This is a specific subject page, dealing exclusively with, or primarily with, the subject in the title. Because of need, there are many such pages at RHWW: usually, but not always, linked to primary pages. For those in a hurry, they enable a quick summary of many important subjects. The menu for these pages is here: Click>>>

 

Why was slavery necessary in the Southern U.S.

but not in the North?

 

 

This page is an extension of the pages "Black Germany 4" and "Black Britain 5" (which are identical in content) and in which the central reason for Black Slavery in the Southern United States is revealed. This current page goes on to address the "Publicly Perceived" reason of "Why slavery was necessary in the Southern U.S. but not in the North".

 

 

As we all know, residents of the Northern States REJECTED Slavery: and the result was INCREASED wealth and prosperity for the Northern States, as it still is - former Slave States are in general, the poorest and most backward States. Former Slave States also uniformly supported Donald Trump for President. So it was during a moment of musing about the delusional nature of Trump supporters, that we got to wondering how Albinos explain to each other, the reason why it was apparently necessary to have Slavery in the Southern States, but not in the Northern States. Naturally, because there is no possibility of a plausible self-affirming explanation, this subject has never been academically tackled by Albinos, so we were quite interested to see what the results of a Google search of "Why was slavery necessary in the Southern U.S. but not the North?" would be.

As should be expected - the answers were pathetically convoluted - and funny.

From Reddit:

Question - Why did the South come to have slavery while the North did not?

Answer - When the original colonists came to America, what they found in the North was rocky land that was not very conducive to mass farming - virtually all Northern farmers were subsistence farmers, farming for their families and their villages. Therefore, they never needed many slaves (Northerners did have slaves). In the South, the land was great for huge plantations, where the plantation owners needed cheap labor, and got slaves.

Comment - Prime farmland is a designation assigned by U.S. Department of Agriculture defining land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is also available for these land uses.

 

The former Slave States were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

 

 

As we can all see, except for the southwestern banks of the Mississippi River, the best farm lands are in the "NON-SLAVE HOLDING STATES" of Kansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Eastern North Dakota, southeastern Nebraska, and to a lesser extent Wisconsin. The Slave State of Florida having virtually no prime land.

 


From 123HelpMe.com

Essay about Why Slavery Prospered in the South but not in the North:

Quote - Slavery prospered more in the South than in the North. Many have wondered why this occurred. This happened for several reasons. To begin with, the South needed additional workers to operate their farms and plantations. Another reason they had slaves was to increase the size of their military force.

Comment - Ya slaves would have loved that: being given a gun, and told by Albinos, Protect us!.

Last but not least, they didn’t feel that African Americans were entitled to human rights. Based on these items, the Northerners did not share the same view on slavery as the Southerners did. Most of the population in the North did not condone slavery. This was partially because they did not have the same agricultural needs. In addition to this, they felt that all races deserved to be treated equally.

The Southerners viewed slavery as a luxury and a necessity. Financial gain was one of the reasons slavery was tremendously popular. Slaves were required to work in various places for little or no money. Therefore, this helped the slave owners achieve their goal of increasing their profits because they did not have to pay for labor costs. With lower labor costs, the Southerners had more disposable income. This extra money allowed them to pay their taxes, to buy more land, and to even possibly purchase more slaves.

Comment - As we're sure everybody knows, Black slaves were extremely expensive, and held to be much more valuable than any Albino worker.

The Northerners were extremely aggravated with the Southerners’ position on slavery. Not only did they disagree that the Southerners did not have to pay the people who worked for them, but they also violated the African Americans’ human rights. People in the North didn’t rely on slavery. They were independent and their work force did not require outside labor. Two main occupations in the North included working in factories and mills. The Northerners were able to do these jobs themselves.

 

 

It's all downhill from here, the answers are just too stupid to bother with.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 



But of course, the above are the reasons and excuses MODERN Albinos conjured up to explain "Why was slavery necessary in the Southern U.S. but not the North?"

 

So we thought it would be interesting to see what people

closer to antebellum times had to say by way of explanation.

 

 

 

 

This writer William Hannibal Thomas, fought in the Civil War, and thus had an intimate knowledge and understanding of the times, the people, and the South. Though Mr. Thomas fought for the North, he later taught and practiced law in South Carolina, and then served as a member of the South Carolina Legislature during the Reconstruction period.

This is a very interesting book in the attitudes and would-be facts that it conveys.

"Why was slavery necessary in the Southern U.S. but not the North?"

The answer is given on page 8:

Quote: The climate of the South is mainly sub-tropical. It is preeminently an agricultural section, and specially adapted to raising cotton, sugar, and tobacco, all profitable products. Hence, as its whites were too indolent to work, and its blacks too feeble to resist, human chattelism spread rapidly in a section whose fertile soil had long awaited the advent of sturdy, docile toilers. Moreover, as slavery extended southward it largely parted with its fostering domestic features; the slave-owners became rapacious for slaves and territory, and their greed was not appeased until Florida, Louisiana, and Texas were added to the national domain.

Note - Indolent means lazy:

 

Thus the author is saying that Slavery was necessary in the Southern U.S.

because Southern Albinos were too LAZY to work.

That is of course, NOT true!

 

 

We expected that there would be nonsense explanations for "Why was slavery necessary in the Southern U.S. but not the North", and we got them!

We suspect that part of the reason why we got such silly answers, is that few people - Black or Albino - have thought to wonder "Why".

 


UNDER THE HEADING - HOW LITTLE THINGS HAVE CHANGED!

Page 30;

Quote: The proslavery sentiment was also abetted by the lack of education among the masses of the Southern whites, a large proportion of whom could neither read nor write. It was further fostered by the geographical isolation of the states, the lack of means for rapid transit, the rarity of personal and postal intercourse, the commercial greed of the North, the dearth of civil knowledge, the conflict in the public mind regarding the nature and functions of the Federal government, which grew out of a concurrent belief in the sovereign capacity of each state.

 

 

 

 

Click for Realhistoryww Home Page