Slavery exists as one of the more controversial features in all of American history. Its consistency managed to be upheld for a lengthy period of time in the early nation and faced little to no opposition until the mid 19th century. The concept of a human being possessing a right to ownership of another that they considered inferior to themselves had ideological significance worth noting. In his document “Égalite for All” , Colin Dayan argues “dominion of the master had to be absolute…but that absoluteness made the master something other than human as well”. In other words, the self empowerment exercised by masters and those owning slaves was potent enough to affect the mindset and instill abusive behavior. Famous American social reformer and abolitionist Frederick Douglas personally recounts the horrors of his enslavement with the abuse he witnessed at the hands of overseers. Douglass recalls that ” I have known him to cut and slash the women’s heads so horribly, that even master would be enraged at his cruelty, and would threaten to whip him if he did not mind himself. Master, however, was not a humane slaveholder. It required extraordinary barbarity on the part of an overseer to affect him. He was a cruel man, hardened by a long life of slave- holding.” . Unfortunately, multiple accounts similar to these still initially failed to sway public opinion. In search of a reason for this, one would have to observe the political aspect of the issue. Disagreement over its practice initially served to be a complicated one as a dissenter would also be simultaneously challenging the established government in principle. Referring to the case of Dred Scott, it can be observed that the controversial connection the practice maintained with legislation. In the Dred Scott article, in reference to the Constitution, and Chief Justice Taney “And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it”(pg. 345). In other words, the very Constitution that argued for the humanity and freedom of those oppressed under British rule featured a means of exclusion as to just who would be included in the government it intended to establish.