Skip to main content

Big Lies, Politics, and the Constitution of the United States of America

Expository essays in literature, politics, philosophy, art, & science issues allow space for affirming one's stance on issues, old and new.

The Big Lie and American Politics

The phrase, "the big lie," was popularized by Adolf Hitler and his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. The primary purpose of the big lie technique as employed by Hitler and the Nazis was to turn German citizens against the Jews.

The technique worked so well that the Holocaust, resulting in the deaths of upward of eleven million people, including at least six million Jews, became a stain on humanity.

Unfortunately, America politics has never been immune to the diseased concept of the big lie, and numerous fabrications have flourished and influenced in heinous ways the relationship between various identities groups that make up the United States of America.

This article on the first big lie focuses on the gross fabrication that the Democratic and Republican Parties switched sides on race.

Debunking a Pernicious Myth

One of the most pernicious falsehoods to have become wide-spread throughout history is that in the United States, the two major political parties, Democratic and Republican, switched sides on the issue of race. In Dan O’Donnell’s "The Myth of the Republican-Democrat ‘Switch'," the writer offers a useful introduction to the issue:

When faced with the sobering reality that Democrats supported slavery, started the Civil War when the abolitionist Republican Party won the Presidency, established the Ku Klux Klan to brutalize newly freed slaves and keep them from voting, opposed the Civil Rights Movement, modern-day liberals reflexively perpetuate the rather pernicious myth—that the racist southern Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s became Republicans, leading to the so-called "switch" of the parties. This is as ridiculous as it is easily debunked.

Revising History

Because the Republican Party was founded to abolish slavery and has always been the party of Civil Rights—including the struggle for women’s suffrage—in the U.S.A, the Democratic Party seized the issue, turning racism into a Republican problem by claiming that the parties switched sides of race.

The false claim that the two parties switched sides on race, however, is not the only falsehood that litters the political landscape. Various factions have filled historical reportage with inaccurate claims that persist; for example, a 2015 Washington Post headline blares, "We used to count black Americans as 3/5 of a person."

Political ideologues and agenda-driven academics often claim that in establishing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers thought that blacks were only three/fifths human because of the ⅗ compromise; however, the "Three/Fifths Compromise" focused on representation to congress not on the humanity of each person.

Even Condoleezza Rice, an educated, accomplished former secretary of state, fell for this lie: "In the original U.S. Constitution, I was only three-fifths of a person." Such a misstatement by a sophisticated and knowledgeable person just shows how widespread and deep some errors have been carved into the culture.

Then there is the false assertion that "Nazis" are right wing. The term "Nazi" is short for National Socialist German Worker Party, translation from the German, "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei."

The political right has never endorsed "socialism." Along with "fascism," the term by definition includes statism or government control of the lives of citizens—the antithesis of the political right’s stance.

Mark Levin: "Democrat 'Party Switch' Myth Debunked"

Confronting an Inconvenient Past

When confronted with inconvenient history of their party regarding the issue of race, the American Democratic Party members and its sycophants insist that the Republican and Democratic Parties simply switched positions on race, after the Republicans had ushered in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This ludicrous claim can easily be laid to rest with a few pertinent facts.

On January 1, 1863, Republican President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which stated "that all persons held as slaves are, and henceforward shall be free."

The country had already been suffering two years of a bloody Civi War to end slavery. Democrats had been lobbying for and passing legislation such as the Jim Crow laws and Black Codes for over a century—all designed to keep the black population from enjoying the fruits of citizenship.

President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed the civil right bill in to law; however, Johnson himself had labored tirelessly against earlier civil rights legislation.

By signing that bill, Johnson merely demonstrated that he had come to understand that the way for Democrats to acquire and maintain power in future was to pacify and humor blacks, instead of denigrating them and segregating them from whites as the Democrats had always done in the past.

Allegedly, Johnson had quipped, "I'll have those ni**ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years." That infamous statement clearly reveals where Johnson's loyalties lay: with acquiring power for the Democratic Party and not for recognizing African Americans as citizens.

