Mock Trial Notes

Students Arguing the Case as the States Lawyers. 

Imagine being punished for surviving.

 That's the paradox at the heart of State v. Mann, an 1830 North Carolina Supreme Court case our "Talking About Freedom" class brought back to life through a mock trial.

The Facts of the Case

John Mann, a white slave owner, shot a woman named Lydia in the back as she fled from him. 

Lydia, an enslaved African American woman, had tried to escape after a dispute, and Mann answered her flight with a bullet.

She survived. Mann did not walk away unscathed either, at least on paper: he was fined five dollars, the standard penalty for assault at the time.

He appealed even that. His argument wasn't that he hadn't done it. It was that the state had no right to punish him for it at all.

His lawyers built their defense on a brutal premise: Lydia was property, not a person. 

Property cannot feel pain, they argued, and property holds no human rights to violate.

John Mann 

The State's Case

Our class argued the opposing side, grounding our case in the moral energy of the 1830s. It was a decade of spiritual awakening, with churches and town halls alive with debate over conscience and justice.

That awakening was fuel for the growing abolition movement. Religious conviction was pushing more Americans toward self-reflection and moral courage, we argued, and the law needed to catch up.

We also made an economic case.

 Slavery wasn't just a moral wrong; it was a system actively holding back the region's long-term growth.

The Uncomfortable Core of the Case

What stayed with me most was how entirely the defense's logic depended on denying Lydia's humanity. 

Once a person is legally redefined as property, the law stops asking whether they suffered.

That's the quiet danger of legal fictions. 

They don't erase reality; they just make it easier to look away from.

Mann's lawyers never claimed Lydia felt nothing. They argued her pain simply didn't count under the law, which is a very different and much darker claim.

Why the Mock Trial Hit Different

Reading about State v. Mann in a textbook is one thing. Standing up, in character, and arguing either side out loud is another entirely.

Speaking the defense's words, even as an exercise, made their coldness land harder than any paragraph on a page could. 

You feel the weight of an argument differently when you're the one making it.

A Freedom That Had to Be Fought For

This case is a blunt reminder: freedom has never been distributed evenly, and it has never arrived automatically. 

It has always needed people willing to challenge the legal and economic systems protecting injustice.

The moral awakening we described in our arguments wasn't inevitable; it was built by ordinary people refusing to stay comfortable with the status quo. 

Nearly two centuries later, arguing both sides of State v. Mann in a college classroom, that refusal still felt like the whole point.

State v. Mann endures as a foundational case in American legal history for a hard reason. It shows, with painful clarity, what happens when a legal system chooses property rights over basic human dignity.

AI Disclosure: During the mock trials arguments I took heavy and detailed notes on my laptop, once I was done with my notes, I shared them with Claude AI and asked the generator is create a professional blog post using my notes. 

Town Hall Meeting - Maria Weston Chapman

 

Photo from the Abolitionist Movement. 

To my fellow citizens,

I write concerning an evil that burdens both the conscience and the character of our nation. Slavery is not merely a subject for political debate, nor is it an unfortunate practice that may be corrected whenever the public finds it convenient.

 It is a direct violation of liberty, justice, and human dignity. No person can rightfully claim ownership over another, and no prosperous society can call itself free while it holds human beings in bondage.

I was born in Weymouth, Massachusetts, in 1806. Through education and experience, I came to understand that opportunity carries responsibility. 

When one recognizes injustice, it is not enough to object to it privately. 

Conscience must be followed by action. For this reason, I have devoted my voice, my writing, and my labor to the abolitionist cause.

America declares its devotion to liberty, yet enslaved men, women, and children are deprived of control over their labor, their families, and their futures. 

This contradiction cannot be excused by custom, profit, or law. An injustice does not become honorable simply because it has existed for many years, and it does not become acceptable because powerful people benefit from it.

Some insist that slavery must be abolished gradually. I reject that position. If slavery is wrong, then its continuation cannot be defended for another year, month, or day. In my pamphlet How Can I Help to Abolish Slavery?, I supported the demand for“immediate, unconditional emancipation, without expatriation.” 

By these words, I meant that enslaved people should be freed without conditions and that Black Americans should not be forced to leave the nation in order to receive the liberty that is already their natural right. 

I have called abolition“this grandest undertaking of any age,” an effort to“elevate a whole people in the scale of moral being.” The work is grand because it seeks not only to break physical chains, but also to confront the prejudice, selfishness, and moral indifference that allow those chains to remain. 

The abolition of slavery requires the American people to examine their own conduct and to place justice above wealth, social approval, and political advantage.

I have also witnessed individuals and institutions attempt to benefit from the antislavery cause while avoiding its clearest demands. I condemned those who sought“to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights.” Abolition must never become a means of gaining personal influence or political power. 

