Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Louisiana's unanimous-majority criminal verdicts


Louisiana’s unanimous-majority criminal verdicts
A Traditional English Tyranny Undone Only by Louisiana in 1880

In 2018, it seems evident that social opinion 231 years later is threatening the civic promise of the 1787 Constitution for the USA. The 2018 Louisiana Legislature created tyranny by proposing popular vote to upend the state’s unique provision of impartial juries per U.S. Amendment VI. The legislature, in Act 493, would undo a national treasure. I propose to stop it as a breach of U.S. Amendment XIV.1.
It is useful to ask what the 1787 Constitution’s promise is, in order to suggest a strategy for reformation. Answering requires expressions that have not been used before, even though the thoughts may be old. The words proposed are not typical tools by which to coerce people or impose opinion but are intended to express ideas most people may comprehend and many people already use for self-discipline.

The First Congress re-instituted some erroneous English traditions

The initial purpose of this essay is to illustrate the harm done by the first U.S. Congress in the years 1789-1791, during which the initial 10 states were joined by 4 new states. Perhaps 5% of free citizens (80% of the people) could vote and 99% of free citizens were factional American Protestants. That is, most free citizens were Protestants, but each individual assumed a personal god. Today, with 50 states and 6 territories, only 14% attend the traditional Protestant churches, and 100% of non-felon adults may vote. Also, there’s a new church that calls itself African-American Christians, a divisive term I prefer to be kept private as long as there is good civic behavior. The largest oppressed minority in 2018 is the non-theist or “unchurched” people, about 25%[i] of the people, or 82 million subjugated[ii] individuals. I am among them.
Competition for dominant opinion, for example, religious opinion, in particular Christian opinion, has brought the U.S. to the rhetorical chaos it suffers in 2018. It seems most people want mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Also, it seems nobody wants to be governed, but many people desire self-discipline; some citizens are willing to collaborate for mutual self-discipline. Yet some people practice immorality. Some people use their humanity for crime.
When actual reality strikes communities, most people freely offer both direct and indirect assistance to the people who suffer; for example, in fires, tornedoes, missing persons, and abuse. When disaster strikes, most people want to help. However, when the disaster is caused by humans; many citizens exempt themselves---invoke an immunity to caring, based either on laws or on a mystery. The citizen who never expects to be the object of a criminal court may not pay much attention to the provision of impartiality.
How can most people collaborate for civic morality? Perhaps the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. constitution invites citizens to develop civic integrity. Widespread use of the preamble’s agreement has been available for 230 years. Perhaps the preamble’s time has come.

The preamble’s power

The first legal statement in the U.S. constitution is the preamble. It is legal on at least two grounds, one a total purpose, and the other an individual choice.
First, it states the purpose and goals of the United States. The articles and amendments that follow ought to comport with the preamble. Second, it offers a civil contract for mutual self-discipline that may empower the nation to survive so that the people may succeed; citizens who are dissident to the agreement have equal liberty and dignity unless they cause harm that is noticed. The dissident or offender may then suffer statutory law enforcement. The willing citizens behave for civic morality, and some of them, call them civic citizens[iii], collaborate for statutory human justice.
These two legal provisions are hidden by political regimes and factions, and clarification might require a Supreme Court case. On the other hand, how can the Supreme Court refute the individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) that specified and limited each the Court, the bicameral Congress, and the administration, specifically to serve the people in their respective states? IPEA is perhaps the most important idea in this essay: it refutes 400 years of Western scholarship that asserts that the human being is naturally good and bad: conflicted. On acceptance of IPEA, each individual may choose to develop integrity or not.

The preamble’s offer to each citizen

The preamble offers this agreement:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Even though the subject of the sentence is we the people of the U.S., the committee of forms used a special font for “We the People” for reasons I do not know. I speculate that the authors wanted to or had to emphasize the transition from confederation of states to mutual self-discipline by the people in a federalism: The nation serves the states according to the state constitutions, and a civic people discipline both governments. Discipline rather than governance is critical to voluntary collaboration: No one wants governance, but many people want individual self-discipline.

Paraphrasing the preamble for personal use in modern times

The preamble was written for 1787 acceptance and nine states ratified it on June 21, 1788, legally establishing the USA. In 2018, it guides willing people daily. There are now fifty states and secession was negated by the civil war; secession requires the military power to overthrow the USA. Thus, “form a more perfect Union,” respecting the nine ratifying states and eventually the original thirteen free and independent states[iv] may seem obsolete. Also, “posterity” unfortunately hides the importance of commitment to children, grandchildren and beyond. Therefore, for discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for conversation as follows:
We the willing citizens of the United States collaborate for mutual self-discipline regarding integrity, justice, defense, prosperity, liberty, and children and by this amendable constitution limit the U.S.'s service to the people in their states.
I want to collaborate with the other citizens to incorporate their improvements on this paraphrase yet preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.
I speak of collaboration. The purpose is to discover mutual, comprehensive safety and security for all citizens, both civic citizens and dissidents. “The people,” both civic and dissident, never adopted the preamble, perhaps because it was never viewed as an opportunity for mutual self-discipline rather than governance. (See Lincoln dream below.)

