Today we discussed four conflicts that shaped the colonial world; Bacon's Rebellion, King Philips War, the "Glorious Revolution", and the English Civil War.
Each of these events happened independently with their own sets of circumstances leading up to them. However each of them play an important role in the build-up of tensions that ultimately result in Revolution. Take a minute and review what you've discovered and if you feel so inclined check them against what has been posted in the past. We will be discussing the events and their place in the grand scheme of things later this week.
REMINDERS:
Tuesday September 9th is the informational meeting for AP and Dual credit.
- SHS auditorium
- At 6:30
Notebook check tomorrow make sure your assignments are in order and complete.
- Expectations Notes
- Empathy Essay
- Pre-Columbian research
- Columbian exchange notes
- Collision of Cultures G.O.
- Colonial Society Notes
- Settlement of colonies G.O.
- Unit 1 Quiz
- Colonial Conflict G.O.
HOMEWORK - Will check for completion September 12th.
You will need to complete the following readings and reply on the blog (on this post) to the subsequent question. In addition you are asked to reply to one of your classmates to further the discussion. You may have to make a new blogspot account to post, if so make sure you include the following; Your class period, first initial, and last name.
Respond : To what extent did the development of slavery contribute to the economic, social, and political organization of the southern colonies.
Address the following in your response; (prior knowledge and reading)
- Theory of mercantilism
- Reasons for settlement of the Chesapeake region
- Relationship with Native Americans
- Why elites came from Europe to the Americas? became what sort of land owner?
Finally: Comment on one classmates response to the question. Please keep it civil, to keep the discussion flowing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBan-Jian Pan 5th Period
ReplyDeleteElites came to the Americas with the idea of getting wealthy, and with the help of free labor they could mass produce crops and get very wealthy off of that. The British also had a desire to get wealthy. So the government passed laws on the colonies saying that they could only trade with Britain, their mother country. The British government also passed the staple law which basically forced the colonist to buy goods from British merchants, including slaves. Slavery contributed alot in the southern agricultural based economy. And because slavery made large Plantation owners very wealthy, this created a social heiarchy, with slaves being at the bottom, then the free whites that had to work their way to get to the new world, then the lesser wealthy whites and finally the very wealthy.
And where are your natives in all of this? Native Americans had a pretty big role in the early days of the colonies. In the first year of a colony's establishment, an alliance with a local tribe could make or break a colony. The colonists were pretty helpless, after all: low food, weakened by long periods in close confinement with other people, and no shelter, while the locals were well-adapted and stable. The Europeans were lucky the natives were initially friendly, since a hostile tribe could wipe out a colony in a few months. That's the theory as to what happened to England's first colony, Roanoke. Look it up sometime, it's a pretty intriguing story.
Delete@Ms. Croll - Bare in mind the question above is asking about slavery. Even in regards to native relations your answers should come back to the idea of forced labor.
DeleteI agree with your ideas. Good job!
DeleteS.Rivera 5tth
ReplyDeleteSlavery contributed positively to the economy and collapsed the social and political structure in the southern colonies. The economy was based on crop growing agriculture and required much maintenance to strive. The owners of the plantations found a temporary solution in buying slaves that would do the work. The view that slaves were only property started the rebellions for equality. The slaves started rebellions that damaged crops, the population and buildings. After the social society was split, politically colonies that differed in their beliefs of how slaves should be equal or not started a feud. Sides were taken and the government went into a downward spiral because of the social unrest of its people.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeletePlease make sure your replies generate discussion for your peers.
DeleteShayne Newton 5th
ReplyDeletethe southern area of the colones in the US noticing the way crops grew in thier region and quickly to advantige if this. Richer setlers set up mega plantations, theis requierd a very big work force. Looking for the chepist way the owners turn to chep labor, slaves. In the north not being so good in the ag factor found no need for so many slaves as the south did thus seperating the two fore a very long time. Now the slaves could only be purchased from the English, why you ask. Well the colony was English and them being greedy made it to were the English could only trade with the English, same for the french and the spanish at this time. An amazing view of the native population was that nothing belonged to you, every thing is of this earth we only borow it for a short time be for it is retuned to the earth. So the whole slavery thing did not blow over very well with them. As well as the newer colonists not adapting tho the ways and traditions of the orignal colonists. leading to the eventual disruction of the good relatuionship of the natives and colonists.