Endeavoring to deconstruct Johnson's racist position, David Emery at labels the claim regarding Johnson's remark "unproven." But then as he continues his biased analysis, Emery reveals other suggestions that make it clear that Johnson's beliefs rendered him the consummate racist.

For example, Emery offers the report, in which according to Doris Kearns Godwin, Johnson quipped:

These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.

After much bloviating, David Emery admits, "Circling back to the quote with which we started, it wouldn't have been entirely out of character for LBJ to have said something like, 'I'll have those ni**ers voting Democratic (sic) for 200 years'"; however, Emery doubts it, of course.

House and Senate Vote Tally for the Civil Rights Act 1964

The following is a breakdown of the voting tally in the House and Senate for the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Democrats: House 152 out of 248 = 61%
Republicans: House 138 out of 170 = 80%

Democrats: Senate 46 out of 67 = 69%
Republicans: Senate 27 out of 33 = 82%

While 80% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only 63% of the Democrats voted aye. Also while in the Senate, 82% percent of Republicans voted for the bill, only 69% of Democrats did.

Attempting to Rehabilitate by Geography

In order to try to rehabilitate the Democrats' negative voting record on civil rights, Democrat apologists point out that when one accounts for geographical positioning of the members of the house and senate, the voting tallies this way:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%) (Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted yea)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%) (John Tower of Texas voted nay)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98%–2%) (Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted nay)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84%–16%)

This set of votes shows that no southern senate Republicans voted for the act, but there was only one southern Republican in the senate at the time. And also no house Republican voted for the act, but again there were only ten southern Republicans in the house.

This low number of Republicans in the house and senate when converted to percentages skews the reality of the fact that the overall vote, which is the vote that counts, clearly outs the Democrats as opposers of the act.

And the Democrats' main reason for voting against the act was based on race, especially in the south.

However, all of the Republican senators, both north and south, who voted against the act, did so because they favored Senator Barry Goldwater's position, who remained against the act, not because of racial animus but because of his belief that it was unconstitutional in usurping states' rights, especially in the area of private business.

The Republican Party was founded, primarily in order to abolish slavery. Yet over a century later, modern-day Democrats such as former house member, Charlie Rangel, are spreading the big lie that the Republican and Democratic parties simply "changed sides" in the 1960s on civil rights issues.

That excuse is widely exercised by Democrats when confronted with their own undeniably racist past. However, the facts do not support but rather reveal that claim as a gross inaccuracy.

Three Misrepresented Issues

The persistent inaccuracy that the two parties switched sides is partially based on three significant issues that have been misrepresented by Democrats and their sycophants in the legacy media:

1. Barry Goldwater’s position regarding the Civil Right Act of 1964. Goldwater did oppose that bill in its final form because he argued that it was unconstitutional, in that it usurped state and individual rights. Goldwater had helped found Arizona’s National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and he had voted for earlier versions of civil rights legislation.

Thus, Goldwater's opposition was not similar to the Democrats' opposition based on racism; Goldwater's opposition was based on his interpretation of the Constitution.

2. The Southern Strategy. With this strategy, the Republican Party was attempting to demonstrate to southern Democrats that by continuing to vote for racist/socialist Democrats they were voting against their own economic interests.

What gave Democrats the opening to use this strategy against Republicans was that the Republicans utilized racist political bigots, who were, in fact, Democrats themselves, to help win votes for Republicans.

This strategy prompted the GOP opponents to misrepresent the Republican's purpose and thus label it primarily racist, when it was, in fact, based on economic growth, not racism.

3. The American South turning to Red from Blue. This claim falls apart with the fact that the "Deep South"—Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana—took 30 years to begin changing from Democrat to Republican.

It was only in the peripheral South—Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas—that many working-class transplants, relocating from the northern states as well as from other parts of the United States, understood that the Republican Party offered policies that promoted business, commerce, and entrepreneurial success.

