments
Post a Comment