Sometimes the relationships between colonists and Native Americans wasn't so good in the first place. While the New England colonies tended to be on friendlier terms with the natives--Pennsylvania especially--the southern colonies were much more hostile towards their neighbors. One of the first things the Jamestown colony did after it got its footing in the New World was start a fight with the Powhatan tribe, after all.
DeleteIn addition, slavery was minimal further north, as well as in Georgia initially. The northern economy was focused more on using the natural resources around them, such as timber or fishing, and on making use of natural harbors to control the British colonies' trade. Which, I might add, was a very successful endeavor; the southern colonies had only one or two ports, total, while the northern ones had Boston, New York, and the Philadelphia port on the Delaware River, all within a few hundred miles of one another.
Also, the view of the land belonging to everyone wasn't unique to the Americas; I can think of several African and Asian groups with similar worldview until contact with land-grabbing Europeans.
Christine C. 8th period
ReplyDeleteThe idea of mercantilism is that one entity, be it a person, a company, or a country, can only grow and profit at the expense of others. This idea was central to the development and role of British colonies all over the world. They were set up as places to send the poor, the unwanted; as refuges for people with different beliefs; but even overseas, there was no true escape from the ruling class of the motherland. As the center of the economy, all profits went to the motherland. Colonists were restricted in who they could sell to and what they could sell. Raw products from the colonies, such as timber or cotton, were sold to British merchants at low prices; and returned as the finished product, e.g. a chair, and sold back to colonists at high prices.
This cycle wasn't good for anyone involved. Colonial economies suffered, relationships between colony and homeland suffered. Many shipping companies turned to smuggling to increase profits, flying Dutch flags on their ships to avoid detection, and selling to 'enemies' such as the Spanish and French. Punishments for true entrepreneurship were swift and brutal. And the people eventually came to resent the faraway government that, while they responded slowly to any requests made, they were quick to impose restrictions on economic and political freedoms.
A very nice topic on the social aspect, but In my case I am wondering about the economical aspect on the European side. If you looked at if from their point of view the colonies were one of the ultimate money farms of their time. Other than that, good points on the smuggling and illegal trading.
DeleteThanks for the critique, I'll make sure to keep that in mind for later. The colonies were indeed European money farms, more so than anywhere else has been before or will be again until humankind moves off-planet. However, eventually English markets became so flooded with American goods that prices on just about everything went down on both sides of the Atlantic. While this might sound like a good thing, the only ones who really benefited from the colonies were the already-rich merchants and, of course, the government. The common man didn't really benefit from the colonies unless he moved there.
DeleteI agree with Dylan's note about the smuggling and illegal trading, I do not see many posts mentioning those factors and they are quite important when it comes to mercantilism. However, England saw the Americas as way to make money. Yes, they did not seem to have much care for it, though the only people they forced to go to the Americas were the prisoners which they began sending to the colonies for slave labor before they pushed for the slave trade.
Deletekassedi mickle 3rd period
ReplyDeleteMercantilism was created to ensure the British that the colonies would always depend on them for trade.This however was not true in the end because the colonist began trading with natives and other people. the colonist had a civil relationship with natives in the beginning because they traded but after a while the colonist wanted more land and the natives stood in the way which caused tension and battles.In the Chesapeake region the colonists were very dependent on agriculture and they had a large amounts of crops that needed to be tended to,which in turn lead to slavery being a huge aspect in the southern colonies.slavery effected the economy in a positive way because it sped up production and most of all it was free.the effect slavery had on the social and political organization of the southern colonies was the complete opposite it drove them apart. the southern colonies did not have a sense of community like the northern colonies.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeletePlease make sure your replies generate discussion for your peers.
Deletei agree with the mercantilish idea you have , and how the battle uprises when they were trading slaves.
DeleteWhile southern communities weren't quite as close-knit as northern ones, they did have their own sense of community and belonging. This is evidenced by Bacon's Rebellion, which was the first 'true' colonial rebellion and happened in Virginia. A rebellion has no momentum without people coming together and pushing the issue, otherwise it's just a single loudmouth running around complaining.
