1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
stepladder [879]
3 years ago
10

The fur industry, unlike tobacco and cotton, did not rely on the slave trade. What was the most likely reason for this fact?

History
2 answers:
dlinn [17]3 years ago
5 0

i agree with what he said

Soloha48 [4]3 years ago
3 0
Farming things like tobacco and cotton was an undesirable activity, which most hated to do. The fur industry, which came from hunting, was a very fun thing to do. At this time, everyone enjoyed hunting because it was easy, and overall just a fun thing to do. Therefore, they would not hire slaves to do their hunting because it was not worth it.
You might be interested in
Why was the Free Soil Party, and Liberty Party important and major?
goldenfox [79]

Hey!

Answer:

Free-Soil Party, (1848–54), minor but influential political party in the pre-Civil War period of American history that opposed the extension of slavery into the western territories. Fearful of expanding slave power within the national government, Rep. David Wilmot of Pennsylvania in 1846 introduced into Congress his famous Wilmot Proviso, calling for the prohibition of slavery in the vast southwestern lands that had been newly acquired from Mexico. The Wilmot concept, which failed in Congress, was a direct ideological antecedent to the Free-Soil Party. Disappointed by the ambivalent position of the Whig Party toward slavery, “Conscience” Whigs held a convention in August 1848 at Buffalo, New York. There they were joined by delegates from 17 states drawn from the Liberty Party and the antislavery faction of the New York Democrats, known as “Barnburners.” The Free-Soilers’ historic slogan calling for “free soil, free speech, free labour, and free men” attracted small farmers, debtors, village merchants, and household and mill workers, who resented the prospect of black-labour competition—whether slave or free—in the territories.

In early 1840, abolitionists founded the Liberty Party as a political outlet for their antislavery beliefs. A mere eight years later, bolstered by the increasing slavery debate and growing sectional conflict, the party had grown to challenge the two mainstream political factions in many areas. In The Liberty Party, 1840–1848, Reinhard O. Johnson provides the first comprehensive history of this short-lived but important third party, detailing how it helped to bring the antislavery movement to the forefront of American politics and became the central institutional vehicle in the fight against slavery.

As the major instrument of antislavery sentiment, the Liberty organization was more than a political party and included not only eligible voters but also disfranchised African Americans and women. Most party members held evangelical beliefs, and as Johnson relates, an intense religiosity permeated most of the group’s activities. He discusses the party’s founding and its national growth through the presidential election of 1844; its struggles to define itself amid serious internal disagreements over philosophy, strategy, and tactics in the ensuing years; and the reasons behind its decline and merger into the Free Soil coalition in 1848.

<em>You can refer to these 3 paragraphs, </em>

<em>Hope it helps :)</em>

<em>Though I may be wrong :(</em>

<em>Have a great day!</em>

4 0
3 years ago
How did Abraham Lincoln affect the construction of the transcontinental railroad?
Oksana_A [137]
By <span>pushing for and overseeing its construction.</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Which did not happen during the English Civil War and Restoration?​
Serga [27]

king charles went to parliament and tried to arrest members who opposed his policies

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
It can be concluded that the intended purpose of the Missouri Compromise was to A. give the free states more votes in the Electo
Alex

Answer:  B. keep the balance of power in the Senate between the slave states and free states.

Further detail:

 The Missouri Compromise (1820) admitted Missouri into the Union as a slave state with Maine being added at the same time to keep the balance of slave and free states equal.  It also prohibited any future slave states north of the latitude line 36 1/2 degrees north of the equator in territories of the Louisiana Purchase, with the exception of Missouri (north of that line) being admitted as a slave state.  

8 0
3 years ago
Ethan Allens group of fighters
svp [43]
  With Benedict Arnold, he led the Green Mountain Boys to capture Fort Ticonderoga from the British in 1775.       Green Mountain Boys
3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why do you think the Spanish conquered the Aztec and the Inca instead of trading with them for gold and other resources? Write a
    12·2 answers
  • A community center that provided social services to the urban poor
    10·1 answer
  • president roosevelt and british prime minister churchill agreed to recongnize the government in poland but only if soviet leader
    6·1 answer
  • According to the 8th paragraph of the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, who is responsible for securing the
    11·1 answer
  • Which groups joined the <br> Upper class as a result of the British Industrial Revolution?
    10·1 answer
  • What did Ida M. Tarbell's investigations reveal?
    5·2 answers
  • 100 POINT PLEASE HELP AND BRAINLEST PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    7·2 answers
  • Does Pearson’s methodology as it is described in these and previous chapters align with the methodology suggested by “Archeology
    7·1 answer
  • Discussion Group 2.01
    5·2 answers
  • The fundamental difference in the way European and African cultures viewed slavery was that Europeans largely felt the 'pathway
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!