I dont think refusing to hire chimney sweep children had anything at all to do with the end of child labour. I can't even really comprehend this world view very well, though it is common.
Child labour ended around the time it wasnt needed, as did all phases of economic labour division (slavery, child labour, gendered labour, etc.).
In economic conditions which require poor quality labour, all you can do is decide whether you punish the poor or not. By refusing their labour, you're punishing them -- as much as refusing an oppressed minority work, on the grounds that their oppression exists.
A very bizarre thought, which I can only imagine stems from some misperceived impression of one's own importance, and confusing the emotional instinct to recoil from poverty with the moral impulse to do something about it.
So, slavery has existed for almost all of human history, and ended (yes, with a catalyst) during the height of the industrial revolution (when automation replaced the need for slave labour).
The american civil war wasnt the end of slavery, Britain ended slavery when as the controlling empire of the world, it made it illegal. It did so, in part, because it couldn't compete with slave-states on their export costs, had no significant dependence on slave labour, and was the heart of the new industrialisation which largely obsoleted it anyway.
France, which owned Haiti, did depend on slave labour -- and despite the French revolution which basically said all the "nice political stuff" --- they still couldn't end slavery. Initially they tried, but as soon as they realised Haiti was a cash cow, suddenly freedom became a French idea.
The US civil war was the american manifestation of those new economic conditions.
All of these systems: slavery, child labour, gendered division of labour -- etc. existed for basically all of human history; and still exist for large numbers of people today.
There were political events at the time of their obsolescence which were costly, sure -- as there will inevitably be when economic systems are obsoleted. The US south wasn't going to be able to compete on impoverished slave labour for very long.
I'm not exactly sure how you think history or economics works, but it has nothing to do with some self-righteous middle class people turning their noses up at chimney sweeps.
Child labour ended around the time it wasnt needed, as did all phases of economic labour division (slavery, child labour, gendered labour, etc.).
In economic conditions which require poor quality labour, all you can do is decide whether you punish the poor or not. By refusing their labour, you're punishing them -- as much as refusing an oppressed minority work, on the grounds that their oppression exists.
A very bizarre thought, which I can only imagine stems from some misperceived impression of one's own importance, and confusing the emotional instinct to recoil from poverty with the moral impulse to do something about it.