Did Shakespeare even write the plays he produced? Lacking a word processor, even one as simple as mine (Windows notepad), or even a mechanical typewriter, where did he find the time? His hands would also have been indelibly stained with iron gall . He would have it all over is face, as well, and for this he would not have been allowed to perform in public. The Globe Theatre would have burned for this blatantly racist use of the blackface in his paleo-Vaudevillian so-called “plays”, and not from staged cannon fire during a performance of “Henry VIII”. No amount of genus could excuse such a hideous act. Therefore, since he WAS allowed to continue acting and producing, Shakespeare can not, NOT POSSIBLY have been the writer of his plays.
This is satire, applying today’s cultural standards to yesterday’s people, who had not yet achieved our level of twenty-first century enlightenment. Examples of todays’ shifting standards regarding blackface abound, such as those listed in this commentary from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Opinion: Va., nation now sharing consternation over blackface.
Was blackface evil? Yes, and no. A little history from Wikipedia: “Despite reinforcing racist stereotypes, blackface minstrelsy was a practical and often relatively lucrative livelihood when compared to the menial labor to which most black people were relegated. Owing to the discrimination of the day, “corking (or blacking) up” provided an often singular opportunity for African-American musicians, actors, and dancers to practice their crafts. Some minstrel shows, particularly when performing outside the South, also managed subtly to poke fun at the racist attitudes and double standards of white society or champion the abolitionist cause. It was through blackface performers, white and black, that the richness and exuberance of African-American music, humor, and dance first reached mainstream, white audiences in the U.S. and abroad. It was through blackface minstrelsy that African American performers first entered the mainstream of American show business. Black performers used blackface performance to satirize white behavior. It was also a forum for the sexual double entendre gags that were frowned upon by white moralists.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface
Blackface made good theatre for races of many hues, but my comment regarding Shakespeare is less about blackface than a criticism of the anachronistic historical revisioning afflicting today’s culture. We tend to judge the past in terms of the present, forgetting that the problems of the past were different than ours, and the evaluation of relative importances of different issues can only be made with full immersion in the conditions and situations present in the day.
We cannot, for example condemn the founders of the United States, and the Constitutional Republic they formed for their failure to solve the Slavery issue as well as the Independence issue all in one go. The Three-Fifths Compromise  is an evil act only if you fail to understand its purpose: to allow the northern and southern states to form a union and to enshrine the values of the Declaration of Independence, at least partially, into an actual government for the first time in the history of the world. It was an act of racism, but also an act of faith in the future, and of survival for the delicate and budding nation in a time of great danger. “The Three-Fifths Compromise was the solution to the most difficult challenge the framers faced: how to create a single country out of people so divided on a fundamental issue.” 
History is valuable for the lessons it provides but it requires a humble understanding, a willingness to shift viewpoints to those who were there. It seems that we might have something to learn from our own past, if we could just focus our eyes for a moment and look at it, and at ourselves.
Who deserves more our retroactive ire? The people of history, as viewed from the present, or the people of today, as viewed from the future? If only we could read what will be written of us! We do our best with what we have. So did Sir Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare, or whomever wrote his plays.
 IRON GALL – iron gall ink, made from a tannins found in oak tree galls – which are growths that looks like golf balls and are caused by secretions the gall wasp injects into the tree when she lays her eggs – combined with iron sulfate. https://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-paper-and-ink-did-Shakespeare-use
 THREE-FIFTHS COMPROMISE: Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states “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 Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
 – Why the 3/5ths Compromise Was Anti-Slavery – “It wasn’t the racists of the South who wanted to count slave populations less than white populations – it was the abolitionists of the North…You might say that the southern slave states wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to count their slaves for the purpose of representation, but they didn’t want to give any representation [i.e. the right to vote] to their slaves.” The compromise reduced the southern states’ representation in congress and prevented them from expanding slavery deeper into the fabric of the nation, and enshrining it into the 20th century. “The Three-Fifths Compromise didn’t deny the humanity of blacks, it affirmed it.” – Carol Swain, Prager University, https://www.prageru.com/video/why-the-threefifths-compromise-was-anti-slavery/