Less of their land is arable when compared to the South

Hmm which is why the majority of the south didn't own slaves...makes perfect sense

Farming is labor intensive, so we need slaves, but most of us aren't actually gonna have any...hmm...

🤔

Possibly because the largest landowners had hundreds upon hundreds of acres of crops to harvest compared to farmer Jim and his ten acres of land?

Also, the lower classes had more children as a means of trying to compensate for their lack of manpower.

77% of Illinois is farmland today

45% of Wisconsin

And Illinois was mostly settled around the coastal and river regions.

And Wisconsin was the same as well.

65% of Indiana

Most people in the north settled around the Great Lakesz

56% of Ohio

Again, the vast majority of people live nearby the Great Lakes. Always have, always will.

That's quite a lot of farmland

That's quite a lot of farmland

A lot of farmland only a tiny portion of the population lives in.

A lot of farmland that didn’t exist two hundred years ago.

A lot of farmland that only came about when industrialization occurred and it became practical to have more farmland up north.

Even then, then majority of people living in those states live along the coastline because they were settled for their prime Great Lake coastline in order to make trade easier.

But we’ll just ignore that in order to fulfill your nonsensical narrative.

The North had little need for slavery to begin with. It’s why it never caught on because they didn’t have massive tracks of farmland to justify having fifty or a hundred slaves.

The real reason is profit margin. Slaves are cheaper than employees.

Hmm then why ban it?

If they don't really need slaves then it would mean they don't have to concern themselves with banning it

Because why not? No one owns any by that point, so you can just ban it and no one would give a shit.

Also, abolitionism became a thing right around the time those states began to ban it. Besides, it’s easier to convince people who don’t own slaves to ban the institution outright.

Hard to convince a wealthy plantation owner to get rid of his free labor. Instead let's just start a war with the clearly stated goal of keeping our free labor.

"peculiar institution"

If you live in a culture that doesn’t own slaves most of the time nor has any real attachment to it, it’s easier to ban it.

Attachment. Hmm.

How do you sleep at night?

No, more like “hard to convince a society that has lived with it on a daily basis to end it without having some form of social and political repercussions.”

Their attachment, the rich people anyway, was to their money

Social and political repercussions yes. War, that's their choice. They chose wrongly and they lost.

And, even then, states like New York profited from the slave trade as a result of being a major port city. So, even though the banned it, they remained an important hub of keeping it going.

Yet they still fought to end it

Social repercussions as in not actually giving them any time to adjust and change to enable a smooth transition from slavery to abolition.

No, they didn’t.

Really

Hmm