? Madison et al. are quite explicit that non-proportional representation in the Senate was a deeply regrettable compromise that could potentially create extraordinary difficulties down the line. The only thing keeping it from being completely unjustifiable was that the alternative was remaining under the articles of confederation, which was already in the process of breaking down (hence the need for a constitutional convention in the first place). Far from being a concession to slave states, which were growing rapidly at the time and consequently favored proportional representation, the Connecticut Compromise was a concession to small states, mostly in the North (indeed the name of the compromise is a hint here). See Federalist 62 to see just how disappointed Madison et al. were to be forced to accept this compromise by political necessity.
To be clear, slavery and its legacy has had a profoundly malign influence on American politics and its constitution, but non proportional representation in the Senate is not an example of it.
To be clear, slavery and its legacy has had a profoundly malign influence on American politics and its constitution, but non proportional representation in the Senate is not an example of it.