Historical perspectives on the decennial census

The Racialization of Legal Categories in the First U.S. Census

“…We examine here a previously undiscovered document (see figure 2) (US House of Representatives 1790b)—or at least we found no previous discussion of it—to shed some light on these census categories and the interaction of state and social influences. This document shows handwritten revisions to the demographic categories in the first census bill that are not discussed in previous accounts of its adoption (Anderson 1988: 14; 1994: 11–13; Clemence 1985: 358; Cohen 1982: 159–61; Davis 1972: 154–55; Halacy 1980: 32–33; Rossiter 1909: 42–43; Scott 1968: 14–15). With this document, we argue that the categories are best—though not perfectly—understood as racialized legal categories that specified citizenship rights that were socially coincidental with race and sex, not as racial or sex categories 1…”

“…Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania proposed that taxation be proportional to representation, essentially extending the three-fifths rule to taxation (Alterman 1969: 186; Einhorn 2006: 165; Farrand 1911: I: 589–92; Krüger 1991: 18; Morrow 1910: 393). Applying the same population-counting rules to representation and taxation helped assure accurate information because their reporting incentives were opposite (a larger population would increase taxation and representation; a smaller population would lower taxation and representation) (Anderson 1988:10; Cassedy 1969: 213–14; Clemence 1985: 357; Hamilton et al 1788; Wright 1900: 13). Most politicians realized that without compromise, the country would split apart (Petersen 1987: 192).…”

“…The words “white and other” that had preceded “free” were deleted as superfluous (Farrand 1911: II: 350; Krüger 1991: 21). During the debates, the terms “black,” “Negro,” and “slave” were used interchangeably; the small number of free blacks did not affect legislative representation (Clemence 1985: 356; e.g., Farrand 1911: I: 204–8, 559–62, 578–88, 591–97, cf. Beeman 2009: 155; Farrand 1911: I: 83–84).…”

“…American revolutionary leaders were familiar with Enlightenment government and science, and these ideas influenced the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (Balinski and Young 2001: 6; Landsman 1997: 84–86; May 1976: 97–101, 129–32, 161–67, 212–18, 278; Meyer 1976: 179–80, 182–88). However, the US census clause was largely driven by pragmatic political compromise, not philosophical or scientific considerations; consequently, there was little thought that it might provide systematic data beyond what was necessary for apportionment (Clemence 1985: 356–57; Wright 1900: 13).…”

“…The text of the bill, which gave a set of overall instructions, stated that the enumerators should distinguish “the ages, sexes, colours, conditions, and occupations” of US inhabitants (US House of Representatives 1790a). The extant debates do not reveal specifically why he proposed the demographic categories, but he argued that the occupational categories would provide the government with concrete information about agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing (Anderson 1988: 14; Clemence 1985: 358; Cohen 1982: 160–61; Davis 1972: 154–55; Halacy 1980: 32–33; Rossiter 1909: 42; Scott 1968: 14–15; US Congress 1834: 1115). More generally, Madison argued for the descriptive usefulness of the census, because the legislature could pass laws that reflected the “real situation” of their constituents based on knowledge from it (Halacy 1980: 32; US Congress 1834: 1146) and because it was “much wanted for the science of Political Economy” (Madison 1867: 507).…”