[Non-Sequitur]

The reason Northern and Midwestern states eschewed slavery of blacks was that it didn’t work in their farm & factory economies. Had it been advantageous to them, they would have had as many slaves as the South.

Not all slaves worked in the fields. Many, perhaps most worked in or around the house as cooks, maids, nursemaids, butlers, gardeners, grooms, what have you. If it were strictly an economic matter then there is no reason why such slaves wouldn't have thrived in the North as well.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I disagree. There were many more field hands than house slaves on plantations. The North was more apt to use indentured servants from Europe(that already spoke English), rather than blacks. If cotton, tobacco or other labor-intensive crops would have grown well up North, the Northerners would’ve had no qualms using slaves from Africa, IMO.

[stand watie]

well HELLO, N-S.

i see you're still trying to deceive the ignorant/UNwary /naive.

tell us WHY the DYs (who SAID they hated slavery!):

1. kept slaves as long as it was more economical than hiring free people,

2.financed essentially ALL of the:

a. slave ships,

b.slave-TRADING companies &

3. sold their slaves to places where slavery was still profitable, when slavery was UNprofitable in the north, rather than FREEING their slaves.

AND

4. TRIED desperately to "cover-up" their slave dealings after the war while continuing to be IN the "flesh trade", in those places where slavery was still lawful.

PLEASE, OH PLEASE, tell us why those DAMNyankee elitists, that you champion on FR, were anything other than SELF-serving, sanctimonious,SELF-righteous,arrogant,LIARS, HATERS & HYPOCRYTES???

free dixie,sw