It is evident that Colin Dayan’s statement is true when talking about the “absoluteness” of a master and how it will take away morality when treating others. He believes that the complete control of power that a master has on a slave will cause him to start treating the slave in an inhumane and in a demoralizing manner. From the “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave” (1845), Douglass says “My mother and I were separated when I was but an infant — before I knew her as my mother.” The master of Frederick Douglass separated him from his mother when he was young, and this was to instill a sense of emotional disconnection from his mother so if he was sold later on in his life, he would not be affected emotionally because he was being disconnected from his mother. This example shows a sense of demoralization by the master because he did not care for Douglass’ emotions. Douglass’ master was only allowed to commit this act because the “dominion of the master” which was absolute allowed him to not think of emotions and only think about production from slaves. In Dred Scotts Decision (1857), slaves “had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them…” This was the sense of attitude at the time and it states and shows that only people of power, such as masters, only granted rights to the slaves. If a slave resided in a free state, he/she was not entitled to freedom but only by their masters. A master taking away someones rights and freedom by making them a slave is a sense of dehumanization, and thus makes the master himself not human because a human has qualities in him/her that do not demoralize or treat someone else in inhumane manner. All in all, these two examples of Frederick Douglass’ life and the Dred Scott Decision showcase how an absolute control that a master has will make themselves not human, and in a sense become savage and unfair.