How Black Political Leaders Misrepresent History to Exploit Their Own People
There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
—Booker T. Washington (1856-1915)—
A condensed version of this article is available here.
Part 4 is available here.
Links to all the articles in this series are available here.
About 20 years before the Civil War started, certain abolitionists, including William Lloyd Garrison, began calling for a dissolution of the Union Seeing the Constitution as a document that set the stage for slavery’s end, Frederick Douglass argued against dissolving the Union. On March 26, 1860, he declared,
Slavery is essentially barbarous in its character. It, above all things else, dreads the presence of an advanced civilisation. It flourishes best where it meets no reproving frowns, and hears no condemning voices. While in the Union it will meet with both. Its hope of life, in the last resort, is to get out of the Union. I am, therefore, for drawing the bond of the Union more completely under the power of the Free States. What they most dread, that I most desire. I have much confidence in the instincts of the slaveholders. They see that the Constitution will afford slavery no protection when it shall cease to be administered by slaveholders. They see, moreover, that if there is once a will in the people of America to abolish slavery, this is no word, no syllable in the Constitution to forbid that result. They see that the Constitution has not saved slavery in Rhode Island, in Connecticut, in New York, or Pennsylvania…. The dissolution of the Union is not only an unwise but a cowardly measure—15 millions running away from three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders.…The American people have gone quite too far in this slaveholding business now to sum up their whole business of slavery by singing out the cant phrase, “No union with slaveholders.” To desert the family hearth may place the recreant husband out of the presence of his starving children, but this does not free him from responsibility.
We see that Frederick Douglass was right. Slavery was an essential part of the Confederate States of America from 1861 to 1865. Alexander H. Stephens, vice-president of the Confederate States of America, gave a speech in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861 in which he acknowledged the Framers of the US Constitution believed slavery was an evil that eventually would end. Upholding the principle of the inequality of man and the institution that naturally flows from it—slavery—as elements in the cornerstone of the Confederacy, Stephens contrasted these principles to those on which the Framers established the United States in the latter half of the eighteenth century.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Capitalizing on a Lack of Historical Knowledge and Understanding
So, even the vice-president of the Confederacy understood that through America’s founding documents, the Founders pointed the new nation in the direction of ending slavery. Sadly, apparently only a precious few individuals understand this today. This lack of understanding is especially important in the black community. Last week we gave no less than 18 examples of distortions of the Three-Fifths Clause in the Constitution. At least a significant portion of these were aimed at black audiences.
First, let’s make sure we understand just how grievous the misrepresentations are. Recall that we concluded part 3 of this series two weeks ago with this You Tube video. This 12-minute clip presents the historical context for the drafting of the US Constitution in 1787. Specifically, it explains the Three-Fifths Compromise and the cultural realities that led to it. The truths that slavery continued in the United States for many decades beyond the drafting of the Constitution and that it didn’t end until after a bloody civil war do not fully reflect the Founders’ posture toward slavery.
During the very first minute, host Dan Willoughby offers this intriguing analogy.
They say context is everything, and sometimes they’re right. Suppose for a moment you saw a headline that read, “Man Pushes Old Woman to the Ground.” You’d probably think to yourself, “That guy’s a jerk,” right? So imagine how surprised you’d be to find out later that same man was getting a medal from the mayor for that very same incident.
So what’s going on? Does the mayor not like the old woman? Well, that’s possible—or perhaps the reporter simply took the incident out of context.
Well, the only way to find out is to dive in and to figure it out for yourself. After a little investigating, it doesn’t take you long to find out that he shoved her out of the way of a speeding bus and saved her life.
With this illustration in mind, consider this excerpt from a news article we cited in last week’s post. The following is from an article by S. Davis and appearing on August 4, 2016.