Individual human power, energy and authority

The preamble first asserts a revolutionary vision of the human being that seems refuted by 400 years of European scholarship.[v] The phrase “We the People” is generic, but the modifier “of the United States” appropriately limits to citizens the agreement that is offered. The sentence asserts that the reader is capable to consider, commit to, and perform the agreement. That is, the reader is an authentic individual.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.[vi] Honesty expresses personal opinion, but integrity requires the work to discover and comprehend the-objective-truth. A process uses actual evidence to continually acquire understanding that often negates the old. The-objective-truth does not respond to human constructs such as reason, revelation, doctrine, coercion, or force. Fellow-humans reduce misery and loss by collaborating (without deceit[vii]) to discover the-objective-truth.
The signers of the 1787 Constitution, recognizing that they were specifying a willing people of this nation unburdened IPEA for the self-discipline using the modifier “of the United States.” The signers nourished collaboration for individual liberty with civic morality. Yet the preamble’s agreement is available to all peoples. Further, the signers, recognizing that not every person during every decade of their life’s journey would employ IPEA to develop integrity, specified broad yet sufficient goals. The goals address unity (perhaps integrity), justice, peace, self-defense, prosperity, liberty, and posterity (think children).
This unique, civic proposal which may be considered by each individual citizen, was written by Governeur Morris during the last few days of the convention, and it is one of the most promising political statements ever written. It is a legal statement that is neutral to gender, race, ethnicity, and religious beliefs. It offers civic agreement to the individual rather than to the state.[viii] For this reason, the USA protects the people from tyranny within their state.[ix]
The preamble is a legal statement first in that the confederation of states that had acted for this country from September 5, 1774 until June 21, 1788 was reduced first to 4 dissident states, then before operations began on March 4, 1789, to 3 dissident states. The USA began operations with ten states and during 230 years grew to 50 states with 6 territories.
The preamble is legal also in that the willing people, call them civic people, ineluctably collaborate to discover human injustice and amend the law so as to develop statutory justice. The collaboration does not diminish the citizenship of the unwilling/dissidents beyond the fact that they are not expressing their civic wishes. Someone else is acting on the dissident’s behalf, perhaps not in their best individual interest. Much as not attending to water can lead to dehydration, by not collaborating for civic morality more than religious morality,[x] the dissident begs woe.
The civil power of the preamble is suppressed by the political regimes, with complicity by the people. This has been exacerbated by Western scholars during the past 800 years who have used “nature” to represent the-objective-truth and “reason” to represent scholarly, proprietary wisdom, often sophistry. By proprietary I mean they deny IPEA for others yet claim it for themselves. Indolent people and innocents subjugate to this self-inflicted tyranny.

English Chapter XI Machiavellianism

England’s Parliament is an official church-state-partnership[xi] about which the people were warned 500 years ago. Nicolo Machiavelli wrote, in irony to save his life, to inform the people of various threats to individual liberty with civic morality. In Chapter XI of The Prince, 1513, he warns of the church-state-partnership.[xii] He says that because it is made possible by the people’s personal gods, only a dreamer would complain, rebel or escape. I am a citizen who petitions for civic reform without harm to no-harm religious privacy and association. In a civic culture, every no-harm religion flourishes at the pleasure of believers rather than through coercion and force.
English bemusement by “freedom of religion” became official 800 years ago in Magna Carta, a “charter of liberties” written by Canterbury to partner with barons in order to constrain the king. “The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787 . . . the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.”[xiii] A key term in Magna Carta provisions for individual justice is “free man.”[xiv]
When I have witnessed before the Louisiana Legislature, some elected officials seemed to act as though they were my English lords. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 begins, “Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm,” asserting the church-state government, states: “That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders.”[xv] A “freeolder” perhaps is a property owner yet subject to his lord. In Louisiana and the USA, I yield my IPEA to no one and consider elected officials, first, fellow citizens.