Those transplants, after all, had relocated south to improve their financial status through their new jobs. Gerard Alexander explains in his review, "The Myth of the Racist Republicans: The Truth About the Southern Strategy":

The myth that links the GOP with racism leads us to expect that the GOP should have advanced first and most strongly where and when the politics of white solidarity were most intense. The GOP should have entrenched itself first among Deep South whites and only later in the Periphery.

The GOP should have appealed at least as much, if not more, therefore, to the less educated, working-class whites who were not its natural voters elsewhere in the country but who were George Wallace's base.

If the myth of the switched sides were accurate, Republican Party would have taken hold more strongly first among the traditional racists—that is, the older voters would have become Republicans before the younger ones and the transplants.

But that hold did not happen, because the Republican Party attracted those who were "upwardly mobile" and "non-union."

After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racism in the country's history had begun to wane as a social and political force.

But the Democratic Party continued to foment unrest between the races in order to employ racism as an issue against their opponents in the Republican Party.

In 2020, under the Democratic administration of Joe Biden, the racial unrest began to escalate further with the ideas touted by proponents of Critical Race Theory and the insistence that white supremacy remained the country’s greatest threat.

Poverty Producing Policies

The main reason that the Democratic Party concocted the idea that the parties simply switched positions was to gain power. Reverend Wayne Perryman explains:

Many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the Democrats didn’t fall in love with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would be their ticket into the White House.

Economist Thomas Sowell has also shed light on the subject: "some of the most devastating policies, in terms of their actual effects on black people, have come from liberal Democrats."

Sowell emphasizes that the "minimum wage laws" everywhere they have been established have a "track record of increasing unemployment, especially among the young, the less skilled and minorities."

According to "How the Liberal Welfare State Destroyed Black America," the "War on Poverty," the programs established by the Johnson administration, brought about conditions, which furthered the rise of poverty among black families.

By discouraging marriage, these policies have resulted in out-of-wedlock birthrates that have skyrocketed, "among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans."

The U.S. out-of-wedlock birthrate in the 1960s hovered around 3% for whites and close to 8% for all Americans; that rate was around 25% for blacks. But, by the mid 1970s, those rates had increased to 10% for whites, 25% for all Americans, and over 50% for blacks.

Then by late 1980s, the birth-rate of unmarried black women had become greater than for married black women. In 2013, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks had climbed to almost 75%. The Census Bureau maintains that poverty is closely associated with out-of-wedlock births.

By formulating a system that keeps blacks at a disadvantage, the Democrats have a captive audience to which they pander for votes. The Democratic Party stations itself as the protector of blacks and other minorities, not with policies that assist those demographics but with policies that keep them dependent on government.

Unfair Race Policies Unsystematized

Despite the revisionist history and unsupportable claims of the CRT and white supremacy advocates, there is no argument that can refute the fact that racism as an issue of public policy has been unsystematized since the passage of the civil rights acts of the 1960s.

No more Jim Crow laws or Black Codes anywhere call for racial discrimination as they had before the passage of those civil right laws.

Before the passage of those acts, not only did racist laws exist, they were enforced by legal authorities as well as the Ku Klux Klan, which, according the North Carolina historian, Allen W. Trelease in his book, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction, "The Klan became in effect a terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."

And Eric Foner, Columbia University historian, in his study, A Short History of Reconstruction, 1863–1877, has averred that the KKK was "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party."

Still, leftist historians such as Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, continue to employ the "party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today" bromide.

They reply on this lie in order to attempt to separate the Democratic Party's engagement from the Ku Klux Klan, in the same breath as admitting, "that various 'Klans' that sprung up around the South acted as a 'strong arm' for many local Democratic politicians during Reconstruction."

Democrats continue to employ the often debunked claim that racism is still a "systemic" problem. They offer this prevarication so they can insist that only the Democratic Party is willing to fight against that "systemic" blight on society.

But again and again, the Democratic Party's policies have been used, as Lyndon Johnson used them, to placate blacks by making them think they are getting something that no political party even has the power to give: financial security and equality with guaranteed outcomes.

