State vs Mann Moot Court

The case, State vs Mann, is a perfect example of how a decision of law may not be the most just and humane option. It's no wonder with verdicts such as this as to why people began to have such strong and contradictory feelings.
It was odd for me to watch this case because my morals sent me in a completely different direction than the facts that were presented. The group siding with Mann actually had many factual claims based on the slave laws at the time in North Carolina. For instance, while Mann was not the outright owner, according to the laws regarding slave ownership, he had full custody of Lydia and could treat her as if she was his own, which in the times of slavery meant he could treat her in any way and it would be considered lawful. With that line of thinking, the fine would of course be unlawful being that he was simply exercising his rights as a slave owner. It was also worth note that Lydia was considered a fugitive, giving anyone a legal pass to apprehend or even kill her.
The side of the State tried to use our current feelings about slavery by tugging at our humanistic tendencies. While they put up a very good moral case, under the law of the time in NC, they had no argument. However, I kept thinking that this would've been a good opportunity to take this social injustice to the Supreme Court, because that seems to be the only way to fix a moral issue. This actually makes a lot of sense when you consider how objective some of morality can be, which means that we would have to change the laws of our basic human rights in order to change a law such as the one being questioned in this case.