Massachusetts: from English common law toward American individual liberty with civic morality

Massachusetts was still under and sympathetic-to British common law when the state issued its 1780 Constitution.[xvi] The document uses “impartial*” six times and does not include the word “unanimous.” It declares that “all men are born free and equal.” It is instructive regarding the obligations of fellow-citizens, especially in this paragraph from its preamble:
The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.
I work day and night to urge civic collaboration like that described above. A key phrase for this purpose is “. . . to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them.” (Emphasis on “impartial” is mine.) Massachusetts’s declaration of human equality was the official break from its origins as the first slave colony and major African trader, perhaps dating from 1624.[xvii] Some citizens became major abolitionists and a group created Lawrence, Kansas, and became the focus of “Bloody Kansas” in 1856.[xviii]

Christianization of Africans sold by Africans into slavery

            England was the largest slave trader and also competitor with the Catholic doctrine of discovery[xix] and the Catholic-African-slave trade.[xx] Many writers in America before 1688 objected to slavery,[xxi] but none more famous than Thomas Paine. Born in Thetford, England[xxii] and moving to Philadelphia in 1774, Paine wrote: “That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising.” In this regard, “Americanized” seems synonymous with “Christianized,”[xxiii] with many new factions, especially divisive African-American Christianity.[xxiv]

Christianization continually arrests America; a better future is achievable

            Christianization seems an art of constructed power over fabricated fear. The circular, psychological harm is expressed in the song “Amazing Grace,” by John Newton.[xxv] Newton’s expression of Christianity’s formula begins in the second stanza: “’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear.” It’s an imposed fear of life then a formula for salvation in an imaginary afterdeath, which I once suffered. Once the believer adopts this fear, he or she may be influenced to foolishly rebuke actual reality.

Imposed fear of life begs woe

In the Civil War example, a faction, the CSA, started a war he could not win unless his god, at a 7:27 disadvantage, would overcome the defender’s god. The Civil War was Bible-interpreting Christianity v Actual-Reality Christianity, as portrayed in the Declaration of Secession[xxvi]: ““[A]ll hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” Military power proved who had the more erroneous religious beliefs. Nearly 160 years later a faction of fellow citizens seem to be banking on African-American Christianity. The point is, religious conviction can beg disaster and ought to be used with caution.
I doubt Douglass is the first to think as he did, but I am grateful to Frederick Douglass for his 1852 words, “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.”[xxvii] Yet Robert E. Lee, blinded by fear and his ministers’ Holy Bible interpretations wrote to his wife to oppose white abolitionists in 1856, the same year as “Bloody Kansas”:
The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race . . . How long their subjugation may be necessary is Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than . . . fiery Controversy.[xxviii]
He went on to castigate abolitionists for being “intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others.” Lee helped in war against fellow Bible readers who nonetheless rejected slavery, Lee believing arrogant ministers who rejected the-objective-truth in their own lives. Yet if Lee had separated church and state---addressed actual reality in life rather than promises from a pulpit, he might have sold everything and moved to a free state for civic safety and security for his family and fortune. This the-objective-truth that should be attached as plaques on Civil War monuments, so that all citizens may know We the People of the United States includes them if they so choose.

A 1700 year old falsehood may be considered and rejected without loss

            But Lee was not the first to fail the-objective-truth, and that actual reality may be faced now better than later. The Church who canonized the New Testament by 405 AD had all the information they needed to reject passages that approve of master-slave relationships. They knew what Frederick Douglass expressed. Consider, for example, 1 Peter 2:18-21, NIV:
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
If Frederick Douglass’s claim is eternally valid, and I think it is, there is no excuse for the above “scripture” of coercion. A civilization cannot stand on such divisive principles, and it cannot hold the Holy Bible as a reliable resource without conformity to the-objective-truth. The Bible’s words cannot be changed, but its false teachings may be identified, publicized, and publically rejected.
            Failure to confront the Holy Bible’s canonization by men has led to erroneous, voluntary segregation by a group: We the People of the United States seems rejected by some African-Americans. During the past six decades, African-American Christianity has emerged as a separate faction. Among the influential writers is Albert Cleage:
Black people cannot build dignity on their knees worshipping a white Christ. We must put down this white Jesus which the white man gave us in slavery and which has been tearing us to pieces… Jesus was a revolutionary black leader, a Zealot, seeking to lead a Black Nation to freedom, so the Black Church must carefully define the nature of the revolution.[xxix]
There are many black power writers including James Baldwin, James H. Cone, Cornel West, and Saul Alinsky. West recently wrote about African-American Christianity.[xxx] My ears heard Jeremiah Wright, Jr. in 2015 excuse black preaching as a response to white church.[xxxi] Like Robert E. Lee, these theologians beg woe.

Global theism wars

            There is, among the community of theists a global competition regarding “chosen people.” It’s a racial conflict: the Jews, the Arabs, the Caucasians, and the African-Americans each compete. Non-theists are excluded from the god wars. Non-theism crosses all racial and gender lines, and in America, non-theists are the largest oppressed minority: about 25% of the population or 82 million people.1 What could create a supermajority who individually nourish their spirituality, whether alone or in association, yet collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security? I propose an existing, legal, civic contract: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution combined with civic use of actual reality rather than competition for dominant opinion.

