Was families in the north richer than families in the south during slavery???

Question

Just asking.. A little help?? and please dont tell me to do the research, because i have.. :D
Please Help!!

Answer 1

I don't think you mean the 1600s and 1700s do you?

During the period 1810-1860 the north developed industrially when the south didn't. So some people in the north became very much richer and a capitalist middle class began to emerge. But the poor were still poor everywhere in 1860.

Basically the economic difference between N and S contributing to the cause of the civil war was that the S still needed slaves for cotton and tobacco agriculture, whereas the north needed a compliant but preferably literate and (perhaps more important for the political divide that was afoot) freely mobile working-class for its growing supply of factories and sweatshops.

Answer 2

first concentrate on your English: "were" families in the North.....
also your question doesnt make a lot of sense. slavery was based around Virginia (they were the first state to proclaim slavery a legal practise). In the 16 and 1700s there were still only colonies in New England, not in places such as Texas (although that wasn't a state then but you know what I mean). Not all families had slaves, but those who did were wealthy. A lot of households had servants, who were treated badly (but not as badly as slaves) but with the promise of 50 acres of land and enough food to provide for 6 months of living. Slaves were mainly used for the Tobacco industry (based in Virginia), which required huge amounts of labour - hence before slaves because "popular" as it was becoming harder to tempt settles over from Europe to work. At this stage in America's development there were not huge differences in wealth. The poor aboriginals were coming off worse! Their population decreased by around 90% in 50 years.