Actual historian dismantles Dinesh D'Souza's lie about slavery and the Constitution

On Fox, D’Souza dismissed slavery’s impact on the Electoral College by separating it from the three-fifths compromise, and Mike Duncan fact-checked him

Written by Bobby Lewis

Published

On the October 8 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, pardoned felon and infamous serial liar Dinesh D’Souza responded to a tweet from New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by misleadingly suggesting that the three-fifths compromise did not indicate that the founders considered Black people less than fully human, because “the South wanted Blacks to count for a full person.” D’Souza also claimed that the Electoral College is “a different matter,” as it was merely about “the large states and the small states” vying for power. 

As explained by author and award-winning history podcaster Mike Duncan, this is nonsense -- the three-fifths compromise was about artificially inflating “the political weight of the landowning white southerners” to increase both the number of representatives they received in the House and the impact of their votes for president.

Dinesh D'Souza's sole reason for existing is to troll historians. https://t.co/ZS8AmDwVji

— Mike Duncan (@mikeduncan) October 8, 2018

The South wanted enslaved Africans counted as persons AFTER it was decided population would be the basis of political representation. But remember, there was a period where it seemed like WEALTH might be the basis. At that point, the South wanted them all counted as property.

— Mike Duncan (@mikeduncan) October 8, 2018

And conversely, the North argued the opposite each time. When wealth was proposed as the basis, they said enslaved Africans were people not property. When population won out, they switched back and said slaves are property not people and shouldn't be counted.

— Mike Duncan (@mikeduncan) October 8, 2018

The 3/5 clause was about determining the political weight of the landowning white southerners. And to be blunt, it was about establishing how much *more* weight they would have in the House of Representatives and presidential elections than their counterparts in the north.

— Mike Duncan (@mikeduncan) October 8, 2018

What's funny about the Southern secession after the 1860 election was they claimed they no longer had an equal voice in national affairs--when in fact they had had a dramatically LOUDER voice the whole time.

— Mike Duncan (@mikeduncan) October 8, 2018