Comparing the Massachusetts preamble

            We propose the agreement offered in the 52 word preamble to the U.S. Constitution as goals for collaborating for civic integrity. Some of the meaning in the U.S. sentence is elaborated in the 263 word preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution (my emphasis in the following quote):
The [purpose] of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.
The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[xxxii]
This seems to be the preamble in the 1780 Massachusetts constitution, which was authored by John Adams. It reflects Adams’s failure to understand IPEA, which government is in a position to admit-to but cannot grant.
            Comparing the two preambles, the 1787 sentence seems advantageous in brevity, understanding, and wholeness compared to the three paragraphs. The 1787 signers, specifying a national government to serve the people in their states, chose not to address recourse when the purpose is not met, leaving it to the people. The voluntary association is expressed as “We the People of the United States” plus the predicate “in order to” and the goals. Equity, impartiality, and fidelity are granted to those who adopt the agreement and are offered for those who dissent but do no harm. The 1787 signers invoked no authority beyond the people and their agreement. Thus, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution admits to the people’s authority in their states and in the nation and limits powers of the nation. Both preambles tacitly admit to IPEA, the signers citing only the people and Massachusetts citing “the great Legislator of the universe,” a mystery that motivates IPEA.
            In his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln, unaware, expressed collective IPEA as “the people”. Confronting the Confederate States of America, he expressed a mystery of the people:
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
Lincoln’s “the Almighty . . .” was military power of the people. Lincoln reflected on the preamble again at Gettysburg: “. . . and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” I think we would be better off if Lincoln had said, “mutual self-discipline” rather than “government.” Anyone who approaches me to govern is offensive but motivation/inspiration for self-discipline is always welcomed: neither coercion nor force nor love substitutes for mutual appreciation.

Louisiana, a unique past

            It seems clear to me framers of the Massachusetts Constitution (1780) influenced the 1787 U.S. Constitution, sometimes as negatives. However, during that time, Louisiana was fought over by France, England, and Spain. It was dominated by French colonization from 1724 until 1803, when the USA bought Louisiana from France. When the USA admitted Louisiana statehood in 1812,[xxxiii] political treatment of both slaves and free blacks was under France’s Code Noir:
Colonial officials in 1724 implemented Louis XIV of France's Code Noir, which regulated the slave trade and the institution of slavery in New France and French Caribbean colonies. This resulted in a different pattern of slavery in Louisiana, purchased in 1803, compared to the rest of the United States.[30] As written, the Code Noir gave some rights to slaves, including the right to marry. Although it authorized and codified cruel corporal punishment against slaves under certain conditions, it forbade slave owners to torture them or to separate married couples (or to separate young children from their mothers). It also required the owners to instruct slaves in the Catholic faith.[xxxiv]
In addition, Louisiana is made unique by the Cajun population: “The Acadians' migration from Canada was spurred by the Treaty of Paris (1763).[xxxv]  The relationships between ethnic peoples in Louisiana was unlike anywhere else in either the USA or, during and after the Civil War, the Confederate States of America.
            For a humble[xxxvi] non-theist such as this citizen, the preamble to Louisiana’s constitution contains a contradiction to start:
We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights.[xxxvii]
It is difficult for theists to imagine the tyranny over non-theists in that sentence and the “freedom of religion” provision in the declaration of rights that follows. Otherwise, the Louisiana preamble seems amenably brief, like the nation’s preamble, which is neutral to race, religion, and gender. An excellent feature of Louisiana’s “freedom of expression” is reference to responsibility for abuse.[xxxviii] A unique provision is unanimous majority to provide impartiality[xxxix] in non-capital criminal jury trials with twelve jurors.[xl] Only Oregon has a similar provision of impartiality. The other 48 states are at a significant disadvantage in their constitutional obligation to provide an impartial jury.[xli]

