Answer:
The South benefited by keeping slave labor. The North did not.
Explanation:
The South relied on old money and land and power handed down through generations. The main industry of landowners was extensive arable farming. This required a high volume of manual labor. However, paying labor and fair working condition and equal rights would have reduced the labor and reduced a land owner’s capacity to make a profit. Slaves provided labor. The North developed a free-labor industrial economy. This benefited from manufacturing but also benefited from the employees to be able to spend money and make money for themselves and aid economic growth for the entire country.
I think they didn’t really have a judgement about who owned the land but had different tribes of different people, the different tribes might’ve had controversy against each other but that isn’t exactly known. Conflicts over the use and ownership of Native lands are not new. Land has been at the center of virtually every significant interaction between Natives and non-Natives since the earliest days of European contact with the indigenous peoples of North America. By the 19th century, federal Indian land policies divided communal lands among individual tribal members in a proposed attempt to make them into farmers. The result instead was that struggling tribes were further dispossessed of their land. In recent decades, tribes, corporations, and the federal government have fought over control of Native land and resources in contentious protests and legal actions, including the Oak Flat, the San Francisco Peaks Controversy, and the Keystone XL pipeline
Yes, at least, the colonists considered it so. It made it very difficult and expensive for all colonists to get goods.
