State V Man Reflection
In this Mock Trial, what was debated was, a man named John who is a slave owner and a woman named Lydia, who is a slave. John was giving Lydia a hard time, which caused her to run away. So, he decided to shoot her in the back. He was fined $10 for this incident. We are arguing if this crime should be upheld. Man is anti-slavery while state is defending John.
Starting with Man, there first point being, we are not a religious country, but many of our norms, customs, and laws go back to christen value and the 10 commandments which state, “Though shall not kill” even to a slave because Lydia is still a human being. Second, John committed Assault and Battery. He intentionally hurt Lydia and attempted to murder her, which means he did break the law. Thirdly why John is in the wrong is an economic reason. If we have an economy based on slaves, then the well-being of the slaves is detrimental. If we harm the slave, then the slave will not be able to perform its role in society. Harming a slave is harming the economy. Slavery shouldn’t be tolerated and crushes the reputation of the United States. Slavery has left an emotional whole in our society. Lastly for man is, Lydia wasn’t owned by John. He hired her for work, and there for didn’t have the right to punish Lydia. Lydia belonged to Elizabeth Johns. It was a common practice during this era to lease a slave to someone else, that being John. Some say that even though John rented out Lydia he has the right to punish her, however this is not true. He doesn’t have the right to punish her because of property ownership. You can’t damage that person’s property therefor John broke the rules.
Now discussing the states side and why John is innocent. We need to think of the time period and the mindset of people back then. Opinions of slavery in the north and south were different. The north was anti-slavery, and the south was pro slavery. John shouldn’t pay the fine, in this time slavery was perfectly legal in the south. Therefor It was Lydia’s fault, she didn’t play her role, she created this conflict. Then John under all the norms and customs at the time back then as a slave owner, acted logically from keeping her from running away. This was a case of self-defense, because if she had run away, she could have been a danger to the community. We can’t have this lawlessness, with the underground railroad having slaves go up north. There needs to be ownership and control. If you take away ownership and control the whole system falls apart, concluding he was acting responsibly and shouldn’t have to pay $10.
No comments:
Post a Comment