The Historical Impact of Mann v. State (1829)

In 1829, North Carolina’s Supreme Court made their decision on Mann v. State, a case which revealed the realities of slavery in early 1800s America and the ways in which our legal system upheld its institution. Mann v. State had a significant impact on the United States as it further stripped away any protection that enslaved people had under the law. To understand the historical impact of Mann v. State, we need to look at both the court’s ruling and the broader national occurrences going on in the same time period. 

John Mann

The case itself was in regard to John Mann, who had hired an enslaved woman named Lydia, to do work on his plantation. Mann told Lydia to do something, which she resisted, leading Mann to attempt to punish her. In order to avoid this, Lydia attempted to run away and escape the abuse, leading Mann to shoot her in the back. She was wounded, but survived, and Mann was taken to court for injuring a slave that wasn’t his.

A lower level court in North Carolina convicted John Mann of battery, however he didn’t like this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justice Thomas Ruffin overturned this ruling, as “power of the master must be absolute.” Justice Ruffin admitted to moral and personal discomfort over this case and his ruling, but he claimed that the law shouldn’t undermine the authority of masters over enslaved people. This ruling further set the precedent that enslaved individuals had no protection, even under the law, to those who inflicted violence upon them and held authority over them.

The Cotton Gin

To fully understand why the case unfolded in the way it did, we need to look at the historical context when the case was taking place, the late 1820s. By this time, cotton had become the main crop and driving economic force of the South. The cotton gin, which had been invented 30 years prior, made the production and harvesting of cotton profitable and further made slavery a common practice in the United States.

The demand for labor skyrocketed, leading to more and more people being brought to America and enslaved. The country’s economic dependence on slavery further encouraged courts to strengthen legal protections for slaveowners and rule in their favor. 

A decade before Mann v. State, the Missouri Compromise had revealed how divisive slavery was becoming at a national level. The compromise maintained the balance of free and slave states, but also highlighted the fact that the country was becoming more divided. Decisions like Mann v. State reflected the South’s determination to defend slavery against any moral, political, or legal encroachments to protect their economic livelihood. 

Although abolitionism was still in its early stages in the late 1820s, some voices were beginning to call the practice of slavery into question. David Walker, a free black man from North Carolina, published Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World, which called for resistance against slavery. His stance and appeal to a group of the public was not taken well by many Southerners and plantation owners, who feared uprising, opposition, and the loss of their labor force. The legal ruling in Mann v. State can be seen as a part of the South’s attempt to defend themselves against the growing opposition to slavery.

Enslaved Peoples

The ruling in Mann v. State had a few different significant impacts following. One of these was legal precedent, which established that, at least in North Carolina, slave owners or those with authority over
slaves couldn’t be punished for violence against enslaved people.

This set a tone for unchecked power and abuse which reinforced the reality of the time that enslaved people couldn’t be protected by the law. The case also foreshadowed national division and the Civil War that would take place in years to come. Although a state level case, it reflected the broader Southern determination to protect slavery at all costs.

By understanding Mann v. State, we can observe how courts were active participants in preserving slavery in the south and how this legal history still shapes conversations in our modern day and age.

Sources:

Murray, Jonathan. “State v. Mann.” North Carolina History Project, John Locke Foundation,

https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/state-v-mann/. Accessed 9/17/2025.

Brinkley, Martin H. "State v. John Mann." NCpedia. State Library of NC. December 2022.

https://www.ncpedia.org/state-v-john-mann.

Participation in Self-Government and the “Watchdog” Role of the First Amendment

Self Governance in the Colonies

The American foundational idea of democracy has always rested on the idea that citizens must play an active role in governing and fighting for themselves. That participation is not possible without access to information, freedom to debate, and the ability to openly criticize and discuss those in power without risk of prior restraint or subsequent punishment. 

