this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
15 points (85.7% liked)

AskHistorians

1365 readers
85 users here now

QUESTIONS

  1. Be civil.
  2. Be specific.
  3. Historical topic must be from at least 20 years ago.
  4. Post questions in the title. Elaboration is for the text box.

RESPONSES

  1. Be civil.
  2. Provide comprehensive answers.
  3. Please provide primary and secondary sources upon good faith request. Tertiary sources, like Wikipedia, are not accepted.

askhistorians is a community for academic answers to questions about history. Polls, opinions, bigotry, grammar pedantry, and personal insults will be removed.


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Large-scale farming wasnt profitable in the North.

I'd like to point out that large-scale farming was very profitable in the North - just not of cotton and tobacco. Northern grain was as important an export as Southern cotton - but grains are generally more land-intensive, while tobacco and especially cotton are more labor-intensive (thus making use of slave labor profitable).

You can also see the difference you mentioned between the majority of the South and Appalachia, which remained a stronghold of Unionist sentiment. Appalachia is terrible country for massive cotton plantations, so slaver power never really set down deep roots there.