North Carolina v. Mann

Part of a series on
Slavery
Contemporary slavery
Types
Unfree labour · Debt bondage Human trafficking · Peonage Penal labour · Sexual slavery Wage slavery
History
History · Antiquity · Aztec Ancient Greece · Rome Medieval Europe Thrall · Kholop · Serfdom Slave ship · Galley slave
Religion
The Bible · Judaism Christianity · Islam
By country or region
Africa · Modern Africa Atlantic · Arab Barbary Coast · Coastwise Spanish New World Angola · Bhutan · Brazil Britain and Ireland British Virgin Islands · Canada China · India · Iran · Japan Libya · Mauritania · Ottoman empire Portugal · Romania · Seychelles Sudan · Sweden · United States
Opposition and resistance
Timeline · Abolitionism Compensated emancipation Opponents of slavery‎ Slave rebellion · Slave narrative Underground Railroad
v · d · e

North Carolina v. Mann, 13 N.C. 263 (N.C. 1830) (or State v. Mann, as it would have been identified within North Carolina), is a decision in which the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that slaveowners had absolute authority over their slaves and could not be found guilty of committing violence against them.

Background

In 1829, Elizabeth Jones, who owned a slave named Lydia, hired her out for a year to John Mann of Chowan County. Mann shot and wounded Lydia when she struggled to escape a whipping. Mann was found guilty of battery by a jury of twelve white men drawn from his community and the court (Superior Court Judge Joseph J. Daniel) imposed a five dollar fine. The North Carolina Supreme Court overruled the conviction on the grounds that slaves were the absolute property of their owners who could not be punished at common law unless the legislature authorized such punishment.

Decision

The judgment of the state supreme court was written by Judge Thomas Ruffin, who stated that "the power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect", but noted that slaves did have legal right of protection from persons other than their owners. Ruffin, however, made it clear that his opinion was a legal one, and that his sympathy lay with Lydia. He wrote that "the struggle, too, in the Judge's own breast between the feelings of the man, and the duty of the magistrate is a severe one, presenting strong temptation to put aside such questions, if it be possible. It is useless however, to complain of things inherent in our political state. And it is criminal in a court to avoid any responsibility which the laws impose." Harriet Beecher Stowe cited State v. Mann as a source for her depiction of slavery in her novel Dred.

Comparisons

The decision is sometimes contrasted with the British first instance decision in 1811, R v Arthur Hodge. In that case, on a charge of murdering one of his slaves, the defendant argued that an owner had absolute power over their slave to do as they will. The defence was rejected and Hodge was hanged for the murder.

External links

• Text of Ruffin's decision
• The Perils of Public Memory: State v. Mann and Thomas Ruffin in History and Memory
• State v. Mann: 1829 - In Defense Of Slavery