How unanimous majority provides an impartial jury

            We have asserted that the USA, through its first legal statement, the preamble, is specified for both voluntarily civic citizens and dissidents to the extent that no actual injustice is experienced. Offenders beg subjugation to statutory law. All citizens, with diverse IPEA, collaborate for statutory justice using actual reality rather than dominant opinion. Habitually impartial people collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, and constraint fellow citizens who dissent or offend for reasons from ignorance to criminality and worse. The intent is that as the willing citizens discover injustice and amend laws for statutory justice, fellow citizens approach the totality We the People of the United States.
            Yet everyone is aware of factions within the fellow citizens. It seems factional intensity has increased rather than lessened. Thus, whereas the fraction of the people’s representatives who signed the 1787 Constitution were about 2/3 of delegates, and people’s delegates in 2/3 of the 12 attending states ratified the constitution, the 2016 presidential election had a 51.1% popular majority between the top two candidates. How is jury impartiality impacted by the unwillingness of fellow citizens to collaborate for civic morality? Firm bias is evident, but what if there is only dissidence?
            One data point: with those 48 states that require 12-0 jury unanimity for criminal trials, 15% of verdicts are not accurate according to the judge.[xlii] Most citizens aren’t affected, because they are neither criminals nor victims. However, for every criminal there’s a victim and when the wrong verdict is reached, the victim suffers, contrary to a civic culture’s intentions. A civic people’s obligation do not stop with defending criminals, rather start with preventing victimization---protecting the public. Learning twenty years later that the wrong person was accused, indicted, and convicted is double victimization, both for the victim and for the public.
            We ask, if 12-0 is insufficient, what unanimous majority ought a state provide? If 2/3 or 67% of citizens are habitually impartial, and 85% of the time jury impartiality is achieved, we may compute a “courtroom influence factor” whereby passive or dissident jurors may be persuaded by the awesome judicial proceedings to join the impartial majority. Thus, 67% plus 0.546 times 33% equals 85%. Taking the division based on the presidential election, we have 51.1% plus 0.693 times 48.9% equals 85%. Thus, the courtroom influence must be stronger when habitual impartiality is lower, 51% instead of 67%. Further, using the respective courtroom influence factors we may predict required unanimous majority to accommodate firmly biased jurors who slip through the other state provisions for impartiality. The computations at 67% habitual impartiality are tabulated below:

Super
Biased
Expected impartiality
Impartiality
Majority
Jurors
Habitual
Influence
Total
Predicted?
12
0
8.0
2.2
10.2
NO
11
0
8.0
2.2
10.2
NO
10
0
8.0
2.2
10.2
YES
9
1
7.4
2.0
9.4
YES
8
2
6.7
1.8
8.5
YES
7
3
6.0
1.6
7.7
YES
Thus, neither 12-0 nor 11-1 is sufficient with no firmly biased jurors, and the unanimous impartially must by reduced by one for each firmly biased juror to be accommodated. Similar numbers and identical qualitative predictions are computed with 51.1% habitual impartiality.
Recalling the practical U.S. preamble more than lofty preamble to the Massachusetts, it seems imperative that each of the 48 states who do not provide unanimous majority juries of twelve may benefit from a statistical study in their state. To do so, they need the data for their state.
I have no idea how someone in Louisiana in 1779 derived the 9-3 unanimous majority rule, but it was brilliant. Data that is blind to race might show that Louisiana should keep its 10-2 unanimous majority for now and consider restoring its 9-3 rule. Revision to 7-5 unanimous majority may be considered and preferred.

Actually real crime numbers

            I hope I have made the case that the USA is plagued by freedom of religion whereas there should be opportunity and encouragement to develop integrity. It seems clear that “freedom of the press” is also a fundamental flaw in the First Amendment. The press ought to develop integrity and if not, be penalized according to statutory justice.
There is widespread debate from “journalism” and political science schools who teach[xliii] that public policy springs from liberal democracy and the media determine liberal opinion. Also social “sciences” have promulgated policy-based evidence construction.[xliv] Modern proprietary scholars don’t seem to like “statistics.”[xlv] However, statistics can be manipulated to refute the simple numbers.
Personnel who work for the Baton Rouge newspaper The Advocate published on April fool’s day, 2018 and thereafter for a few weeks an elaborate public hoax asserting that statistics show Louisiana’s 10-2 jury rule has been maintained to disadvantage black Americans[xlvi] rather than to provide impartial juries, as constitutionally required. Their false pitch is that the jury impartiality Louisiana offers through the unanimous majority, which the U.S. Supreme Court approves is Jim Crow’s last stand.[xlvii] The entire scheme seems like collaboration with non-profit groups that have fought to negate the unanimous majority rule for reasons they may or may not understand.[xlviii] For example, one article had contributions from Maurice Chammah, of The Marshall Project.[xlix] Why the Louisiana Legislature is so willing to forsake the unanimous majority provision of jury impartiality and perhaps rebuke U.S. Amendment VIX I cannot imagine. However, the legislature exhibits adolescent camaraderie as a routine.
            Here are the pertinent data. The FBI report on murders in 2013 lists 3005 white victims and 2491 black victims, with black offenders numbering 409 and 2245, respectively.[l] If we apply the 85% judge agreement to hypothetical convictions in these cases, then 61 and 337 black offenders, respectively, were erroneously acquitted. If so, 2% of white victims and 13.5% of black victims suffered injustice. That’s 675% more injustice to blacks than to whites.
            From the above review of people counts, blacks offend each other more frequently than whites offend each other. Also, the respective population demographic in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black.[li] Nevertheless, 45% of victims were black and 90% of their offenders were black. In other words, the importance of a state providing impartial juries is more vital to blacks than to whites, because whites don’t offend each other as frequently.
            What the judicial system needs to work on is persuading blacks not to offend fellow humans regardless of skin color. When blacks read Frederick Douglass, they may consider Douglass’s warm humanity, ferocious opposition to slavery, acceptance of IPEA, and claim to both the preamble and the body of the U.S. Constitution. Blacks may decide they are human beings, accept IPEA, and collaborate with We the People of the United States for individual liberty with civic morality.

