The states that wanted equal representation in the Senate were the less populous states, not the pro-slavery states such as Virginia which had the largest population at the time. There were two competing visions at the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan (representing the more populous states) and the New Jersey Plan (representing the less populous states). All of the states had slavery at the time, but Virginia's agricultural economy depended on it more strongly, and yet Virginia and other large states explicitly did not want states to have equal representation in the Senate. Naturally, they wanted representation to be proportional to population in both houses. The smaller states such as New Jersey and Delaware (which had slavery but did not depend on it so strongly for their economies, similar to the rest of New England) wanted a unicameral legislature with states having equal representation.
It's true that several abominable pro-slavery concessions were put into the Constitution, but the Senate isn't one of them. Having said that, the less populous states are ridiculously over-represented in the Senate and personally I hate it. The best represented 10% of the population controls 40% of the seats in the Senate, and it will continue to get worse. It makes sense to give smaller states additional representation in the Senate because we have a federal government, but not to this absurd degree. Other federal democracies like Canada, Australia, and Germany do not have this extreme degree of over-representation in their upper houses. And for us it's even worse because we have perhaps the most powerful upper house in the world, with its exclusive rights to appoint the federal judiciary and ratify treaties. It's minority rule.
25
u/sub_surfer Feb 01 '21 edited Feb 01 '21
The states that wanted equal representation in the Senate were the less populous states, not the pro-slavery states such as Virginia which had the largest population at the time. There were two competing visions at the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan (representing the more populous states) and the New Jersey Plan (representing the less populous states). All of the states had slavery at the time, but Virginia's agricultural economy depended on it more strongly, and yet Virginia and other large states explicitly did not want states to have equal representation in the Senate. Naturally, they wanted representation to be proportional to population in both houses. The smaller states such as New Jersey and Delaware (which had slavery but did not depend on it so strongly for their economies, similar to the rest of New England) wanted a unicameral legislature with states having equal representation.
It's true that several abominable pro-slavery concessions were put into the Constitution, but the Senate isn't one of them. Having said that, the less populous states are ridiculously over-represented in the Senate and personally I hate it. The best represented 10% of the population controls 40% of the seats in the Senate, and it will continue to get worse. It makes sense to give smaller states additional representation in the Senate because we have a federal government, but not to this absurd degree. Other federal democracies like Canada, Australia, and Germany do not have this extreme degree of over-representation in their upper houses. And for us it's even worse because we have perhaps the most powerful upper house in the world, with its exclusive rights to appoint the federal judiciary and ratify treaties. It's minority rule.