Moot Court Debate

Throughout the class period it was very interesting to hear the different sides of the State Demand case. It was imperative to hear the different arguments. Though in todays society, our side, the side defending the slave, would have easily one the case. However, in this instance, the side that ended up winning was the side defending the master. I still feel that this is ridiculous because of the moral side of attempted murder. Furthermore, there becomes a time to respect both sides of the argument. Mr. Mann argued that the slave was leased and therefore since the slave (who was a woman might I just add) was under ownership of the master that the master had the rights to do whatever he pleased to the slave.

As well, since he was under lease then this exempts the master from being held accountable for creating any harm or essentially the idea of property damage incurred. Others argued that following the laws of slavery in North Carolina that slavery is fair, typical, and legal. The other side of the argument, our side, differed greatly. 

On the opposite side of the case we had argued that though slavery was legal that the is a very atypical one. We also argued that the owner was essentially a temporary master and that there was no need for a shot in the back but rather another means of subduing the slave. It was an act that violated what this country stands for. We argued that the owner violated the laws regarding property damage since he not only killed a human but also destroyed the property of the true owner.

I personally argued that due process rights for slaves represents the ideals that if a slave is charged with capital offense that that same individual is entitled to legal counsel. In all, our argument was the regard of the temporary owner damaging the property of the true owner. In all, the temporary master was not further prosecuted, unfortunately, and all fees/fines and penalties were then waived.