DeleteD. Hill 8th period
ReplyDeleteJust like most other situations like this in history, it was all about money and greed. Mercantilism in this topic is seen through the eyes of the Europeans who saw the New World as a easy way to make a name for themselves/lots of potential money through domination of trade, and manufacturing/agriculture in the lands they claimed for their nations. In the case of the Chesapeake region, most people were dependent on agriculture and as a result of mercantilism, were isolated from other trading parties. Relations with the natives were actually friendly in the beginning, but as time went on hostilities would begin to rise and sadly the Europeans prevailed. Finally, slavery as we know was how the settlers mass produced their products through cheap labor, but at the time this was a normal thing so their society viewed it as a just thing...
I agree that it was just a normal thing at first.... But keeping these people uneducated and splitting up families helped people see how unjust this system was. It eventually led to rebellions for equality and caused the colonies to divide and take sides on the topic: should they become equals, or are they just property?
DeleteS. Coyle 5th
I don't agree with what you wrote about making a lot of money not everyone that went to the New world made "a name for themselves" some people make a really sad amount of money and ended up living very differently from wealthy land owners.
DeleteP.Avalos 8th
I agree with Sam in that it WAS normal at first--in most colonies. Even some of the 'non-slave' northern colonies allowed slavery up until the early 1800's, I believe, with the major exception being Pennsylvania where the practice was highly frowned upon. Also, the mass-production of good was, again, a thing of the south with their plantations. All that northern lumber? Teams of freemen went into the forest and cut it down by hand.
DeleteI agree with what paulina said, not everyone came to the new world to get rich and all. Some came for religious purpose. And what about the political contributions that the slaves made?
DeleteBan-Jian and Paulina have good points, some of them didn't just come over to be rich, but besides religion, and money, they came over for the glory, remember the 3 G's, god, gold, and glory, the Glory in it being expanding their claim to the land and gaining all new resources to trade back to their mother country. Plus, I'm sure there were those who went seeking thrills and adventure, it's just natural when something new comes along that some people seek it out for thrills and adventure.
DeleteIsrael Valdez 5th
i also agree with Israel about the 3 G's. also Not all people came to the new world for money, lots of settlers came to the new world because they wanted religious freedom.
Deletekassedi mickle 3rd
I too agree with Israel. Not everybody just cared of finding treasure and becoming wealthy. There was those who seeked for religious freedom, adventure, and just a fresh start.
DeleteWhile the core tenants of Mercantalism were in fact wealth and greed, most Europeans saw it as a way to support their country and ensure that those back home were afforded all the luxuries they could ever need
DeleteIsrael has a good point. There might have been plenty of people who came to the new world for money, but others came due to religious persecution and just for a chance for a new life.
DeleteB. McAnulty 6th period
DeleteI agree with Malerie to a certain extent, however, I don't believe they wanted to support their country, especially if the reason they are in America is because they were trying to escape the persecution that their country was putting upon them.
C.Collazo 3rd period
DeleteI agree with Briley about them not wanting to support their country, but I also agree with Israel about them coming to the new world for wealth. If you just focus on them coming because of wealth then you could compare it to modern time because you have a lot of people that move from place to place in search of money and a better life.
H. Schievelbein 3rd period
DeleteI agree with Briley; I don't believe they saw it as a way to support their country because they intentionally escaped their country. I also agree with Israel. Yes most of them came for wealth but others came for other reasons such as religious purposes or just a better way of life.
I agree with Malerie that the Europeans were greedy and money hungry but I disagree that they wanted to support the country they wanted so badly to leave that some willingly became endentured slaves just so they could be free eventually.