The purpose of the movement is the liberation of the enslaved, not the advancement of those who claim to speak on their behalf. 

My service to this cause has taken several forms. I have written and edited antislavery publications, organized fairs to raise funds, and worked with other women in the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society. Through such efforts, we have attempted to inform the public, support abolitionist work, and awaken the nation’s conscience.

Women are often instructed to remain outside public affairs, as though moral responsibility belongs only to men. I cannot accept such a limitation. 

When human beings are suffering, no person of conscience has the right to remain silent. I have urged,“Let us rise in the moral power of womanhood; and give utterance to the voice of outraged mercy, and insulted justice, and eternal truth, and mighty love and holy freedom.” 

These words express my belief that women possess both the moral power and the solemn duty to oppose oppression. 

The defense of freedom sometimes demands courage in the presence of danger. In 1835, when a hostile mob threatened an antislavery meeting, I declared,“If this is the last bulwark of freedom, we may as well die here as anywhere.” I did not speak those words because I was without fear. 

I spoke because the right to assemble, speak, and defend the oppressed must be protected most firmly when it is being attacked. 

I believe that abolition also requires a transformation of national character. As I have said,“Slavery can only be abolished by raising the character of the people who compose the nation; and that can be done only by showing them a higher one.”

 Laws are necessary, but laws alone cannot remove the prejudice and selfishness upon which slavery depends. 

The American people must be persuaded to recognize a higher moral standard and to understand that another person’s freedom is not a threat to their own.

Therefore, I call upon every citizen to consider what may be done. Read the testimony of those who have suffered under slavery. 

Maria Weston Chapman 

Support honest antislavery publications and organizations. Speak against prejudice in your family, congregation, and community. 

Refuse to allow comfort or convenience to overcome conscience.

Above all, do not surrender when the labor becomes difficult.“Grudge no expense, yield to no opposition, forget fatigue,” until the spirit of love overcomes oppression. 

The cause of human freedom demands perseverance, sacrifice, and moral courage. 

I am Maria Weston Chapman, and I stand firmly against slavery. I maintain that freedom is not a favor to be granted by the powerful, but a natural right belonging to every human being. Until that right is secured for all, the demands of justice remain unanswered and our work remains unfinished.

AI Disclosure: AI was used in the making of this blog post in order to talk about the life and work of Maria Weston Chapman, I used AI to help analyze quotes and works by Maria Weston Chapman in order to construct a blog post in the first person. 

Eight Values - Stable Change

Stable Change Means Everything.

I strongly believe that all values are important especially when talking about society and the impacts they have. 

Stable change can in fact be the make it or break it in today's society. 

Often times there are big changes that are very drastic and abrupt. There are a lot of ways to make things better and one of those ways is stable change.

Stable change is essentially improving a system without bending or breaking it. 

It improves without having to be chaotic and it is way more important than what is seen by the naked eye, stability and change are seen as opposites.  

One means that some things move and change, while the other means that things stay the same. Stable change is the loop hole for both of these things. Progress is essential and it needs to have a steady and strong foundation in order to improve and grow.

Without having this crucial foundation then there will not be progress, at least not progress that lasts.

Societies that are continuously flipping and changing policies and leaders don't build anything, instead they lose the trust of the people. 

This is why stable change matters especially when it comes down to trust.

On one hand, when companies and basic services start to slow down, people plan around them and believe in them more. 

On the other hand, with drastic changes the opposite occurs. People start lose confidence and start doubting. This can lead to a variety of things, like the waste of valuable resources and it can also start to push people away. 

All because the feelings they get when there isn't stability. 

Stable change protects the public and builds peoples trust. 

Spinoza wrote about something very similar to this in his Tractatus Theologico Politicus, which lets people speak openly about their anger instead of staying quiet. 

This helps them keep the government not only stable but also safe. 

When people can vent and get rid of all their frustrations, they are way less likely to turn that frustration into violence. 

And leaders can see problems forming in the early stages, instead of letting the problems build up and get to a point where there is no return.

This means that even a little openness isn't a bad thing or a threat to a stable environment and economy, it's a tool that can be used for it. 

Being open and stable can work hand in hand, instead of competing against each other. 

We can see a lot of this today, especially in schools.

AI has been a new norm in schools, instead of just banning AI, schools and government have decided to work with it in steps. 

Updating their policies and increasing expectations as well as upholding the main purpose of keeping school intact. 

States have been introducing many AI related bills and most of them are focused on working with AI and building around AI. 

Some districts are also using AI to better improve literacy, which has been in rapid decline in our society recently. 

