Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ITAL

(1,364 posts)
21. There were plenty of slaves in the north
Mon May 11, 2026, 11:31 AM
Yesterday

When the Constitution was ratified. I mean, not anywhere close to as many as there were in the south, and that number decreased from 1787 onward, but emancipation went very slowly in the north (most of the laws were something along the lines of like "no one born after *this date* is a slave" or similar, which meant that current ones were often kept in bondage), taking some of them sixty years to become fully free states.

That was another bone of contention between some of the southern slave holding states and the hardcore abolitionists (rather than the folks like Lincoln who sought to hold the line on expansion of slavery), given they were often calling for immediate abolition. The slaveholding south thought those people were being hypocrites since the northern states had started with a much smaller population and it still took some of them multiple generations to free them all.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That's a very true take on it. No gerrymander will help Senators. bucolic_frolic Yesterday #1
The founding fathers knew Whip-poor-will Yesterday #2
The constitution doesn't mention the 30,000 population districts EdmondDantes_ Yesterday #11
Well, kinda ITAL Yesterday #16
The Northern states legally converted their slaves to indentured unc70 Yesterday #20
There were plenty of slaves in the north ITAL Yesterday #21
The way my constitution copy reads Whip-poor-will Yesterday #18
Yes. Flipping the Senate has to be a top priority now... though I still think they screwed themselves with a lot of LymphocyteLover Yesterday #3
The senate is already gerrymandered (and then some) FBaggins Yesterday #4
Yes! Idaho, N&S Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana combine for 10 Senators, but have fewer people than Los Angeles. TheRickles Yesterday #5
Its awful and impossible to change Johonny Yesterday #22
Exactly right - I came here to say the same FakeNoose Yesterday #6
Agree. This was the Founders intention. That via the Senate, every state gets equal representation no matter population Cheezoholic Yesterday #7
It was a compromise that induced the agrarian (low population density) states to join the Republic. TheRickles Yesterday #23
Jamelle Bouie recommends increasing it to six senators per state Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #13
That would require an amendment FBaggins Yesterday #14
Changing the size of the house would not. Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #17
Fantasyland stuff. Totally unrealistic. BannonsLiver Yesterday #19
This is the time for Democrats in red states to use strategic voting... appmanga Yesterday #8
Not all states allow that radical noodle Yesterday #10
I believe LA is an open jungle primary... appmanga Yesterday #12
I am hopeful. But be prepared for anything. It's a war. Joinfortmill Yesterday #9
Gerrymandering doesn't work when you alienate your voters RainCaster Yesterday #15
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Republicans can't Gerrym...»Reply #21