In addition to blacks being owned in this land of the free they had the glory of being counted as three-fifths of a person in the U.S. Constitution of 1787 (Article I, section 2). Over time the clause has been misinterpreted to mean that blacks were counted as three-fifths of a person or three-fifths of a complete citizen of the country—although I clearly see why anyone could make that argument. I won’t even dispute them. The clause was written to count enslaved blacks as three-fifths of their white counterparts for direct representation in Congress. Even with the correct explanation of the clause a simple question of, “Why aren’t all lives equal on a one-to-one basis?” can easily be posed. This is another instance of black lives being devalued.
Let’s take this same approach to the Three-Fifths Compromise (explained here) and apply it to the story cited in the video. Taking this approach, one might describe the news story this way.
A man pushed an elderly woman to the ground and received praise and recognition from the mayor’s office for doing so. When hearing about the incident, many people have misunderstood why the man tackled the woman—even when they hear he was pushing her out of the way of an oncoming bus. The man saved the woman’s life, but I still understand why they think this guy acted aggressively against her. I won’t even try to tell them they’re wrong. Even when you know the man saved the woman’s life, you still can ask the question, “Why in the world would this man be so abusive to a helpless old woman?” Here we have yet another example of a man roughing up a helpless senior adult and getting away with it!
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Davis, and there are clear differences between these two situations. However, in significant and relevant ways, the above description of the rescue parallels his description of the Three-Fifths Compromise. The two descriptions contrast sharply in part because in what was said about the Constitution, further explanation is needed to highlight the positive outcome—preserving the Union under the Constitution’s provisions eventually would be of great benefit to the slaves. With the rescue, there was an immediate and obvious happy ending. The negative outcome of the Three-Fifths Compromise—the continuation of slavery—is obvious; but the harsh reality was that slavery was going to continue whether compromise was reached or not.
To his credit, Mr. Davis acknowledged that the counting of slaves was for representation purposes, as did several of the writers we cited last week. Yet, even with this basic information, people don’t know all they need to know to understand that counting slaves fully would have been to the slaves’ disadvantage, and not counting them at all would have been to their advantage. Recall that a full count would translate into more advocates for slavery in the House of Representatives and not numbering them would mean fewer.
Black Misleaders
As far from the truth as modern mischaracterizations of the Constitutional Convention often are, a multitude of black political leaders, educators, and other persons of influence still are on board with spreading them. Here are several examples. One was presented in the emotionally charged situation of a premature death, and we would not minimize anyone’s grief. Even so, we should be aware that reinforcing the “three-fifths myth,” especially in emotionally intense circumstances, works to solidify that myth as true in people’s minds.
- African-American scholar and historian John Hope Franklin, brilliant though he may have been, wrongly accused the Founders of “degrading the human spirit be equating five black men with three white men.”
- Benjamin Crump, an African-American lawyer representing the family of Michael Brown, who was killed when he was shot by police in Ferguson, Missouri in August of 2014, said at Brown’s memorial service, “The 1787 three-fifths Amendment…said an African American was to be considered three-fifths of a man. But we declare here today, as we pay our final respects to Michael Brown, Jr., that he was not three-fifths of a citizen. He was an American citizen. And we will not accept three-fifths justice. We will demand equal justice for Michael Brown Jr.” The circumstances surrounding Brown’s death were widely misrepresented. Crump also represented Trayvon Martin’s family after his tragic death.
- As we noted last week, in 2015 Jesse Jackson, Sr. wrote, “When the Founders wrote the Constitution, Blacks were considered three-fifths human.” The Constitution of 1787 didn’t mention race even once, so Jackson’s assertion is patently false.
Jesse Jackson in 1983
- Al Sharpton said that according to the original Constitution, “[a]ny black, at any age at any state, was three-fifths of a human.”
- Jeremiah Wright, President Obama’s former pastor, declared in a sermon, Our country has been oppressing folks since it defined African men as three-fifths of a person.”
