The trend was only becoming obvious until the 1830’s.

When the United Kingdom outright banned the institution entirely within its dominion.

Even then, many areas took decades and upwards of half a century to end it because, you know, *you don’t end a long-standing institution with the snap of a finger and expect everything to go by perfectly alright.*

1777, Vermont.
1787, Northwest Territory of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin.

Regions that weren’t agricultural regions to begin with.

Maine joined the US as a free state in 1820

Yeah, in compensation for Missouri being a slave state.

First, it doesn't matter if they are agricultural. That does not make slavery moral. Second, you've probably never been to the north but there's a shitload of farms there. A couple hundred years ago there was a shitload more farms

First, it does matter if they are agriculturally

Agricultural regions tend to have an actual reason to have slavery exist.

Harvesting crops is labor-intensive, requiring hundreds of men to perform a task when compared to something like factory work.

Pennsylvania, 1780.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 1783.
Connecticut and Rhode Island, 1784.
New York, 1799.
New Jersey, 1804

The North has been more industrial than the south *because* they have less farmland.

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.