Federalist 54 Paraphrased

Federalist No. 54 - Determining How Many Representatives Each State Gets    paraphrased into modern English

by James Madison, February 12, 1788.

To: the People of the State of New York:

The next aspect of the House of Representatives I'll discuss will be how many are appointed in the different States -- it will be determined in the same way that direct taxes are determined [by population].

Many people recommend that the number of people in each State should determine how many representatives the States will have. Using that same guideline to set taxes will likely be just as well accepted, although the rule itself is founded on a different principle. With Representatives, the guideline refers to the rights of the people to be represented. That's a natural and general connection. But with taxes, it has to do with the amount of wealth. That's not a precise measure, and not generally the most suitable. But even though applying that guideline to the relative wealth and contributions of the different States isn't the most perfect way of doing it, it's the least objectionable method. Since it was endorsed so recently in America, it was approved by the men writing the Constitution.

That may be well and good, but slaves were counted along with free citizens to determine the tax rate in each State -- some may wonder whether using numbers to determine how many Representatives a State will have means that slaves will count in this number. Slaves are considered property, not citizens. Therefore, it makes sense to count them when determining a property tax, but it makes less sense to count them as citizens when determining how many Representatives each State will have. If I understand correctly, that is the objection on one side. I'll try to be just as accurate when articulating the reasoning of other side.

A citizen of one of the Southern states might say, 'We believe that determining the number of Representatives relates more to free citizens, and taxes relate more to property values.' We agree about taxes relating to property value, although we can't agree that slaves are merely property and not persons. More accurately, in the eyes of the law regarding citizens and taxes, slaves are both property and persons. Being forced to work against their will for someone else, being sold from one owner to another, being deprived of freedom and whipped at the whim of a master--this makes slaves seem to be less than human, and more like cattle, which are legal property. On the other hand, having protection of the law from injury or loss of life, and against the violence of others, including his master who forces him to work and deprives him of his freedom, and in being legally punishable for violence they do to others--these things make slaves more like members of society than animals with no reasoning ability, more like moral people than mere property. Thus, the federal Constitution is correct when it views slaves as both persons and property. They are both. The laws we live under assign both descriptions to them, and that's the appropriate definition for them. The only reason there's any conflict about how to count them is because of the way the law has transformed these people into property. If the law was changed to restore the rights that were taken away from them, they would have to be counted as full citizens, just like everyone else, and given their fair share of representation in the government like the other citizens.

We could consider the question from another perspective. No matter how you look at it, numbers are the best way to assess wealth and taxation -- there's not really any other way of assessing it. The men who wrote the Constitution wouldn't have been fair or consistent if they didn't include slaves from the list of inhabitants when determining how many representatives each would have, but included them when determining how to adjust taxes. The southern [slave-holding] states would never have agreed to a system that counted their slaves when it would cost them, but didn't count them when it would bring an advantage to them. It's surprising that the very people who criticize the southern states for the barbaric policy of considering their human brothers as property also argue that the government, which includes both northern and southern states, should count these slaves as property when it means more tax money.

Someone might respond that slaves have not been included in the count of any States when determining how many representatives each region will have in their State's legislature. Slaves aren't allowed to vote in those States, and they don't increase the number of representatives for their masters. Why, then, should the federal government act differently than the States and count them when determining how many representatives each State will have? By not counting them at all, the federal government would be following the same guidelines as the States.

But one single observation argues against this rationale. The proposed Constitution operates under a principle where the collective number of representatives is determined depending on the collective number of inhabitants in the State, and it's the States themselves who decide how to elect those representatives. The qualifications for voting are different in every State, and the difference is substantial in some States. In every State, their constitution denies a certain portion of their population the right to vote [women and children, for example], yet some of these non-voters are still counted in the census that determines the number of representatives sent to Congress. Perhaps the Southern States might argue that the Constitution has no right to dictate how States should count their inhabitants, and they should be allowed to count their slaves in their census like any other citizen, even though they don't have the same rights as other citizens. But even they, who have the most to gain by this arrangement, forgo this principle. They only want equal moderation on both sides. The case of slaves is a tricky one. The most efficient solution is to consider slaves as inhabitants, but at a level lower than free citizens -- let them count the same as 2/5 of a person.

There's another aspect that justifies this part of the Constitution. So far, we've only considered that the representation relates to person, but not to property. Is that a fair-minded idea? Government is designed to protect property just as much as individuals. Government represents both persons and property. This is the idea that causes several of the States, including your State of New York, to have one branch of government tasked more towards protecting property, and that branch is voted on by the people who have property they'd like to protect. But the federal Constitution isn't set up this way. The same government that protects individual rights also protects property rights. So, when choosing the representatives in that government, some attention should be focused on the property to be protected.

Also, the number of votes each state should have in the legislature should be related to the state's wealth. Unlike individuals, wealthy states don't have an advantage over other states. Even if a rich man only has one vote to elect his representative, his respect and significance will influence other men to vote the same way, so the man with means ends up having more leverage in electing a representative. But States don't have this kind of influence over each other. Even the richest State in the Union won't influence the choice of a single representative in any other State. A representative from a rich State doesn't have any advantage over a representative from a poorer State, although a richer State might have more votes because it has more representatives. If a large and rich State has any advantage, it ought to be the advantage of having more representatives. In this respect, the proposed Constitution is much better than the Articles of Confederation, and better than United Netherlands and other similar confederacies. [The Articles of Confederation had only one branch of Congress, each State had two to seven Congressmen per State, and each State had one single vote in Congress.] In the case of the Netherlands and similar confederacies, the efficiency of any federal resolution depends on whether the individual states are willing to approve. Although each state has a single vote, a state may have more influence relating to the importance of the resolution [because a unanimous vote was required, so a single state could hold things up]. But under the proposed Constitution, a law doesn't need every State to approve before it can take effect. It only requires a majority of votes from the legislators. That means that each vote, whether from a large or small State, or a State with wealth or power, has the same value and potency. This is the same way State legislatures work, where representatives from unequal counties all have the same value given to their vote. If one representative does have more influence, it's because of his personal character, rather than because of the county he comes from."

This is the kind of logic someone might use who wanted to protect the interests of the south. Some parts might seem like a stretch, but taken as a whole, I have to admit that it makes me realize how effective the large number of representatives will be under the new Constitution.

In one way, using the same measure for both setting taxes and number of representatives will have a beneficial effect. Since the accuracy of the census will depend on the willingness and cooperation of the States doing the counting, it's important that the States have no bias that might induce them to pad or curtail their numbers. If their census only influenced how many representatives they were entitled to, they might be tempted to exaggerate their numbers. If their census determined their tax rate, they might be tempted to do the opposite and downplay their numbers. But since their census will affect both their number of representatives and their tax rate, one interest will cancel out the other, and make it more likely that they'll be unbiased when taking their census.

Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."

Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, August 2020

All Federalist Paper Paraphrases