Alexander Meiklejohn

The First Amendment and its protection of free speech and free press is not an immediate guarantee to individual expression. Rather, as individuals like Alexander Meiklejohn and Vince Blasi have argued, it’s central to a self-government. Without the First Amendment, government power could have the ability to become unchecked and citizens would be scared to advocate their needs and beliefs.

In Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, written by American philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn, an argument that the core purpose of the First Amendment is to enable citizens to govern themselves wisely is made. He also argues that the entire system of democracy doesn’t work if the media and politicians provide material which is manipulated and untruthful. If citizens are kept in the dark about important topics and people, voters become uninformed and unable to make important decisions regarding policies and who is in office. 

Meiklejohn’s perspective brings about the idea that free speech is more than an individual freedom, but also a necessity for a truthful functioning government where every voice is heard. Protecting freedom of speech and freedom of press is necessary to citizens contributing to the marketplace of ideas. If individuals can’t see competing arguments because some are silenced, the entire voting population becomes uniformed and silenced. When only government approved and created messages reach the public, elections become a waste of time rather than actual acts of self-governance.

We can see Meiklejohn’s perspective play out in modern politics. Debate over constant moderation in social media, campaign restrictions, and laws limiting the discussion of controversial topics in schools raise the same questions Meiklejohn asked decades ago. Are we capable of fostering an environment where voters are informed? One example of social media moderation right now is in the EU. The digital services act, similar to a hate speech law, has been enacted, and on average, 30 people a day go to jail in Britain for things they post online disagreeing with the government.

The EU is also trying to pass something called Chat Control, which hinges on Germany’s decision. Introduced by Denmark, Chat Control would allow regulators to screen your messages before they are sent and encrypted in text. These acts have direct consequences for how citizens are able to voice their ideas and participate in political life. 

Vince Blasi

While Meiklejohn focused on the role of speech in democratic participation, Vince Blasi brought light to another important function of the First Amendment. Checking government power was written about in his article The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory. In this article, Blasi argued that the press serves as a sort of “Watchdog”, exposing abuse of power so that citizens can respond in ways they see fit, especially for something as important as political leaders and matters.

The historical record of multiple “gates” such as Watergate, Irangate, and Clintongate, further support Blasi’s point. Without journalists and freedom of speech and press, these abuses of power may have never been known to the public. These scandals highlight the importance of the broader system of checks and balances. 

Sources:

Michigan Law Review, Meiklejohn: FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT, 47 MICH. L. REV. 734 (Accessed 9/17/2025). 

Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss5/26 

Blasi, Vincent. "The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory." American Bar Foundation Research Journal 2, no. 3 (1977): 521-649. http://www.jstor.org/stable/827945. (Accessed 9/17/2025)

What does the Bible say about Slavery?

Joseph being sold into
slavery by his brothers

When I first began exploring the Bible more deeply, I was struck by how often it’s described as a book of love, justice, and liberation. But then I encountered something that made me pause: slavery. Not just stories about it, but actual laws and instructions that seem to permit or even endorse it. That discovery was jarring—and it forced me to ask some hard questions.

Let’s be honest: the Bible contains passages that depict God permitting slavery. In the Old Testament, the Law of Moses includes regulations for how Israelites could own slaves. Exodus 21:2–11 outlines how Hebrew slaves could be held temporarily to pay off debts, with release in the seventh year. Leviticus 25:44–46 goes further, allowing Israelites to permanently enslave people from surrounding nations. These aren’t vague references—they’re detailed laws.

Then there’s the New Testament. While it doesn’t create new laws about slavery, it reflects the social norms of the Roman Empire, where slavery was deeply entrenched. In Ephesians 6:5–9, Colossians 3:22–4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1–2, Titus 2:9–10, and 1 Peter 2:18–20, slaves are told to obey their masters. There’s no call for abolition—just instructions for how to live faithfully within the system.

