The backcountry's rugged terrain and isolation made it less suitable for large-scale plantation agriculture that relied on slavery. The small farms and homesteads in the backcountry preferred free labor due to the lower demand for labor compared to the labor-intensive cash crops of the tidewater. Additionally, the backcountry tended to attract a more independent-minded population that did not rely as heavily on enslaved labor.
personal property
The southern economy was heavily dependent on agriculture, particularly cotton production which relied on slave labor. Additionally, the southern social structure was built around slavery, leading to cultural and political acceptance of the institution. In contrast, the northern economy was more industrialized and did not rely as heavily on slave labor, resulting in less support for slavery.
Yes, slavery is a common noun because it refers to a general concept or idea rather than a specific entity.
Hawaii has a population count that is less than Alaska.
In 1929, it is estimated that less than 10% of Americans earned more than $5,000. This was a time of economic inequality with the majority of the population earning less than that amount.
Tidewater planters were wealthy, relied on enslaved labor, and cultivated cash crops like tobacco and rice in the coastal regions. Backcountry farmers were more self-sufficient, lived in the inland areas, and grew crops for subsistence rather than for trade. They often had smaller farms and a more independent lifestyle compared to the planters.
Planters were well to do people and farmers were poor class
No.
There was some slavery, for a time, in the North, but there were more crops in the South than in the North, e.g. less need in the north.
Slavery was less successful in the north due to the fact that the north was more of a merchant society than the south was. Slavery was more "necessary" in the south because of the vast amount of farmland that was present in the south. The north however, relied more on trading/
it seperated the races treating non whites as less than whites
There was a great reliance on slavery
I think that it was more important because they can band together when danger threatens. They also help families to deal with the dangers and problems of the Backcountry.
The Puritans did agree with slavery. They saw it as in agreement with the Bible, but slavery in the Massachusetts colonies was regarded as slightly less harsh than the slavery in the southern colonies because the Puritans also believed that it was their responsibility to provide for the slaves' well being, both physically and spiritually.Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
It was one of the slave-states of the Upper South, which were less dedicated to slavery than the Deep South.
Many people began to believe it was wrong. Just because someone is of a different race than you, that doesn't mean that they are less than human. Also, except for a few cash crops, slavery was not that economical. Then when industrialization began, there were farm tractors and other advances in agriculture, making slavery even less viable. Then of course was the whole backlash and controversy around slavery, so it was easier to just get rid of it than keep fighting over it.
Slavery was outlawed in most northern states by 1804 due to a combination of factors, including the influence of the American Revolution's ideals of liberty and equality, as well as economic conditions that made slavery less viable in the northern states where agriculture was less prevalent than in the South. Additionally, the northern states had more diverse economies and populations, which contributed to shifting attitudes about the morality of slavery.