Civic integrity

            Never has it been more evident that a civic culture constrains its factions. Sound principles are a starting point, but the people may not willfully or indolently allow political regimes to suppress or abuse the principles. Largely through the use of conflicting definitions of singular terms, a major faction is attacking, to institute social democracy, the republican form of government the U.S. Constitution stipulates.
            Democracy in America means one qualified person, one vote. However, a vote for Senator in Wyoming is 68 times more politically powerful than a vote for Senator in California. The U.S. Constitution deliberately disrupts popular vote. The purpose, to prevent the majority from abusing minorities and vice versa is discussed in Federalist 10 more than Federalist 9 and Federalist 51.

Federalist 51: balancing powers

            James Madison elaborates on how the balance of powers protects the people against factions. Further, he explains the importance of federalism. Madison uses English scholarship in expressing ambition against ambition, if angels governed, govern the governor, and the general good. The discussion makes more sense when the goal is mutual self-discipline: No one wants to be governed.
Madison’s hopes have not worked out. “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Congress disproved this by relegating its responsibilities to regulatory bodies with activist judges.
He sees two advantages to a federalist government, where the state constitutions are also balanced. First, the people surrender certain powers to their state with its balanced offices and others to the nation, also with balanced offices. “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” The “spin” here seems to leave the people out of governance. A civic people are aware that Madison’s dream is not working.
“Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.”
Madison contradicts himself in the above selections, and 231 years later, methods for reform seem self-evident. First, a third method is for a civic culture to collaborate to discover and utilize the-objective-truth. Second, statutory justice cannot brook the confusion of religion. Third, a coalition of minorities, for example, a coalition of theologians may tyrannize a civic culture.

Federalist 9

            Alexander Hamilton talks of checks by the states on each other and on the whole. "A FIRM Union [rather than a confederation of states] will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it.” Then, he states “. . . the more immediate design of this paper . . . is, to illustrate the tendency of the Union to repress domestic faction and insurrection.”

Federalist 10

            Madison picks up from Hamilton’s Federalist 9. “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Theists have dominated American politics since 1789 when the First Congress hired ministers to make Congressmen feel as divine as England’s Parliament members.
            There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.” There is a third method: the factions may 1) collaborate using the preamble and 2) discover justice according to the-objective-truth. Thus, each no-harm faction preserves its passion and each maintains cooperative autonomy as a faction of We the People of the United States.
            “From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.” Individual liberty with civic morality necessitates diversity of results. The person who strives to write but cannot write will not get rich.
            “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. [In other words, with a Union of states, representative government at the state level is extended to the Union.]
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.”
When legislators betray the people, the people may be alert and react.

Louisiana Act Violates U.S. Amendment XIV         

            Each citizen may accept or reject the civic, legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, including the goals “establish justice” and “insure domestic tranquility.” The need for domestic justice is invoked when a citizen has actually harmed a fellow citizen. The people intend the system that would exact justice to be impartial to actual reality rather than opinion, so that bias is not a factor. Eliminating bias is difficult to achieve without qualified jurors. However, citizens who oppose justice ought not serve on juries.
Elected officials in the USA are first citizens. There are no lords who may by opinion impose ideals that are not stipulated in the constitution, such as absolute jury concurrence when impartiality is the goal. The 2018 Louisiana Legislature passed and Gov. John Bel Edwards signed Act 493, which changes the requirement for non-capital criminal 10-2 unanimous majority to 12-0 absolute concurrence for criminal jury trials provided the people vote to so amend the Louisiana Constitution. This was an act of tyranny, because the Legislature is responsible to, by a 70% majority in both chambers, to amend the constitution to remedy injustice rather than pass a proposal for injustice to the voting citizens for approval.
The data based on judge-agreement with jury-verdicts predicts that neither requiring 12-0 absolute consensus nor 11-1 unanimous majority offers an impartial jury when there are no firmly biased jury members: The goal of impartial justice is not served when 15% of verdicts are wrong. When there is 1, 2, or 3 firmly-biased jury members, the unanimous majority must be 9, 8, or 7, respectively.
            The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the 9-3 unanimous majority in Johnson v. Louisiana, and the U.S. Supreme court concurred in 1972. The history of judicial support for Louisiana’s unanimous majority provision of an impartial jury is strong. The tyranny of 2018 Act 493 expresses, to the Louisiana public, Madison’s words “Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.” The legislature rebuked their U.S. constitutional duty to the people by calling for a popular vote against Louisiana’s provision of an impartial jury.
The betrayal of Louisiana’s 10-2 unanimous majority in a 12 person jury trials violates the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Paragraph 1, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” I request the Attorney General, Jeff Landry, to sue the Legislature and the Governor for relief from the referendum.