- US Senator Cory Booker, Democrat from New Jersey, said, “Our founding documents were genius. But not because they were perfect. They were saddled with the imperfections and even the bigotry of the past….black Americans were referred to as fractions of human beings, and women were not mentioned at all.”
- US Representative John Conyers, Democrat from Michigan, said, “Racism has permeated our nation’s history since the beginning. The Constitution referred to slaves as three-fifths of a man.”
- US Representative Elijah Cummings, Democrat from Maryland, in reflecting on standing at the graves of his great-great grandparents, said, “I stood there over the graves and I thought about how their great great-grandson is a member of Congress. [It was only because] some people believed in interpreting the Constitution [in a new and different way that I am permitted] to be here in this institution that used to consider people like me a slave, three-fifths of a man.”
- US Representative Charlie Rangel, Democrat from New York, indicated that the Constitution of 1787 wouldn’t even have deemed him “three-fifths of a guy.”
- Barak Obama, in a 2011 radio interview, declared that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
The Chasm
It’s clear that the racial divide in America is wide, and whites need to listen to blacks when they talk the injustices they face, just as blacks also need to listen to whites as they share their perspectives. One writer who has been very evenhanded in his treatment of this gap is Dr. Michael Brown, host of the radio program The Line of Fire. Go here and here for two of his articles. Being compassionate and understanding is necessary, but the legitimate plea for a balanced discussion does not overshadow the critical need to expose how some black leaders exploit their own people and mislead them about history—whether it’s history in 1787 or with regard to recent events.
Exploitation
Why do black political leaders hide the truth? Some sincerely believe what they’re saying about the Constitution, but it doesn’t take an expert in human relations to see that some leaders intentionally are fueling anger and resentment in the black community for their own personal gain. Imagine a black leader declaring to his or her African-American audience something like this: “You never have been able to get a fair shake in this country, because when the Constitution was drafted at the dawn of America’s existence, each of your ancestors was considered only three-fifths of a human being! The Liberty Bell didn’t ring out for you—only for white folks!” As long as self-proclaimed black leaders constantly malign whites and white racism—even in places where it doesn’t exist—they set themselves up as heroes of their own people.
It doesn’t take an expert in human relations to see that some leaders intentionally are fueling anger and resentment in the black community for their own personal gain.
Racism can and sometimes does exist among whites, of course, and it should be condemned by blacks and whites alike. There is a difference, however, between appropriate condemnations of racism and the rhetoric in which some black leaders engage. You see, racism also is manifested in black leaders when they stir up resentment among blacks toward whites because of the egregious sin of slavery. Do we need to be reminded that no one in the audiences of these leaders ever was an American slave? This doesn’t excuse any act of racism committed against blacks today, but the issue of slavery has been settled. The very country Jesse Jackson and others malign ended slavery permanently within its borders with a bloody civil war. Conservative journalist and African-American Walter Williams appropriately declared, “Here’s my hypothesis about people who use slavery to trash the Founders: They have contempt for our constitutional guarantees of liberty. Slavery is merely a convenient moral posturing tool as they try to reduce respect for our Constitution.”
Those who use slavery to trash America’s Founders have contempt for our constitutional guarantees of liberty. Slavery is merely a convenient moral posturing tool as they try to reduce respect for our Constitution.
—Walter E. Williams—
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other progressives remain in power as they exploit situations that fit the narratives of white racism and of white-on-black violence. They would have us believe that such racism is rampant, but the reality is very different. Note these harsh realities.
Black men, especially young black men, die violent deaths at appalling rates in these United States. But they do not die very often at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, thugs reminiscent of characters from American History X, police officers of any race or motivation, lynch mobs, the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, Walmart, the Tea Party, Goldman Sachs, carbon dioxide, or any other bogeyman currently in vogue among so-called progressives. As [former New York City Mayor Rudy] Giuliani noted, blacks die violent deaths almost exclusively at the hands of black criminals. But attempting to accommodate that reality in any serious way does not pay any political dividends for the Left. It does not put any money in Jesse Jackson’s pockets or create any full-time jobs for graduates of grievance-studies programs.
