State V. Mann North Carolina Religion/Moral arguments

In antebellum North Carolina, prosecutor faced an impossible task in the case of John Mann, who shot and wounded an enslaved girl named Lydia. How do you seek justice within a fundamentally unjust system? Recently discovered court records reveal a sophisticated legal argument that attempted to carve out limits to cruelty within slavery itself.

Rather than challenging slavery directly, the prosecutor crafted a pragmatic approach that worked within the era's dominant frameworks:

The prosecutor invoked Proverbs 12:10—"A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast"—arguing that if Scripture demanded mercy toward animals, surely greater mercy was owed to humans created in God's image. Ephesians 6:9 instructed those in authority to act with forbearance, "knowing that your Master also is in heaven." This wasn't abolitionist rhetoric—it was an appeal to Christian stewardship that even slavery's defenders could theoretically accept.

The prosecutor argued that unlimited violence threatened society itself. "Ownership does not imply the right to abuse, just as parenthood does not imply the right to maim a child." Even within unjust systems, boundaries must exist to prevent complete moral collapse.

 By framing the case as a test of "North Carolina's Christian character," the argument asked the jury to consider their community's place in history and before God.

What strikes modern readers is the prosecutor's attempt to establish humanitarian limits within an inhumane system. The closing words—"Show the world that North Carolina justice rests on Christian principles, not unlimited brutality"—capture this tension perfectly. It was simultaneously a bold stand for human dignity and a compromise with the system that denied that dignity.

This wasn't an attack on slavery itself, but an effort to prevent complete abandonment of moral boundaries. The argument reveals how legal minds navigated between social reality and moral conviction.

This forgotten case offers insights for modern advocates facing seemingly impossible moral challenges:

The prosecutor demonstrated how to work within existing frameworks to advance humanitarian causes when direct confrontation might be counterproductive.

The argument shows how legal minds maintained ethical boundaries even within profoundly unethical institutions—a challenge that resonates across history.

 Heavy reliance on Biblical authority reflects how arguments must speak their era's moral language to be persuasive.

The prosecutor faced an impossible task: seeking justice within injustice. While we don't know the verdict, cases like this represent the complex moral landscape of antebellum America. Even in slavery's darkest period, some voices sought to place limits on cruelty.

These arguments didn't challenge slavery's existence, but they challenged its excesses. In doing so, they planted seeds of moral reasoning that would eventually contribute to slavery's abolition.

The case reminds us that justice often advances through imperfect steps by imperfect people within imperfect systems—and that even small victories for human dignity matter in the long arc of moral progress.

AI Disclosure: After research of the historical accounts of State V. Mann, I created a mock trial speech in which I took the side of the State of North Carolina. I think had AI expand on my argument points to turn this into a blog post.

Check on Governmental Power

 As an American citizen I feel like some people take their personal freedoms for granted sometimes. Now I am not saying that America is a flawless country by any means we have our fair share of dark moments in our history, yet as citizens of the United States of America we are granted so many liberties that we take for granted daily.

   For instance, freedom of speech, in recent weeks we have seen in the United Kingdom people being thrown in jail for opinions about their government regimes online. The reason for their protest? LAWS! the British people are not happy with the interpretation and aggressive enforcement of existing laws. 

Now imagine if that happened in America... 

If you're still thinking about the question I posed above don't think any longer because the answer to your thought is this simple IT CANNOT HAPPEN. Vince Blasi argues that the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment is to enable free speech and press to "check the abuse of power by public officials."

"The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory," flipped the view on the First Amendment for many. Its primary purpose is to allow citizens and journalist to expose the abuse of governmental power in everyday life. This checking value poses the theory that "any unchecked authority will lead to corruption, making an informed and vigilant press essential to our democratic survival."

History has repeatedly solidified Blasi's theory through a grouping of scandals that might have never come about if it weren't for the American people. Watergate is a perfect example of this, as Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's thorough and hard-nosed, investigative work, exposed a presidency. 

Irangate revealed illegal arms sales, and covert operations conducted without congressional oversight. Or the Lewinsky affair? But what do all of these scandals have in common? They were all broken the same way. Governmental officials attempted to hide misconducts, investigative journalist didn't take no as an answer, and the American people had the final say. The reporters did nothing illegal to uncover information, they just exposed the truth to the American people.

Yet Blasi's theory calls us out as American citizens, Blasi states that the press alone cannot check the governments' power, citizens must do their part. Journalist can expose wrongdoing, but ultimately it comes down to voters, who decide whether or not to hold officials accountable. Creating a chain reaction of change, the press informs, citizens evaluate, and elections provide accountability.

This system grants the power to every citizen to maintain a check-and-balance system that restrains government overreach in all aspects of life. When we read investigative reports, share news, and vote on facts, we are upholding what the First Amendment was designed to protect. Speaking out about our government and making rational changes to improve our system of democracy.

Now I feel it would be unappropriated to address that we need to be careful when exercising this. While Blasi's theory argues for full press freedom, it is important to recognize that Fake news does exist. When fabricated stories hit the news, we as American people have to be capable of making rational judgment and understand that some things might not be true. 