Qualification to serve on a jury

            This review brings attention to another means by which a state may help provide an impartial jury. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution divides the people: citizens who are willing to adopt the agreement that is offered and others. A jury of peers might be drawn from citizens who can demonstrate that they collaborate to achieve the goals of the preamble. The question is how to validate the claim.
            I would recommend a sequential qualification beginning with a simple statement of acceptance of the preamble’s agreement by the citizen and evidence that the citizen understood his or her statement. After the fifth year on the voter roll perhaps proof of state income-tax filing for the past three years. After the tenth year, record of voting in state and federal elections for the past three years.

Qualification to vote

            I do not think anyone who professes to be unwilling to collaborate for civic morality using the preamble to the U.S. Constitution should be allowed to vote in state or federal elections.

Conclusion

            Louisiana’s unanimous majority jury verdict is the state’s unique provision toward an impartial jury. It is neutral to race, gender, and religion. It is as critical to one faction as to another. For example, in black on black crime, the 7-5 unanimous majority is as important as in any other trial if not 675% more important.
            The 2018 Louisiana Legislature shirked its duty to protect citizens from factions as described in both Federalists 9, 10, and 51 and specified in U.S. Amendment XIV.1. I request the Attorney General to execute his elective office and sue to stop the referendum, which converts to popular vote a tyranny that cannot pass U.S. constitutional muster.



