Rebuttal: The Lure of Black Martyrdom
While scrolling on the bathroom wall of the world (Twitter), I came across a rather interesting opinion piece titled “The Lure of White Martyrdom” by Michael Harriot. As I began to read, Harriot has erected a powerful tale which, surprise, was against former President Donald Trump shortly after riots in Washington, D.C. As the story continues, Harriot paints a picture proclaiming that Black Lives Matter is “simply the youngest descendant of a foe that has bedeviled America since before there was an America.”[1] Harriot continues the piece by stating that “attaching oneself to Black people’s desire to be free, equal, or even human has always been seen as a seditious act worthy of violent retribution.”[2] Harriot continues this chronicle by stating that being equal in society was unconstitutional. Harriot quotes Federalist Paper 54:
“The Federal Constitution therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixt character of persons and of property…This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied.”[3]
Harriot could not resist a jab at James Madison when he proclaimed that Madison was the “hero, ‘Father of the Constitution,’ and human trafficker James Madison when debating the value of Black lives in Federalist Paper No. 54.”[4] Harriot goes so far as to compare the actions of the former President as a “throwback to George Wallace sending state troopers to bar Black students from integrating the University of Alabama.”[5] The final scorn lain at the feet of white people is that Black people must either revolt or consider “accepting the violent backlash and the collective scorn of a country whose Constitution calculated the value of a Black life at 60 percent of a white one.”[6]
First, if Harriot did a quick Google search, they would notice that former President Trump did not order anyone to be gassed for a photo op. According to CBS News:
…during protests against racial injustice and police brutality in Washington, D.C., instead found the U.S. Park Police had the authority to clear the park and surrounding areas and did so to allow a contractor to install anti-scale fencing after several nights of violent clashes. U.S. Park Police also did not know that Mr. Trump would potentially be leaving the White House and crossing Lafayette Park until "mid-to-late afternoon" on June 1, hours after the contractor had arrived to begin the installation, according to the report.[7]
More damning to Harriot’s yarn, the Park Police gave “three warnings telling the crowd to disperse, though acknowledged not all could hear the warning, and some police units began moving to clear protesters before the third and final warning was given.”[8]
Moving forward, Harriot is correct in that Madison wrote what he quoted. However, he pays no attention to everything else which was written before and after, leading to the reason why the 3/5 clause was implemented in the first place. In his essay, before Harriot’s quote, Madison writes:
All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side.[9]
When the 3/5 clause was established, Madison explains that slaves can be people or property. People determine seats in the House of Representatives, and if the slave states could count their property as people, they would have more power in Congress. By accepting the count of 3/5, Congress was attempting to DECREASE the potential control of slave owners. Harriot does not mention that, shortly after the part of Federalist 54 Harriot quoted, Madison states:
And it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with other inhabitants.[10]
When it comes down to it, Harriot did no research, save heeding to race hustlers and copying their concepts on what is and is not fact. The facts have been cited by myself. Harriot has sources, which are just other sources from the same company he works for! There is an inherent bias in the article, and he is trying to stay relevant by bashing someone over an action that did not happen the way he believed it did, going on two years ago while attempting to appeal to the very race hustlers who have formed his identity.
[1] Michael Harriot, “The Lure of White Martyrdom,” Intelligencer, 31 January 2022, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-lure-of-white-martyrdom/ar-AATk4FQ?ocid=msedgntp.
[2] Ibid.
[3] James Madison, “Federalist 54,”American State Papers (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), 170.
[4] Harriot, “The Lure of White Martyrdom,”.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Melissa Quinn, “Watchdog finds clearing of protesters from Lafayette Park wasn't for Trump photo op,” CBS News, 9 June, 2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-photo-op-lafayette-park-protesters-report/.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Madison, “Federalist 54,” 170.
[10] Ibid.