The Historical Illiteracy of Blacks

Few perceived historical injustices are more often pointed to than the fact that for a period time the slaves were not viewed as a whole person. That slaves were in fact counted as only three-fifths of a person is wielded as a mace to bludgeon the spirits of the uneducated. This fact is used to poison the minds of the historically illiterate against the American Constitution.

What the uneducated and the race mongers glaringly omit is that only slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. As the historical records clearly detail: “The provision applied to slaves, not blacks. [Which] meant that free blacks – and there were many, [in] the North as well as [the] South – counted the same as whites.” A fact pointed out by Thomas West, Professor of Politics. (Principles: A Quarterly Review for Teachers of History and Social Science (Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute Spring/Summer 1992), Thomas G. West, “Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery,” p. 5)

Dr. Walter E. Williams notes: “It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.” (Walter E. Williams, “Some Fathers Fought Slavery,” Creators Syndicate, Inc., May 26, 1993)

[adsanity id=8405 align=alignleft /]None other than the great Frederick Douglass, the preeminent abolitionist wrote: “By such a course of thought and reading, I was conducted to the conclusion that the Constitution of the United States…not only contained no guarantees in favor of slavery, but, on the contrary, was in its letter and spirit an antislavery document.” (Frederick Douglass, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, (New York: Collier Books, reprint 1893 of an 1888 original), p. 705)

Had the Southern slave owners been permitted to count each slave a whole vote, the numbers would have given the South the majority of Congressional representatives and thus allowed for the reinstitution of slavery. But race-mongers and revisionists don’t want America to know that.

It is imperative for the financial wherewithal of race-mongers and the political capital of corrupt politicians that blacks today – 150 years after slavery ended — wear the vestiges of despair and victimology. The neo-Leninists use revisionist history to foment black acrimony toward America.

It defies all logic to witness the lengths people will go to embrace lies, when the truth is so readily available and apparent. Historically illiterate people today, specifically blacks, use slavery, as a reference point to dramatize the evil they claim is America.

Blacks, 150 years removed from slavery, harbor more hatred than the slaves who lived through slavery. And any blacks who don’t embrace animosity toward whites and America are labeled Uncle Toms, house niggers, self-haters, sell outs, or similar.

But I ask, was Booker T. Washington a sell out? Booker T. Washington said of his mentor General Armstrong (who was black): “I soon learned…he was as anxious about the prosperity of the white race as he was the black…In all my acquaintance with General Armstrong I have never heard him speak, in public or in private, a single bitter word against the white man in the South.” (Up From Slavery; p. 164)

Was Booker T. Washington a “house nigger” because he said: “I learned the lesson that great men cultivate love, and that only little men cherish a spirit of hatred?” (Up From Slavery; p. 165)

Was Booker T. Washington an “Uncle Tom” because he lived his life with the credo: “[I] resolved that I would permit no man, no matter what his colour might be, to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. With God’s help I believe I have completely rid myself of any ill feeling toward the Southern white man for any wrong that he may have inflicted upon my race?” (Up From Slavery; p. 165)

Booker T. Washington, Richard Allen, General Armstrong, Benjamin Banneker, and a host of other great freed slaves voiced the exact same things I and others advocate. Only they did so in the years following their having been slaves. Where they ashamed of their color?

These were men of character not maniacal vengeful opportunists breathing hatred and racist vitriol.

Was Booker T. Washington condoning slavery when he said: “…[it] was no easy matter for the country to relieve itself of the institution. Then, when we, [i.e., blacks] rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or their ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, then is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe?” (Up From Slavery; p. 16)

Blacks today, have become dependent upon government for their subsistence. Blacks today have embraced acrimony and vitriol toward whites, America, and the Constitution based on historical ignorance.

Blacks today have devolved to a standard of immorality and despondency not experienced by those who had been slaves. They’re not interested in truth; they’re interested in guilting and bullying the government into meeting their ridiculous demands.

And of course neo-Leninists who are the real racists are only too happy to keep blacks blinded.[adsanity id=11817 align=alignleft /]