because rich white land owners were too lazy to work for themselves out in the hot weather, and depending on where they lived, was how lazy they got.
No he did not, he thought it was awful. As stated in The Impending Crisis of the South, slavery hurt the entire economy of the south, but mainly the non-slaveholding white farmers.
They did not want slavery in the south they wanted to be apart of slavery.
Yes. The South was pro-slavery, while the North was anti-slavery. Hope this helps!
Yes, geography and climate significantly influenced the development of slavery in European colonies. In regions with warm climates and fertile land, such as the Caribbean and the American South, cash crops like sugar, tobacco, and cotton thrived, creating a high demand for labor. The geographic layout facilitated the establishment of large plantations, where enslaved Africans were forced to work, leading to a reliance on slavery as an economic system. Thus, the interplay of geography and climate directly shaped the scale and nature of enslaved labor in these colonies.
the north fought the south, and the north won north- against slavery south- slavery
the southern part of the us supported slavery and the north was against it. however some states in the south still supported it so the fact that it was in or near to the south, related to the fact that it supported slavery.
it was the cotten gin
Yes! Of course!
it was the cotten gin
This is not a question, but a statement and clearly from a test or review page in a textbook. I will give you a hint rather than help you cheat. Look to slavery and the growth of cotton after the invention of the cotton gin. Since I Know history books I know you will find a subheading with 2-3 paragraphs that will provide the answer.
Yes because north Carolina and south carolina used to be one state but when tennsions started growing between the north and south they split so south Carolina was part of the south that supported slavery
The south did not support the newly formed Republican Party because ,the party wanted to end slavery. The south used a great deal of slave labor to cultivate crops like cotton.
the north had little or no need for slavery because of there geography. agriculture did not revolve around slavery. this not saying that slaves could not be used but in this society they are not as excepted in the north as in the south. without slavery, the south's economy would be drastically different. the north already had ajusted to no slavery. people like to stay with status quo.
No he did not, he thought it was awful. As stated in The Impending Crisis of the South, slavery hurt the entire economy of the south, but mainly the non-slaveholding white farmers.
Northern workers opposed slavery; southern planters support it
The North was much more industrial while the South was much more agricultural. Businesses in the North needed skilled laborers where on Southern farms no real skill was needed! Of course as everyone knows at the time, black men and women were not educated so manual labor was all they could do. This is the reason why slavery flourished in the South and had been emancipated in the North.
Simple. Once the cotton gin was invented workers were needed to work on the plantations. Therefore, slavery happened.