That's wrong, and wrong in really interesting ways.First off if we want to argue from the founders districts were never supposed to be more than 10k people and the number of districts would naturally grow with population. We threw that out the window in the early 20th century precisely to make the representation of power less democratic.

Ignoring all of that history, and taking your statement in good faith, it still is reductive to pretend that we're in the same state as the 18th century. Voters are much more diverse, and the technology exists to precisely draw districts to achieve very precise outcomes. The increased precision and ability to do things at scale is a differentiating factor, as well as the increased consequences; a voting population that's just "land owning white males" might see gerrymandering as less extreme that the much more diverse distribution of beliefs we have in the current voting population.

The current problems with gerrymandering are huge. Issues that have super majority support among the population (reproductive rights, immigration reform, drug reform, gun control) are controlled by an increasingly small population of voters. You can (and even may be correct) claim that this represents the wills of the founders; it's a much harder sell to claim that this is a "good thing" that the people shouldn't be able to push back against.

Probably because gerrymandering has been used to reduce the relative impact of black votes on election outcomes.