The reason the US has a Senate with two senators per state, along with a clause that makes it the only section of the constitution that cannot be modified by amendment, is because of the institution of chattel slavery. The slave states had a much smaller voting population than non-slave states and feared that majority rule would eventually remove their ability to keep slaves.
The US constitution precedes the abolition movements by almost a century, slavery was widely accepted by the time the senate was created. This is false and revisionist.
The reality is that the early US was a lot more similar to a federation of independent states at its birth than today. A senate ensured the spirit of a federation would be kept.
Interesting, I want to believe you, but while the Constitution was signed in 1787[1], while the first state that partially abolished slavery (PA) did so a few years earlier, in 1780. Was Pennsylvania not necessarily representative of the majority population? (the next few states abolishing slavery definitely come a few years later)
Thanks. it has true in the title. it definitely is the ultimate source of truth.
Geez guys, just because ONE book says something it doesn't mean you have to believe it as the gospel.
This is BS. The reason we have the senate is because the small states (like NH and NJ) would have never given the constitution their blessing without a say in the legislature.
Here's the 1802 house just to drive the point home. I suggest sorting by the "seats" column
You'll have to do better than linking the entire history of the US Senate if you want to prove that the only reason the US has two senators per state is slavery. I don't doubt that it factored into it at the time, but to tell people in Alabama that the sole reason their vote is valued how the way it is is due to slavery seems incredibly revisionist and ignorant to me.
Consider that in Canada's House of Parliament, we similarly have votes in rural areas overrepresented compared to their urban counterparts. Did that system arise from slavery as well? Of course it didn't, and any Canadian suggesting so would be laughed at.
Close, but no cigar! The Connecticut compromise certainly did include additions about slavery, but in the end the 3/5ths compromise REDUCED the population count for slaves states, decreasing their proportional power. States like Delaware, with small populations were in favor of it.