Political parties, when in power, can help the voting public only by instituting policies that encourage financial success and individual freedom. They cannot guarantee that success. They cannot legislate individual success through identity politics.

Strategy to Gain Power

The Democratic Party and its allies continue to employ the untruth that the two parties exchanged positions on race, in an attempt to gain power and to rehabilitate the party's racist past.

Party members and its minions continue to tie most issues to race because that tactic seems to have worked for gaining power. But when voters look at the basic facts, that claim begins to lose its strength.

For example, citing the voter ID issue as a racist Republican strategy simply bolsters the evidence that Republicans are, in fact, not racist. A majority of black citizens and voters are in favor of the voter ID laws.

However, the Democrats continue to rail against voter ID laws because they know that those laws would impede voter fraud—a staple in the machine to elect Democrats to government.

Democrats have been attempting to whitewash their racist past for decades; to do so, they often fabricate history.

For example, as a candidate for the presidency in 2000, Al Gore falsely stated to the NAACP that his father, Al Gore, Sr., had lost his senate seat because he voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But Gore, Sr., voted against that act, as he supported and joined in the filibuster against that act. Gore, Sr. then sponsored an amendment that would take the teeth out of the enforcement power of that bill, just in case it passed.

Did Dixiecrats Become Republicans?

Democrats also point to the rise of the Dixiecrats that supposedly shows racist Democrats becoming Republicans. However, only two Democrats-turned-Dixiecrat left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party.

Senator Strom Thurmond traded in his party alliance with the Democrats to join the Republicans in 1964—not because he continued to support racism, but because he began repudiating it.

Frances Rice explains: "Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats."

Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr. of Virginia abandoned the Democrats for the Republican Party in 1974. But again, like Thurmond, Godwin abandoned his racist past and served as Virginia governor first while a Democrat and then as a Republican.

Attempts to Rehabilitate Racist Past

West Virginia's Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops and long serving Democratic senator, did renounce his earlier support for segregation and racism; however, Byrd was the only senator to vote against confirmation to the Supreme Court of Justice Thurgood Marshall, a Democrat.

Byrd also joined 47 of his fellow Democratic senators as he voted against Justice Clarence Thomas, a Republican. Neither a black Democrat nor a black Republican could pass muster with the former Klansman.

Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd highly by stating that Byrd would have been "a great senator for any moment." To this potentially inflammatory remark, the Democrats remained silent.

Then later after Senator Trent Lott spoke kind words of Senator Strom Thurmond, the Democrats with their usual hypocrisy lambasted Lott unmercifully. It made no difference that Thurmond had never served as a member of the Ku Klux Klan while Byrd had risen to the high position of Exalted Cyclops.

Regarding Democrat hypocrisy, Alex Knepper has remarked: ". . . being a Democrat means that you can promote segregation, join the KKK, vote against both black Supreme Court nominees, and use the word "ni**er" on national television — and still be remembered as a promoter of black interests."

The Democratic Party has raised hypocrisy to an art form in its pursuit of power.

Policies Harmful to Everyone

No doubt, the majority of the members of the Democratic Party are not racists today. Yet, it remains unconscionable that so many Democrats label Republicans racist and bigot in pursuit of political power against their opponents.

Democrats cannot legitimately deny the many studies that offer support to the argument proffered by Republicans that Democratic policies are detrimental not only to black citizens but to all citizens.

The current theoretical philosophy of Democratic Party consists of seizing through taxation the financial rewards from "the rich" and giving those rewards to "the poor." In practice, this Robin Hood scam ultimately means taking from those who earn and redistributing it to friends and allies of the redistributors.

Such a system cannot possibly succeed. It can only create victims whose ability to produce becomes atrophied by the false promises of pandering politicians.

Democrats continue to play the race card because they have become utter failures at convincing the majority of the electorate that their policies work.

Citizens have become dissatisfied with the actual theft of their earnings, as they have watched while decade upon decade has demonstrated that their shabby, crime filled cities are, in fact, the result of Democrat policy fecklessness and fraud.

Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution Thomas Sowell has pointed out repeatedly that the policies of Democrats have prevented the black population from rising out of poverty. Many of the poorest cities in the USA have been run by Democrats for decades. According to Investor's Business Daily,

When Democrats are in control, cities tend to go soft on crime, reward cronies with public funds, establish hostile business environments, heavily tax the most productive citizens and set up fat pensions for their union friends. Simply put, theirs is a Blue State blueprint for disaster.

Surely, it is time that African Americans adopt a different mind-set and realize, as Rev. Perryman avers, that the Democratic Party is interested only in their vote, not in their welfare. As Donald Trump asked as a candidate during his 2016 presidential campaign, "What do you have to lose?"


Gen. Mark Milley defends teaching ‘critical race theory’ at West Point

Big Lie #2: The "Three/Fifths Compromise of 1787" Enshrined Slavery in the U.S. Constitution

By misinterpreting the purpose of the "Three/Fifths Compromise of 1787," Marxist/statist opponents of freedom perpetuate the big lie that blacks were once considered only 3/5s human.

That Compromise functioned to calculate representation in the U.S. congress, not to measure levels of human personage.

Slavery and the Constitution of the United States of America

The following focuses on the gross fabrication that the United States Constitution enshrined slavery and that Americans once considered black people only three/fifths human.

Representation, Not Percentage of Personhood

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787, for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. That document had proven too weak to sufficiently address the issues that the newly formed nation was facing.

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison had believed that merely revising the Articles was impossible and that a complete overhaul was necessary.

Thus, the members of the Constitutional Convention scrapped the Articles of Confederation in favor of composing a completely new document, which, of course, resulted in the Constitution, under which the U.S. has been governed since its ratification.

The convention members were confronted with two problems as they were creating the sections regarding representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

States with small populations demanded that each state have equal representation, while large states demanded that representation be based of population.

The respective demands would guarantee a desired advantage for each state. The Constitutional conveners thus solved that problem by allowing the upper house to have 2 senators, while the lower house would have a number of representatives based on population.

However, after this fix of population vs equal number problem, a second issue arose: southern slave states demanded that slaves be counted for purposes of representation, even though slaves would not be afforded the right to vote or otherwise participate in citizenship.

Free states insisted that no slaves be counted because counting non-participating individuals would give the slave states an unfair advantage.

That advantage would mean that abolishing slavery would be next to impossible. In effect, if slaves were counted for purposes of representation, that slave count would help perpetuate slavery.

Slaves Were Not Citizens

Slaves possessed no rights of citizenship: they could not vote, run for office, or participate in any civic discussion.

Slaves were not citizens; they were property in a similar sense that cattle and cotton were property. Keeping slaves as property was a priority in the slave states. And by counting slaves, their population would overpower the free states who would ultimately seek the end of slavery.

While far from being a perfect solution, the "Three/Fifths Compromise" settled the issue of counting the slave populace.

Instead of counting the entire population of slaves, it allowed slave states to count three/fifths of that total number for the purpose of representation. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state or even imply that each slave is only three/fifths of a person.

The sole purpose of the compromise was to determine representation in the House of Representatives, not the level of personhood each individual slave possessed.

The slave states demanded full counting of slaves, while the free states demanded that none of the slave population count, because slaves were not citizens.

Following the logic that the "Three/Fifths Compromise" deemed each slave three/fifths of a human, the slave owners were insisting that their slaves were fully human, while the free states, who later worked to abolish slavery, were implying that slaves had no personhood at all.

Both of those propositions are patently absurd and opposite of the intentions of the slave and free states.

The slave states wanted it both ways essentially: for the purpose of representation, they wanted slaves to be counted as citizens, but in every other capacity, they wanted slaves to remains non-citizens or mere property.

The following excerpt, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, from the Constitution shows clearly that the "Three/Fifths Compromise" does not refer to the individual personhood of each black person:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Number of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (emphasis added)

The "three fifths of all other Persons" designates the slave population and any other groups not specifically names; it does not designate that the personhood of each person in those groups is only three/fifths that of a free, tax-paying citizen. The terms "Negroes," "black," "slaves," and "slavery" do not appear in the Constitution.