Some argue that the Bible was simply reflecting the cultural norms of its time. And that’s partly true. Compared to other ancient societies, the Bible did call for more humane treatment of slaves. Hebrew slaves were to be freed after six years, and physical abuse was condemned. Exodus 21 even states that if a master injured a slave, the slave was to be set free. Leviticus 25:39–43 instructs masters not to rule harshly over fellow Israelites. In the New Testament, masters are told to treat their slaves with kindness and fairness.

But still—slavery was accepted.

Slavery in the Bible

 And yet, there’s another thread running through   Scripture. A deeper one. Galatians 3:28 declares,   “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male   nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” That   verse doesn’t just sound nice—it’s revolutionary. It   undercuts the very idea of permanent social   hierarchies. It plants the seeds of equality that would   later inspire abolitionists and civil rights leaders.

 Throughout history, these passages have been   interpreted in vastly different ways. Slave owners in   America cited biblical texts to justify slavery, while   abolitionists leaned into themes of liberation, human   dignity, and justice—especially the Exodus story,   where God delivers the Israelites from bondage. The Bible became both a weapon of oppression and a source of hope.

Today, most modern biblical scholars emphasize the importance of reading these texts in their ancient cultural context. Slavery in biblical times was not identical to the race-based chattel slavery of the modern era. It was often economic, temporary, and regulated. But even so, the Bible’s acceptance of slavery remains a troubling reality.

So how do we reconcile this?

I’ve come to see the Bible as a complex, layered text. It doesn’t always give us easy answers. Sometimes it reflects the brokenness of the world it was written in. But it also points us toward something better. Toward a kingdom where no one is owned, no one is oppressed, and everyone is seen as fully human.

As a student of both faith and history, I believe we must be honest about what’s in the Bible—even the uncomfortable parts. But we also must read it with an eye toward its trajectory. The Bible may not have started with abolition, but I believe it ends with liberation.

AI Disclosure: After researching biblical passages and historical accounts of slavery, I utilized ChatGPT, Claude, and Microsoft CoPilot to refine the text and format it in a readable manner. I then edited the AI-generated text. I added photos and captions. I expanded on the AI-generated text by adding some of my personal thoughts and opinions.

Supreme Court Reflection

Outside of the Supreme Court of the United States

As a student diving deeper into the workings of the U.S. government, I’ve come to appreciate just how extraordinary the Supreme Court really is. Recently, I watched this documentary in class which provided me with an immense amount of useful information. With only nine justices, this institution reviews thousands of petitions each year—over 7,000, in fact—but accepts only around 100. That alone speaks volumes about the weight and selectivity of its decisions.

The Supreme Court isn’t just another branch of government. It’s a co-equal force, standing alongside Congress and the Presidency, and arguably the most powerful judicial body on Earth. Its legitimacy doesn’t come from elections or popularity—it stems from the Constitution and, more importantly, the trust of the American people.

What fascinates me most is how the Court interprets a document written over 200 years ago. The Constitution is timeless, but the issues the Court faces are anything but. Every decision they make draws the boundaries of government power, and controversy is often unavoidable.

Supreme Court justices as of 2021

Presidents have always tried to shape the Court through their nominations, hoping to leave a lasting legacy. But getting appointed to the Supreme Court? It’s like being struck by lightning—rare, unpredictable, and life-changing.

Each justice works with a small team of clerks and secretaries, but ultimately, they’re responsible for their own caseload. Every case, no matter how big or small, gets the same careful consideration. Drafting opinions can take months, sometimes going through a dozen revisions, especially when justices change their stance mid-process.

In early June, the Court releases its decisions to the press. These reports can be brief or stretch over 80 pages, depending on how unified—or divided—the justices are.

One thing is clear: if the Court ever stopped interpreting the Constitution, or if citizens stopped listening, the consequences would be profound. The true power of the Supreme Court lies not just in its rulings, but in the trust we place in it.

AI Disclosure: After taking notes while watching the Supreme Court video, I used Microsoft Copilot to smooth the text and format it in a readable way. I then edited the AI-generated text and added photos and captions into the blog.