Mann v. State: on the side of John Mann

The definition of a slave owner is anyone that has control or ownership over another human being.

The discussion isn't about if slavery is just or not, Mr. Mann is a slave owner and it is his right to keep slaves in order. What is the point of being a slave owner if you can’t keep slaves in order? If Mr. Mann wouldn't have taken charge, who knows how many other slaves would have revolted without punishment.

May I add that $10 in 1830 was worth over $280 in 1830. This is months of hard work for a slave owner in North Carolina so the amount of the fine is not a fair argument.

An African American is anatomically proven to be inferior to a white man. Their brains are smaller with thinner nerves and their cranial structure is less proportionate to that of a white. 

The team found an owner was not liable for a battery on his slave, or for the exercise of authority. The court found that for the sake of their own happiness, slaves needed to surrender their will in implicit obedience to that of another. Such obedience was the consequence only of uncontrolled authority over the body. The power of the master had to be absolute to produce the complete submission of the slave. We have found that a slave could not appeal from his master's power and the master's power could not be usurped. The court found it was its duty to recognize the full dominion of the owner over the slave, except where the exercise of it was forbidden by statute. The court found that absolute dominion was essential to the value of slaves as property, to the security of the master, and to the public tranquility, which was greatly dependent upon the subordination of slaves.

Explore: Did Religion Justify Slavery?

  

    We know that several slave owners and those in favor of slavery were often very religious. We see this evidence everywhere from the religious names of slave trade boats to the churches that funded the voyages to capture slaves. Does this mean that the Bible actually viewed slavery in a positive manner or did they just make it up as they go?

    Let's take a look at a very special quote from the Bible in which people thought that it was so powerful that it could justify slavery. A Prophecy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. Genesis 9:18-27 KJV - And the sons of Noah, that went forth

What’s interesting to me about this section is that depending on what version you read, you get completely different vocabulary. In the version I cited, the King James version, the term “slave” is not used. When we look at the Christian Standard Bible however, the results are a little different. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9%3A18-9%3A27&version=CSB The story is nearly the same but in this version, Canaan is actually named a slave rather than a servant. I believe that the reasoning for this is due to the translation of the term slave and for the “popularity” that the term began to receive. We know however, a slave and a servant are not the same.

    The reason why this is relevant to the justification of slavery becomes a little more clear. The Bible was not a manual; it doesn’t just state “This is right, that’s wrong, this is good, that’s bad” we interpret things based on our cultural background. So of course if someone grew up during a point in time where slavery was normal, a quote that calls someone a “slave” relates to their definition of slave which is far different from just a “servant”