I have silently edited the Congressional debates transcribed below to omit irrelevant topics and repetitive arguments, marking ellipses ( . . . ) only when I have spliced sentences or paragraphs.
All page references are to the Congressional Globe, 31st congress, 1st Session, available at
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor31

The debates in the House of Representatives did not dwell on the details of Schedule 2 (Slave Inhabitants) as the Senate debates had, but some southern representatives echoed the same accusations that the census was designed to fuel abolitionist agitation. The House version added the columns for “Fugitives from the state” and “Number manumitted,” but the single most important amendment in the House ensured that belated, fractious debate would not endanger the 1860 census. The final version of the census bill was passed almost at the last minute, only one week before the census takers were to begin their work.

On 22 April 1850, Representative Jacob Thompson of Mississippi introduced the Census Bill by insisting that “this bill — a sort of interlude in the great contest of the day — contains nothing of the tragic interest that surrounds the question that has so long claimed the attention of this body, the dissolution of the Union. It regards the Union as it is, and I trust will be for ages to come.” (page 809) He then launched into a learned oration on the history of census-taking in western civilization from the days of ancient Rome to the present. After briefly describing each previous U. S. census, he introduced each section, or schedule, of the 1850 census bill. His introduction to Schedule 2 was brief: “The second schedule regards the slave population. In this one, the Judiciary Committee differ but little from the Senate Committee. The age, sex, and color, whether deaf, dumb, insane, or idiotic, and have added two columns in regard to ‘fugitives from the State,’ and ‘the number manumitted.’ Should it be the pleasure of the House to retain it, a further amendment, by confining the inquiry to the last year, must be made. The names of the slave owners are to be given, and it will not only show who owns slaves in the South, but also may how some owners in Connecticut, some, perhaps in Massachusetts, some in New York, and some, but very few, in Pennsylvania, as she was the first to abolish slavery, I believe, in the Union.” (page 810)

Compared to the acrimonious Senate debates, proceedings on the Census Bill in the House were contentious but civil. Congressmen mainly debated whether the wording of the Constitutional requiring a decennial census limited Congress to collecting only the bare information necessary to allocate representation and taxation, or whether the Constitution merely specified a minimum requirement, which could be supplemented by any inquiries that Congress should desire to make. Representative John K. Miller of Ohio, who did not believe the Constitution authorized collecting anything but the barest information about any of the U. S. population, attempted an amendment which would have combined Free and Slave Inhabitants into one Schedule. (pages 811-2) Miller’s amendment was defeated, but anyone curious to see what his Census would have looked like can see the form at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=031/llsb031.db&recNum=470 . Most of the House debates on the census bill argued the constitutionality of asking more detailed personal information than any U. S. census had asked before, but the subject of slavery inevitably arose from time to time.

Georgia Congressman Alexander H. Stephens (future Vice-president of the Confederacy) suggested that the census, in the form proposed, threatened the union: “It would be well for the members of this House who were friendly to the permanent union of these States, to recollect that it could be maintained only upon principle, and by confining it to the objects for which the Union was formed. . . . Those objects were enumerated and specified in the Constitution. . . . Would the gentleman who had reported this bill inform him under what clause of the Constitution he got the power to appropriate the money of the people of this country to seek such information?” (page 812)

Among those who rose to answer Stephens’ and others’ objections was Joseph M. Root from Ohio. He ridiculed Stephens’ suggestion that the census endangered the Union; instead, the “more the South knew of the North, and the North of the South, the better they would like each other. . . . Each would see how labor was remunerated, and in what manner, and to what extent the means of happiness and improvement were enjoyed by the other. The South would also know how many slaves escaped to the North — a matter about which there is some difference of opinion at present” (page 821).
Charles E. Clarke of New York reminded Stephens that he had declared, in recent debates about whether or not to ban slavery from the newly-settled western territories and states, that “no government could stand or ought to stand, that brought its power in conflict with the property of the people. The property to which the gentleman referred, is property vested in slaves, which he was pleased to estimate at fifteen hundred millions of dollars. I deemed the expression indefensible, revolutionary; but since the sentiment is advanced in this House, and seems to be entertained by others than the gentleman from Georgia, it is quite desirable to know the ages as well as the numbers of the slaves, with the view of ascertaining their value, and comparing that property with other property which the same gentlemen seem to think deserves no protection, no encouragement. It is quite desirable to know the positive and relative yield of agricultural productions in different sections of the country, in order that we may see whether it be wise to ingraft slavery upon the immense territories which we have lately acquired” (page 840).

Clarke continued: “Let there be light, was the command of Infinite Wisdom at the creation of the world. The rule seems to be reversed here, in the government of a small part of the world; and the cry of gentlemen here is, let there be darkness.” He then offered examples of where the census might shine a light: “There is in the free States a class of men entitled to all the privileges of citizenship there, who, if they set foot in certain other States of this Union, are liable to be imprisoned, and in certain contingencies to be sold as slaves, because it has pleased God not to bestow upon them quite so white a skin as some of us wear. Is it not desirable to know how numerous this class is, with the view of ascertaining the practical value of a great principle of the Constitution?” Clarke was doubtless referring to Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States” – a section routinely violated by southern state laws targeting free persons of color.

Clarke then suggested that the census data could measure compliance with the 1808 U. S. ban on importing slaves: “Would it not be worth while, if it were in our power, to ascertain the lineage and the place of birth of the African race, in order, amongst other things, to ascertain whether our laws excluding slaves from foreign parts are violated or observed?”

Joseph A. Woodward of South Carolina immediately jumped up to identify “the true object” of some census questions: “to procure and circulate over the country themes for abolition declamation. Who doubted that it was for that purpose? The object was to select the blemishes in the social system of the South, and harp upon these until the imagination of the country should be wholly prepossessed” or fixated on the defects of slavery (page 840).

In one of the lengthiest speeches of the debate, John W. Howe of Pennsylvania presented his long list of reasons for highly data in the census, among which was that census data as to shades of color of the “colored population” would provide clues as to whether “the whole human race originated from one common parentage.” Howe also wanted determine the “various employments” of all the African slaves – although no version of the census schedules ever included slaves’ occupation or employment, and he never introduced an amendment to add this item to Schedule 2 (page 862).

The most significant amendment made in the House of Representatives passed on 8 May 1850. The date on which the census enumeration was to begin (1 June 1850) was only three weeks away, and, despite months of debate, Congress had yet to pass a census bill! Many members feared a repeat of this ordeal in 1860, so the amendment provided that if “no other law be passed for taking providing for the taking of any subsequent census” before the first day of January of the census year, “such census shall, in all things, be taken and completed according to the provisions of this act.” (page 939). This amendment (it turned out) was the basis for both the 1860 and 1870 censuses (although, of course, there were no slaves in 1870).

A joint conference of members from the House and senate met and resolved the differences between their versions of the Census, so that the bill could pass on 20 May (pages 1027-1028). Three days later, 23 May 1850, the Bill was enacted into law with the final form of each schedule, including the Schedule 2, Slave Inhabitants, which can be seen at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=461 .

In Part 6 we will examine the census-taker’s instructions.