Note: “If the Constitution were intended to be by its framers and adopters a slave-holding instrument, then why would neither “slavery,” “slave-holding,” nor “slave” be anywhere found in it?” —Frederick Douglass, the foremost black abolitionist in the 1840s

First Step in Abolishing Slavery

The founders of the United States of America and framers of the Constitution were well aware of the travesty of slavery and well understood that that institution could not endure.

However, as it is with most deeply ingrained cultural traditions, that evil societal feature could not be mandated in a document that was urgently needed to help govern the young country.

Likely, such a demand insisted on by the free states would have resulted in failure to frame the governing document that the nation needed in order to thrive and grow; also there might have erupted warring factions, rendering a united country impossible—perhaps an earlier civil war was averted by the compromise.

In order to keep the southern slaves states on board and ultimately accept the new document, the framers had to make the concession of allowing those states to count part of their slave population.

But that concession can be viewed as the first step toward eradicating slavery from the country, and that is exactly how it played out, after the bloody Civil War (1861-8165), which did occur, kept the union together while finally ending the travesty of slavery.

The Persistence of the Three/Fifths False Claim

Draconian claims such as those proffered by Nikole Hannah-Jones, lead author of the "1619 Project," distort the history of United States, arguing that the country’s founding should be considered 1619—not 1776, the year that the colonies declared their independence from England and took their place as a free nation of the world.

Hannah-Jones and her ilk state that the United States began in the year 1619 because in that year, the first Africans were brought to the colonies.

They claim that the American Revolutionary War was fought to protect slavery; thus, racism remains part of the country’s DNA. Those historical distortions continue to degrade and distort the political and social reality of 21st century America.

The "Three/Fifths Compromise 1787" has been widely misrepresented as enshrining slavery in the U. S. Constitution, deeming that a slave was only three/fifths of a person. That egregiously false claim fits neatly into the slate of other myths perpetrated by the "1619 Project."

However, nowhere in the United States Constitution does the text state or even imply that the personhood of each black individual is only "three/fifths of a person."

That persistent falsehood has been debunked repeatedly, yet it remains part of the mythology that persists in claiming that the United States of America is a racist nation built on the labor and and enslavement of its black citizens.

The institution of slavery and the decades of Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes remain permanent stains on the history of the United States, and those issues need to be addressed, explained, and understood, but what Americans do not need is for political operatives to falsify that history to make it more heinous than it was.

The falsehood that blacks were once considered three/fifths of a person needs to be addressed and refuted whenever and wherever it resurfaces. As Malik Simba from explains,

Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

Despite the many explanations and corrections from historians and other Constitutional experts, which are widely available online, the false claim that blacks were considered to be only "three/fifths a person" continues to appears rather regularly.

Some critics assert that the U.S. Constitution enshrined slavery with the "Three/Fifths Compromise of 1787," and others make the blatant, inaccurate statement that blacks in the U.S. were thought to be three/fifths of a person at one point in history.

Two particularly egregious examples of this inaccuracy come from two high level, otherwise knowledgeable government officials: Condoleezza Rice, 66th Secretary of State and General Mark Milley, 20th chairman of the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Secretary Rice, in speeches abroad has claimed, "In the original U.S. Constitution, I was only three-fifths of a person." And defending the teaching of critical race theory, General Milley, refers to that falsehood, as he mistakes the fraction as "three/fourths" instead of "three/fifths."

These misstatements by such accomplished and knowledgeable individuals demonstrate how widespread and deep some errors have been carved into the culture.

Deception for Political Power

It remains a political travesty that so many individuals still operate under the deception that the "Three/Fifths Compromise" culled down the personhood of blacks in the United States of America to 60%.

It is one of the many false claims that contribute to the racial divide in America. The exploitation of minorities has become standard operating procedure for too many politicians who crave nothing but power.


Professor Carol Swain Explains the Three/Fifths Comprise

This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.

© 2021 Linda Sue Grimes