Ken Timmerman wrote an exposé on Jesse Jackson that was published in 2002 and recently has been reprinted. It’s titled Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson. In an interview for the book at the time of its original release, Timmerman said,
One of the myths of Jesse Jackson is that he’s there to help the black community. Jesse Jackson is not doing things to help the black community. What I discovered doing “Shakedown” is that Jesse Jackson is there to help himself first. It’s called “Me-first Jackson” in Chicago. Then he helps his family—beer distributorships for his sons. Then he helps his close entourage, the black-elite friends. And these are a dozen, two dozen people around him who have become hundred-million dollar millionaires.
The Damage
Ironically, a significant factor fueling the power of progressive black leaders is the fact that Americans abhor racism and are extremely sensitive to accusations it has occurred. In other words, liberals’ charges of racism would fail to gain traction if the country really were racist and didn’t care if blacks and other minorities were treated unfairly—but Americans really do care! It’s evident, however, that militant movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM) do not.
A glaring example of BLM’s disregard for life and property occurred just a few days ago. Riots took place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, after a 24-year old black man, Sylville K. Smith, was fatally shot by police. By the way, Smith had a “lengthy criminal record.” Even after police officials revealed the officer who shot Smith was black himself and that his action apparently was justified, the rioting continued.
Given these attitudes and the pattern that consistently showcases them, it should not surprise us that Black Lives Matter is funded by leftist billionaire George Soros (see also this article). Conservative journalist David French has warned, “If radical activists have their way, American cities will be ungovernable. Any police shooting will excuse a riot, even without lies like ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ In such an environment, police reforms are less about improving police-community relations or about making poor communities safe than they are about the raw exercise of power.” In this video, Andrew Klaven exposes the BLM movement for what it really is. For his part, Ben Shapiro observes that despite Jesse Jackson’s rhetoric about injustices in Milwaukee, events in the city actually are his fault, because “every policy Jackson backs has been applied in Milwaukee.” Needless to say, it is very difficult to genuinely understand and appreciate the challenges of being a law enforcement officer in 2016.
If radical activists have their way, American cities will be ungovernable.
—David French—
Not all of the results of the Black Lives Matter movement involve police, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t toxic or unfair. Rewind to just a few weeks earlier—to early August, 2016. Truthrevolt.com reported on a horrific mistake made by Rohini Sethi, a student and the vice-president of the Student Association (SGA) at the University of Houston. In response to the shooting deaths of five Dallas police officers in July, Rohini vented on her Facebook page, writing, “Forget #BlackLivesMatter. More like AllLivesMatter.”
Students were outraged. Student body president Shane Smith said Sethi’s post was divisive and that she had damaged her credibility to lead fairly and impartially. Sethi wasn’t just suspended from her role in the SGA; she also had to participate in a workshop on social and cultural sensitivity that lasted three days. Whatever happened to free speech at the University of Houston? Keep in mind the context for what Sethi wrote—five police officers had lost their lives to a gunman in Dallas.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Months ago, Black Lives Matter co-founder Marissa Jenae Johnson warned that against the backdrop of Black Lives Matter, the phrase “all lives matter” is a “new racial slur.” Have members of the race that once was oppressed now become the oppressors? Apparently so, and political correctness is a powerful weapon that can effectively shut down those who wish to voice valid concerns or even raise questions.
These events are elements in the building that rests on a foundation comprised of lies about history. As we have seen, the compromises in Philadelphia in 1787 aren’t the only things being misrepresented and twisted by progressives. Moreover, in some cases, historical events are being totally ignored.
Stay tuned. We’ll continue our discussion next week.
Part 6 is available here.
Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.
Watch Jesse Lee Peterson’s video “How Black Liberals Exploit Black America & Divide The Races!”
Top image credit: The Bell’s First Note by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (1863-1930)