In the grand scheme of things, as American citizen's we have a responsibility that goes beyond just going with whatever politicians say. We have the power and the duty to use our First Amendment rights to keep our government honest and accountable for any actions we deem 'improper.' Whether this is through reading investigative journalism, sharing news, or voting, we are all a part of the system Blasi described. When seeing what's happening in other countries where people cannot speak out against their government without the fear of arrest, it should be a remined to us that we truly do have freedoms. Yet the moment we stop paying attention, we lose the very freedom that makes America unique. Having the First Amendment is a blessing if WE USE IT! 

Bible team Challenge

 

Christianity's relationship with slavery has changed dramatically throughout history. While early Christians accepted slavery as normal, modern Christianity completely rejects it. Although the Bible says, “everyone was created in the image of God,” it was a long and laborious process that transformed religious beliefs and evolved when faced with new moral challenges.

The Bible gives mixed messages about slavery. In the Old Testament, slavery was regulated but not banned. For example, Exodus 21:16 says that kidnapping someone should be punished by death, showing that forced slavery was wrong. Deuteronomy 15:12 states that Hebrew slaves must be freed after six years, meaning slavery wasn't supposed to last forever. However, slaves from other countries could be owned permanently.

The New Testament continues this complexity. Paul told slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5-9), but he also said that all people are equal in God's eyes (Galatians 3:28). This contradiction meant that both supporters and opponents of slavery could use the Bible to defend their views.

Early Christianity (1st-5th centuries): Early Christians were a small, persecuted group in the Roman Empire. They focused on spiritual equality rather than challenging slavery directly because opposing it could have put them in danger.

Medieval Period (5th-15th centuries): As Christianity became more powerful, the Church developed complicated positions on slavery. Some religious communities opposed it in theory but still used unpaid workers. During the Crusades, Christians justified enslaving non-Christians.

Colonial Period (15th-18th centuries): The Atlantic slave trade forced Christians to face slavery's brutal reality. Many developed racist theories, twisting Bible stories like the "Curse of Ham" to justify enslaving Africans. Economic dependence on slave labor made it hard to oppose slavery morally.

The Abolition Movement (18th-19th centuries): The Second Great Awakening changed everything. Preachers like Charles Finney began saying slavery was a sin that needed to end immediately. Religious groups like Quakers and Methodists led anti-slavery campaigns. These debates split major denominations, with Southern Baptists and Methodists literally dividing over slavery.

Modern Christianity (20th-21st centuries): The Civil Rights Movement showed Christians that slavery's effects continued long after abolition. Today, all Christian churches condemn slavery completely.

Christianity's journey from accepting slavery to rejecting it shows how religious understanding can change over time. While early Christians worked within existing social systems, the biblical idea that all people have equal dignity eventually led to slavery's complete rejection. This transformation demonstrates that moral progress is possible when people seriously examine their beliefs and practices. 

AI Disclosure: After research of different eras and understandings I put my notes into AI and had it format this into blogger format.

Supreme Court Reflection

The Supreme Court of the United States is 
the most powerful court in the world.

When I first started learning about the U.S. Supreme Court, I was struck by just how powerful it really is. It’s not just the highest court in the land—it’s arguably the most influential judicial body on Earth. Its decisions don’t just settle disputes; they define the limits of government power and shape the way our Constitution is interpreted in everyday life.

What fascinates me most is how long the Justices serve. On average, they’re on the bench for about 16 years, but many stay much longer. That kind of tenure means they have time to deeply influence the law and leave a legacy that lasts generations. With nine Justices, each bringing their own philosophy and worldview, the Court is a place where ideas collide and evolve.

I’ve imagined what it must be like to argue a case before the Supreme Court and the video we watch did an excellent job elaborating on what it's truly like to testify before the Supreme Court. It’s not just presenting a well-rehearsed speech—it’s more like facing a panel of nine brilliant minds, each pulling your argument in different directions. You walk in with the argument you planned to give, end up giving a slightly different one, and leave thinking about the argument you wish you would have given.

Current Supreme court justices (2025)

After the arguments, the Justices meet privately to vote. Then, one of them is assigned to write the majority opinion, which explains the legal reasoning behind their decision. These opinions don’t just resolve the case at hand—they become binding precedent for all other courts in the country. This is the most important aspect of the Supreme Court, after the final ruling is given and the opinion is written it goes into effect in all 50 states.

But what really sticks with me is the idea that the Court’s power isn’t just legal—it’s earned. As one Chief Justice put it, “The power of the Court is the power earned through the trust of the American people.” That trust is built over time, through fairness, consistency, and a deep commitment to the Constitution.

Learning about the Supreme Court has given me a new appreciation for how justice works at the highest level. It’s not just about laws—it’s about principles, debate, and the ongoing effort to balance power in a complex democracy and create an atmosphere in which everyone is treated as equal and nothing less.

AI Disclaimer: Had AI expand on notes I took on a video and turned that into a blog formatted post with paragraphs broken up with my own personal opinions at the end of every paragraph.