Working with new things instead of fighting them is essential, there needs to be middle ground. Having an unfair law shouldn't stay just because changing it wouldn't be convenient. 

How you change things matter. 

Change with honesty, patience, and trust will build something fair and valuable that can stay that way. 

Stability doesn't mean standstill, it means that being able to make progress is very possible. 

Stable change is an action that needs many things, such as testing, expanding, and adjusting rather than making things happen all at once. 

Another good example to stable change is, venting. 

Everyone vents, its basic human nature. Venting and stable change go hand in hand. 

Venting isn't a threat, when people are able to open up and voice their anger, it essentially has somewhere to go, instead of building up. 

A government that is weak and shuts down the complaints of the people, does not make the anger go away. 

It actually does the complete opposite. 

Anger that is constantly being pushed down, will eventually come right back up. With anger there comes violence, eventually. 

Once people feel like they can't express their feelings without being pushed away they result in violence. 

Letting people vent and communicate keeps a lot of the conflicts at the base instead of letting it root and become bigger. 

Protests, are a way that many people vent without breaking down the system. 

The core idea of stable change all depends on the kind of openness. Stability is not just about sunshines and rainbows. No system or society can avoid conflicts. 

Building a strong system and government with stable change can create a good foundation, where problems and conflicts can be dealt with, without collapse. 

Governments usually put their own interest before others, and ironically stable change is the way to do that. Allowing people to vent and listening whilst adjusting policies before crisis will increase trust and stability. 

This can also show why free expression and stable change groups show up all across history. Places and countries that restrict speech don't end up more stable, they just put off the instability waiting to come. 

Patience is also key when expecting change. 

Stability does not equal the loss of progress, it is actually what makes progress achievable. 

EOTO 1 - Amistad Uprising

 

                                                   An Image of  La Amistad .

  In the summer of 1839, a small Spanish sailing ship drifted onto the American Coastline in a way that made no sense to anyone who was watching from shore. 

It was sailing erratically, sometimes it would go north, sometimes it would double back. 

When American Sailors finally boarded it off Long Island, they found something remarkable. 53 Africans who had seized control of the ship themselves. 

This was the Amistad. 

The story actually starts months prior, in Sierra Leone. A group of Africans most of which belonged to the Mende people, were kidnapped and marches to a slave-trading post on the coast. 

From there they were forced onto a slave ship bound for Cuba. 

The Middle Passage crossing killed roughly a third of them before they even arrived. 

In Havana, corrupt officials issued fake paperwork to make the sale look legal, and two Spaniards bought the survivors. They loaded them onto a smaller ship, called the Amistad. 

Amistad means "friendship" in Spanish, for a short trip to a sugar plantation. 

They never made it. 

Four days into the voyage, led by a man named Sengbe Pieh( called "Joseph Cinqué" by the Spanish ), the captives revolted. 

They killed the captain and the cook, then ordered the surviving navigator to sail them home to Africa. He agreed and then secretly steered the ship north instead, hoping someone would rescue him. 

Nearly two months later, the Navy intercepted the ship near New York and towed it to Connecticut. 

What happened after turner into one of the most closely watched battles of the era. The Spaniards claimed the Africans as stolen property. 

Spain demanded they be sent back to Cuba to face murder charges. And President Martin Van Buren's administration, eyeing pro-slavery votes ahead of an election, backed sending them back. 

But abolitionists had other plans. They organized a legal defense, taught Cinqué English so he could testify and eventually convinced former President John Quincy Adams, then a 72- year old congressman, to argue the case before the Supreme Court. 

Adams didn't hold back. 

He tore into the administrations handling of the case and invoked the Declaration of Independence, arguing that these were free people who had every right to resist illegal captivity. 

On March 9, 1841, the Supreme Court agreed. In a 7-1 decision, the justices ruled the Africans had been enslaved illegally and were free. Within a year, 35 survivors made it back to Sierra Leone. 

The Amistad case was not just a dramatic courtroom story. 

It was one of the very few months before the Civil War when the U.S legal system sided with enslaved people over slaveholders. 

It energized the abolitionist movement, put a human face on the brutality of the illegal slave trade, and led directly to the founding of the American Missionary Association, which late4r helped establish several historically Black colleges. 

It's also a reminder that the fight against slavery wasn't only carried out by white reformers. 

Cinqué and the other Mende captives freed themselves first, on the ship, before any lawyer ever took their case.

AI Disclosure: AI was used in a limited way in this assignment. I took notes and did research on The Amistad Uprising. I then personalized Claude AI to help me clean up the notes and create findings into a blog post. I also asked the tool to help me shape this post with specific websites. I then edited the text and added my own images and links. 

Bible Team Challenge

                                Freed Slaves Making Their Way North.

