[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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

Most slaves didn't live on a plantation. Thomas Jackson, for example, had as many as 8 or 9 at a time and he was a college instructor. The average slave owner had a handful of slaves and that indicates most were not plantation owners. And why wouldn't Northerners invest in slaves and enjoy the benefits of the return they might get on their chattel...unless they were opposed to the practice to begin with?