why did not Northern states rely on slavery in American History?

Answer 1

because they where more industrialized than the south. The south depending on tobacco and cotton while the north had factories.

Answer 2

They did, it just wasnt as well publicized. For a long time in the North, people relied on Native Americans as slaves. When people realized that Africans could work longer hours in the sun without dying of heat stroke, they started using them. The North made the sale of humans illegal, but were still very dependant on money from the slave trade. Most of the ships that went to Africa for slaves were New England ships, they sell them off in the South, go back home and their hands are clean. I did a report on Northern Slavery a few years back, so the knowledge is fading, but if you do some research you will find the Northerners were not quite the saintly bunch they are made out to be.

Not to mention the fact that Northerners did not keep slaves in part because they did not want to associate with or be near Africans.

Answer 3

Although slavery was common in the North in the 1700s, it was never profitable on the same scale as in the South--and was either banned or a dying institution by the latter part of the 18th century. That, compined with opposition to slavery in the North, effectively doomed the practice there.

However, unlike the North, Southern states were ideal for several forms of large-scale cash crop agriculture--cotton being the most famous, but also tobacco and rice. Slavery was a cheap form of labor that could be controlled--unlike free labor. Even so, by 1790 it was in decline even in the South. The massive expansion of the cotton trade that accompanied the Industrial Revolution reinvigorated the institution of slavery in the South as a result. By the time this happened, it was already illegal in the North--and with the rise of a small-farm/manufacturing economy that required skilled labor and /or free labor to function, the North had no incentive to reinstitute the practice--even if the rising abolitionist movements of the 1800s hadn't made that politically impossible in the North.

Answer 4

I believe that there was slavery in the Northern states. Certainly in the "border states" there were slaves. Slavery was not as predominant in the North because there wasn't as much need for cheap labor. The South had a system in place that allowed them to cultivate crops at the lowest possible price. The Northern states were based more on industry. The unskilled cheap labor they needed was provided by immigrants and children. I hope that helped....

Answer 5

Southern economy was agrarian, Northern was more industry based, artisans, shipyrads etc. Little need for unskilled slave labor in areas with highly skilled trained hands that took the cotton from the south(picked by slaves) and turned it into textiles. Plantations required several hundred hands to harvest the crops. Better to pay someone nothing to do it, increases profits.

Answer 6

I dont beleive the North had the crops like the South had. So there was no need of slaves at the time in the North.

Answer 7

Abolitionism was a political movement that sought to abolish the practice of slavery and the worldwide slave trade. It began during the period of the Enlightenment and grew to large proportions in several nations during the nineteenth century, largely succeeding in its goals.

In 1783, an anti-slavery movement was beginning among the British public. That year the first English abolitionist organisation was founded by a group of Quakers. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the way for the campaign. On 17 June 1783 the issue was formally brought to government by Sir Cecil Wray (Member of Parliament for Retford), who presented the Quaker petition to parliament. Also in 1783, Dr Beilby Porteus issued a call to the Church of England to cease its involvement in the slave trade and to formulate a workable policy to draw attention to and improve the conditions of Afro-Caribbean slaves.

Black people played an important part in the move towards abolition. For example, in Britain Olaudah Equiano, whose autobiography went into nine editions in his lifetime, campaigned tirelessly against the slave trade, and Frederick Douglass, who escaped from slavery and became a powerful orator and statesman, came over to Europe on a speaking tour and 'took England by storm' (quoted from 'Roots of the Future', Commission for Racial Equality, 1996).

The Abolitionist Movement set in motion actions in every State to abolish slavery. This succeeded in every northern state by 1804; although the emancipation was so gradual that there were still a dozen "permanent apprentices" in the 1860 census. The principal organized bodies to advocate this reform were the Society of Friends, the Pennsylvania Antislavery Society, and the New York Manumission Society. The latter was headed by powerful Federalist politicians, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and republican Aaron Burr. Thanks to the considerable efforts of the NYMS, New York abolished slavery (gradually) in 1799. In terms of numbers of slaves, this was the largest emancipation in American history (before 1863). New Jersey in 1804 was the last northern state to abolish slavery (again in gradual fashion). At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, however, agreement was reached that allowed the Federal government to abolish the international slave trade in 1808, which it did. By then all the states had passed individual laws abolishing or severely limiting the trade, all but Georgia by 1798.

Beginning in the 1830s, the U.S. Postmaster General refused to allow the mails to carry abolition pamphlets to the South. Northern teachers suspected of any tinge of abolitionism were expelled from the South, and abolitionist literature was banned. Southerners rejected the denials of Republicans that they were abolitionists, and pointed to John Brown's attempt in 1859 to start a slave uprising as proof that multiple Northern conspiracies were afoot to ignite bloody slave rebellions. Although some abolitionists did call for slave revolts, no evidence of any other actual Brown-like conspiracy has been discovered.[8] The North felt threatened as well, for as Eric Foner concludes, "Northerners came to view slavery as the very antithesis of the good society, as well as a threat to their own fundamental values and interests". However, many conservative Northerners were uneasy at the prospect of the sudden addition to the labor pool of a huge number of freed laborers who were used to working for very little, and thus seen as being willing to undercut prevailing wages.

Answer 8

they didn't grow such crops as cotton and other stuff. they were more to use more machines than the south.