Anti-Slavery.

Through its pages the Bible returns again and again in talking about freedom. This is the theme that has brought up centuries worth of moral arguments against slavery. 

Freedom is not a passing idea in scripture; it is written into the narrative from the beginning. God’s liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt stands as a central story of the Old Testament, this frames the entire arc of Exodus around deliverance from bondage. 

The framing continues throughout the Bible. 

Exodus frames God as the liberator - one who actively frees oppressed peoples rather than standing by and doing nothing. 

The prophet Isaiah picks up the same; Isaiah 16:1 directly speaks on freedom for captives and echos the same liberating concern that is found in Exodus. 

Together this concern is consistent, freedom suggests something deeper, that slavery runs contrary to God’s ideals for humanity. 

Abolitionists didn't just point to isolated verses, they built their case on a border principle, the equal worth of all people. Using stories from the bible abolitionists are able to achieve better conclusion on anti-slavery.

If slaves and masters share the same status before God, then treating one human being as the property of another directly goes against morality. 

Along with these passages, the Bible calls for justice and care for the oppressed which is a reinforcement of the same belief from another angle. 

Beyond Anti-Slavery and Pro-Slavery at the Constitutional Convention 

Pro-Slavery

The bible supports slavery in different ways throughout the different texts. In the Old Testament, there is some talk about slavery.

Certain laws explicitly allow Israelites to own slaves. The Bible contains passages that regulate, permit, or assume the existence of slavery rather than explicitly abolishing it.

Those passages have historically been used by some people to defend slavery. For example, Leviticus 25:44-46 permits Israelites to acquire male and female slaves from surrounding nations and describes them as inheritable property.

These verses are the strongest textual arguments that the Bible regulates slavery rather than prohibiting it. In the bible, instead of ultimately banning slavery, some passages just provide regulations for slavery.

 Another example, Exodus 21:20-21 addresses punishment when a slave is beaten, while still treating slaves as part of a master's household or property.

Several texts in the New Testament state how slaves should obey their masters. 1 Peter 2:18 tells servants to submit even to harsh masters.

Some pro-slavery advocates frequently quoted these verses to argue that slavery was compatible with Christianity.

 Ultimately, The bible does show being in favor of slavery throughout several biblical passages representing pro-slavery arguments. 

AI Disclosure: This post contains minimum AI, I used the website Claude AI to help shape my notes and only my notes into bullet points in order to write my blog post.

Supreme Court Video Reflection

The Supreme Court Building. 

Every year thousands of petitions pile up at the Supreme Court's door. Only a small amount of these petitions ever get heard. 

That's the power of certiorari, which is the courts ability to choose which cases it takes. It's a filtering system unlike anything else in government. 

And the U.S Supreme Court is the most powerful judicial body on Earth, but that power doesn't come from soldiers or badges. It comes from the public faith. 

There have been just over 100 Supreme Court justices in the nations history. Presidents have long tried to swap the court with their own image, which is exactly why the confirmations process matters so much. There's even a so-called "3-year rule", though in practice, it functions more like five. 

History shows that the court has never been able to dodge controversy. In 1801, John Marshall became Chief Justice, and with the Marbury v. Madison case of the midnight judges, the Court earned its place as a true branch of government.  

Not every case has built that trust. An example being Dred Scott, which held that congress had no power to ban slavery, which is widely seen as a self-inflicted wound on the courts. 

Justices don't go looking for cases, the issue has to come to them. Oral arguments happen in public, and they can matter more than people expect. After hearing arguments, only the nine votes count, nobody else's. 

As one voice in the video puts it: "The inside story of a court is there is no inside story". 

Revisions on opinions can stretch on for months. 

Structurally, the system works like a pyramid. District courts sit at the bottom, ruling on facts. Above them, appellate courts review the law. At the top, the Supreme Court hears cases only if it chooses to. 

Here's the real takeaway: the Supreme Court has no police force. When it rules people simply obey, the same way drivers stop at a four-way stop sign even when no officer is watching. It's not enforcement. It's trust. 

And trust, once lost, does not come back on its own. 

What stood out most to me was hearing multiple justices describe the Court in their own words, I was surprised when they were talking about having different perspectives when ruling. My one critique is the videos age- given how much has shifted in society and on the court in recent years, an updated take would add a lot more to video especially today. 

AI DISCLOSURE: AI was used in a limited way in this assignment. I took ample notes while watching a 20 minute video, about the U.S Supreme Court. I then personalized those notes by adding my point of view for example things I found interesting about what I learned. I then used Claude AI to help me clean up the text for grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I also asked the tool to help me shape it into the form of a blog post. I then edited the text, added links, and added images and captions.