How were "three fifths of all other persons" (Article I, Section 2) determined? Did the census takers in 1790 have a census questionnaire as is done now or were other means used to...

Chocura750

Did the census takers in 1790 have a census questionnaire as is done now or were other means used to determine the population? There is a move afoot to include a question on citizenship in the questionnaire to be used for the 2020 census. I'm curious how it was determined in the past who were the "three fifths of all other persons", i.e. Slaves.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Chocura750 wrote:

Did the census takers in 1790 have a census questionnaire as is done now or were other means used to determine the population? There is a move afoot to include a question on citizenship in the questionnaire to be used for the 2020 census. I'm curious how it was determined in the past who were the "three fifths of all other persons", i.e. Slaves.

Slaves were property, and as such, were categorized in their owners account ledgers. I would guess that the number of slaves was probably better tracked than citizens.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Chocura750 wrote:

Did the census takers in 1790 have a census questionnaire as is done now or were other means used to determine the population? There is a move afoot to include a question on citizenship in the questionnaire to be used for the 2020 census. I'm curious how it was determined in the past who were the "three fifths of all other persons", i.e. Slaves.

Probably to same way others were, through a census.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Chocura750 wrote:

Did the census takers in 1790 have a census questionnaire as is done now or were other means used to determine the population? There is a move afoot to include a question on citizenship in the questionnaire to be used for the 2020 census. I'm curious how it was determined in the past who were the "three fifths of all other persons", i.e. Slaves.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/property-taxes-slaves

http://edu.lva.virginia.gov/online_classroom/union_or_secession/unit/10/referendum_on_taxation_of_slaves

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Chocura750 wrote:

Did the census takers in 1790 have a census questionnaire as is done now or were other means used to determine the population? There is a move afoot to include a question on citizenship in the questionnaire to be used for the 2020 census. I'm curious how it was determined in the past who were the "three fifths of all other persons", i.e. Slaves.

Ummmm.....this is 2017, and we should know who here are citizens, and who aren't citizens.
See, citizens get to enjoy all this country has to offer. Non-citizens are either guests, or invaders, and should be treated as such. Get it?
Or, can I move into your house, declare myself an undocumented resident, and demand that you take care of all of my needs on your dime? If so, where do you live? I'll be there tomorrow.

Chocura750

Ask a question. Get an answer. That's why this site is great. Getting a census count for slaves then was it appears relatively easy. Today as I understand it any human being walking the land is counted in the census. The census is not limited to only citizens and whether this is good of bad I am not sure. The census questionnaire now used does ask the place of birth and when the person immigrated to the US. I assume the people proposing the question on citizenship would then move that only citizens be include in such matters as the apportionment the House of Representatives.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Chocura750 wrote:

Ask a question. Get an answer. That's why this si... (show quote)

That's right. Why should an Irishman who is in this country, in violation of our immigration laws have any say in who represents us at any level?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

This is a very good question. To better understand the problem, one must read James Madison's Federalist No. 54. You see, larger states from the North did not want slaves counted during census because it would give the Southern states more representation in the " House of Representatives." However, they wanted the slave counted for tax purposes. The South wanted slaves to be fully counted, regardless of tax burden. But, it was more than the counting of slaves... for example the Native American would not be counted as property or citizens. Madison's main focus was to count “various arts and professions,” ranging from brewers to farmers to arms manufacturers. He felt data on Americans’ occupations was “necessary” for Congress to make “proper provision” for agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing.

In the argument, he outlines how the slave was personal property and could be conveyed to others and on the same hand, they were treated as individuals when they broke laws. Madison concludes that because of these “mixed” characteristics, the Constitution should treat slaves as both persons and property. He goes further, because slaves are “debased by servitude below the level of free inhabitants,” their count as a person should be reduced.

In reality, the count had much to do with taxes and representation than slavery. In the end, the 1790 census determined the allocation of seats in the Third Congress. Seats were added or subtracted from states every 10 years up until 1929 when Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act on June 11, 1929. This act required that the Secretary of Commerce reapportion the House after each census. By transferring this power to the executive branch, Congress established an automatic process for reapportionment. The act also capped the number of representatives at 435, where it remains today.

Chocura750 wrote:

Did the census takers in 1790 have a census questionnaire as is done now or were other means used to determine the population? There is a move afoot to include a question on citizenship in the questionnaire to be used for the 2020 census. I'm curious how it was determined in the past who were the "three fifths of all other persons", i.e. Slaves.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Pennylynn wrote:

This is a very good question. To better understan... (show quote)

As usual, very concise and informative. Thank you.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

You are always so very kind, thank you! BTW, Duckie sends her love and hopes for a "fancy New Year." I do not know what she means by fancy, but I am sure her intents is nothing short of pure love!

PoppaGringo wrote:

As usual, very concise and informative. Thank you.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Pennylynn wrote:

You are always so very kind, thank you! BTW, Duckie sends her love and hopes for a "fancy New Year." I do not know what she means by fancy, but I am sure her intents is nothing short of pure love!

Please convey my very best wishes and thanks to Duckie. By 'fancy' perhaps she remembered the First is also my birthday. I enjoyed our 'conversations' when she was posting during your absence.

And a very Happy New Year to you and the family.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I certainly will and I will ask her about your birthday.... My bet, you are right. She talks about you with such warmth and love!

May your birthday be filled.... and your new year bright!

PoppaGringo wrote:

Please convey my very best wishes and thanks to Duckie. By 'fancy' perhaps she remembered the First is also my birthday. I enjoyed our 'conversations' when she was posting during your absence.

And a very Happy New Year to you and the family.