After reading both articles, I can agree with Colin Dayan’s statement. During this time in the Atlantic world, masters had complete control of everything involving their slaves, and this quality was a very harsh and inhumane one.
In the Dred Scott Decision (1857), Scott’s master, Emerson, took Scott to Illinois, a free territory. Emerson claims that Scott was not made free when he stepped foot in Illinois because that was Emerson’s decision whether he wanted to free Scott or not. This power goes against policies and the general government, but it is overruled because Scott is a slave and is considered property, rather than a human being.
In Frederick Douglass’ Narrative, he claims that he did not know his age. His master tried keeping Douglass as ignorant as possible by not sharing this type of information with him. He was also not allowed to see his sick mother or attend her burial.
Douglass talks about his master, Captain Anthony, who he describes as “not a humane slaveholder”. He took pleasure in whipping his slaves for absolutely no reason. Douglass describes an incident when Anthony tied up his aunt and whipped her back until she was covered in blood. He showed absolutely no emotion or remorse, and as she kept yelling, he whipped her even harder.
This harsh punishment was common and normal to the masters. They had complete dominance and power with the slaves. Dayan’s argument is supported by these two texts, as Scott and Douglass are both victims of this “absolute dominion of the master”.