[i] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
[ii] Untold billions of dollars and political energy is spent on the competition over theism: What group’s god is predominant in America’s obsession with freedom of religion? The history is traced in a timeline at http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/timeline/. Judeo-Christianity (1955) seems a reaction to communism. The entry at 1968 about Albert Cleage perhaps dates the origin of African-American Christianity during the year MLK Jr. was assassinated, but http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/black-church/ does not confirm my thought. England ironically experienced African-American Christianity in May, 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/world/europe/uk-royal-black-priest-choir.html. As a person who trusts in the-objective-truth, I feel oppressed by the god wars.
[iii] George Washington, as retiring general and follow citizen in 1783 might have called civic citizens (those who adopt the civil agreement that is offered in the preamble), “sincere citizens” or “humble citizens.” See http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html.
[iv] The 1783 Treaty of Paris recognizes by name each of the thirteen states made free and independent by their victory in the Revolutionary War, which was moreover France’s victory in the Second Hundred Years War. On January 14, 1784, the thirteen states ratified their status in the world: free and independent states. The confederation of states was weakened by the war victory but lasted almost four years.
[v] Online, typical article, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-moral-molecule/201102/are-humans-good-or-evil.
[vi] This may be an original articulation if not a novel assertion. It is based on my own human experience so far. I stand by it for myself and attest that it applies to my wonderful wife (MWW).
[vii] The hubris of protecting freedom of religion rather than freedom to develop integrity is systematic deceit. It also is Chapter XI Machiavellianism. See explanation further in the text.
[viii] Online at https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-man-who-actually-wrote-the-words-we-the-people. “Here is the draft version of the Preamble given to Morris in early August 1787: We the people of the states of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.” Perhaps Rhode Island, who did not participate in the convention in Philadelphia unintentionally aided ratification of the preamble.
[ix] U.S. Constitution, Amendement XIV, Paragraph 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
[x] A pertinent debate is available online at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/the-u-s-constitution-is-100-percent-secular-or-is-it-2/ as to whether or not the entire U.S. Constitution is secular. It is neither secular nor religious, but is neutral, and on this date, July 16, 2018, I assert that the 1787 Constitution is civic rather than areligious (secular) or religious. Heretofore, I have argued that point for the preamble only; I erred to not realize that the entire document is civic, where “civic” refers to citizens collaborating for mutual self-control rather than governance, allowing privacy in spirituality or none.
[xi] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England#King,_Lords_and_Commons. “Currently, the Lords Spiritual consist of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester, and twenty-one other English diocesan bishops in seniority of appointment to a diocese.”
[xii] Online at http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm. “It only remains now to speak of ecclesiastical principalities, touching which all difficulties are prior to getting possession, because they are acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and they can be held without either; for they are sustained by the ordinances of religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them, they have subjects and do not rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor the ability to alienate themselves. Such principalities only are secure and happy. But being upheld by powers, to which the human mind cannot reach, I shall speak no more of them, because, being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous and rash man to discuss them.”
[xiii] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta.
[xiv] Online at https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation#. It seems “free man” was subject to his lord. Pertinent provisions: (34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court. (36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused (38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
[xv] Online at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp.
[xvi] Online at http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm. Pertinent provisions start in the Massachusetts preamble: “The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” Specifics about justice include: “Art. XI. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay, conformably to the laws. Art. XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or no offence until the same if fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself; and every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his counsel at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. And the legislature shall not make any law that shall subject any person to a capital or infamous punishment, excepting for the government of the army and navy, without trial by jury. Art. XIII. In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts, in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. Art. XV. In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherways used and practised, the parties have a right to a trial by jury; and this method of procedure shall be held sacred. Art. III. And whereas by an act of the general court of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, passed in the year [1642], the governor and deputy governor for the time being, and all the magistrates of that jurisdiction, were, with the President, and a number of the clergy, is the said act described, constituted the overseers of Harvard College.”
[xvii] Online at http://historyofmassachusetts.org/slavery-in-massachusetts/.
[xviii] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence,_Kansas.
[xix] Online at https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/doctrine-discovery-1493.
[xx] Online regarding Bristol, http://www.discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/people-involved/enslaved-people/enslaved-africans/transatlantic-slave-trade/.
[xxi] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States#Calls_for_abolition.
[xxii] Online at http://thomaspaine.org/aboutpaine/thomas-paine-s-citizenship-record.html.
[xxiii] Online at http://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm.
[xxiv] Online at https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778. African-American Christianity seems to have developed from black power and black theology since 1968.
[xxv] Online at https://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Amazing_Grace/.
[xxvi] Online at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp.
[xxvii] Online at https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945.
[xxviii] Online at https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27.
[xxx] Online at https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778.
[xxxi] Online at https://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/02/jeremiah_wright_tells_a_southe.html.
[xxxii] Online at https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution.
[xxxiii] Online at http://www.datesandevents.org/american-timelines/18-louisiana-history-timeline.htm.
[xxxiv] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Louisiana and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir.
[xxxv] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajuns#Acadia.
[xxxvi] Having been reared Southern Baptist, I came to realize that my earned opinion is that I must admit to myself and in public that I do not actually know a god and therefore do not advocate a god. I trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, which exists and can only be discovered rather than constructed by reason, scholarship, or other human endeavor. I cannot again turn my back on actual reality. However, I do not disparage other people’s privacy in their pursuit of integrity. For example, I have no quarrel with Michael Polanyi beyond his contest with me in his book Personal Knowledge, 1958.
[xxxviii] Online at http://senate.la.gov/Documents/Constitution/Article1.htm#%C2%A71.%20Origin%20and%20Purpose%20of%20Government. Article I. Declaration of Rights. §7. Freedom of Expression Section 7. No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom.
[xxxix] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) that disagreement by a minority of jurors does not lessen the validity of the majority verdict. Online at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/356/case.html. Held: 1. The provisions of Louisiana law requiring less than unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases do not violate the Due Process Clause for failure to satisfy the reasonable doubt standard. Pp. 406 U. S. 359-363. (a) The mere fact that three jurors vote to acquit does not mean that the nine who vote to convict have ignored their instructions concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or that they do not honestly believe that guilt has been thus proved. Pp. 406 U. S. 360-362. (b) Want of jury unanimity does not alone establish reasonable doubt. Pp. 406 U. S. 362-363.
(A) Jury Trial in Criminal Cases. A criminal case in which the punishment may be capital shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. A case in which the punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict. A case in which the punishment may be confinement at hard labor or confinement without hard labor for more than six months shall be tried before a jury of six persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. The accused shall have a right to full voir dire examination of prospective jurors and to challenge jurors peremptorily. The number of challenges shall be fixed by law. Except in capital cases, a defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a trial by jury.
(B) Joinder of Felonies; Mode of Trial. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, offenses in which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor may be charged in the same indictment or information with offenses in which the punishment may be confinement at hard labor; provided, however, that the joined offenses are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan; and provided further, that cases so joined shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict. Acts 1997, No. 1502, §1, approved Oct. 3, 1998, eff. Nov. 5, 1998.
[xli] U.S. Constittution, Amendment VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory  process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[xlii] Online at https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/juries.html.
[xliii] Online at http://www.lahc.edu/socsci/backup/loiterman/sbotw06.htm.
[xliv] Online at https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/policy-based-evidence-making.
[xlv] Jerry Z. Muller. The Tyranny of Metrics. 2017. Also, see discussion at http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/07/16/measurement-versus-judgment-on-jerry-mullers-tyranny-of-metrics/.
[xlvii] Thomas Aiello. Jim Crow’s Last Stand: Nonunanimous Criminal Jury Verdicts in Lousisiana. 2015.
[xlviii] Online at http://www.sulc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/BellLR8.pdf.
[xlix] Online at https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/courts/article_d03c6c68-4201-11e8-b8e7-2be5a32762b2.html.
[l] Online at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls.
[li] Online at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_by_race_(estimates)[21].