DeleteI agree with Briley in that most were trying to avoid religious persectuion and that is why they came to the new world. Thus they really didn't want to send money and goods back to the mother country
DeleteIsrael Valdez 5th Period
ReplyDeleteSlavery, while offering cheap labor, did not improve the economic standing of the colonists, in all actuality it just set them up for the rebellions which came from the Africans for equality, and freedom. The slaves didn't help them much, because the British still had a bunch of unfair laws which led to the colonists, being royally (pun intended) screwed. They always got the short end of the economic stick, and sadly the slave labor only really helped a little bit, the free labor was good and helped them make more money, but they were still not getting good prices from the mother country. The British followed their beliefs in Mercantilism, which forbade the colonists from really being able to benefit from trade at all as they weren't allowed to trade with anyone but the British, leading to dirt poor prices, which could only be profitable when sold in mass quantities. They enslaved Native Americans more in the central area of where they had colonized, they dared not do it on the borders, and while this again helped them a bit by adding cheap labor, it once again caused political problems down the line, leading to Natives and Europeans and Colonists all getting into it with each other. The Elites came to the Americas to make more money, and to own more land, it was also a place to set up shop for their own beliefs, Catholic outposts, protestant outposts, quaker outposts, they all existed, and they were part of the huge reasons for people to move into the colonies, plus the promise of large plots of land for relatively cheap prices got many people excited to go over, buy the land, and begin farming it to increase their investment. They were then seperated between two kinds of land owners, the poor subsistence farmers who only made for them and their family, barely having enough left over to sell, and then the wealthy plantation owners, who's acres upon acres of land was tended for by free slave labor causing these land owners to become really rich really quick.
yes they were not getting good prices from the mother country which actually led to them tradeing and selling to other countrys which in turn led to the molasses act but other then that ur one point
DeleteThe development of slavery contributed significantly to the economies of the southern colonies. The Chesapeake Bay Area was a swampy area where small time farmers farmed as a way to survive. Because they were heavily dependent on agriculture, they wanted cheap labor - thus, slaves were the answer. They were very cheap labor and caused a social gap between the rich and the poor. England controlled the trade by only allowing the colonies to trade with them. This boosted England’s economy and caused a lot of unrest upon the people in the colonies. England used mercantilism to better off their country. This is where the colonies compete with one another to bring goods to the mother country. The mother country would then turn around and sell the goods for a profit thus cheating the colonists. On the bright side, this guaranteed trade for the colonies. The colonists were originally friendly with the natives, because they needed their help in surviving the land; when the natives became useless to the now adjusted colonists, their relationships turned hostile. Elites came from England and became plantation owners and therefore enforced the already growing social gap between those fortunate, and those who were enslaved.
ReplyDeleteK. Villarreal period 2nd
DeleteYes I agree with what you are saying with the social gap between the rich and the poor because of the slaves, but without the slaves do you think the social gap would have been as widely there? And although the slaves were cheap labor they weren't necessarily cheap, because they were forced to work so it's more like free against their will labor you know?
Without the slaves, there probably would have been little to no social gap at all. Our whole society today would be different if it weren't for slaves.
DeleteHuston Haas 3rd
Exactly, there would be no socail standings or "classes" as we know of in todays society if there were not the rich and the slaves..
DeleteWhile society would be very different, suggesting that slavery is the only reason for the origination of class separation in the new world would not be an easy thesis to defend. Social divisions were deeply engrained European traditions that despite the "goal" of equality are hard to get rid of entirely.
DeleteI agree with what Huston is saying, about how our society would be totally different if there hadn't been any slaves. However I also agree with Mr. Womack and how the European traditions of equality would have been hard to abolish.
DeleteLannette Bone 5th
**S. Coyle 5th
ReplyDeleteThe extent to slavery economically is that it cost the plantation owners more money when they were no longer slaves. But it helped the circulation of the current. the slave trade brought free labor to the plantation owner. and the white people thought they got a good deal because the slavers were suppose to be slaves for so long but the white people got the salves they were slaves for ever. But politically it started a war by even the thought of freeing the slaves. called the civil war. most of the political government were slave owners so most of them did not want slaves.and socially it divited the community when the slaves were set free. and when they were actually slaves the socialibility were high amoung the slave owner.
ReplyDeletePaulina Avalos 8th
ReplyDeleteChesapeake was a place were the labor was cheap which meant they had slaves and the people also farmed for there food.The relationship with the natives was interesting to say the least the Spanish colonies enlisted the natives and went to convert the natives to Catholicism as well as recruit them as agriculture workers. The theory of Mercantilism is basically that the colonist were not aloud to benefit form trade unless it was trade with the British which led to bad low prices. The Elites came to America to make money and they were plantation owners and well as poor land owners.
To interpret slavery as "cheap labor" instead of forced free labor is incorrect, slaves in Chesapeake were payed nothing and worked until they died or could not work any longer. I however agree with your explanation of Mercantilism to a certain degree, I agree that the colonists were put into an unfavorable trade position. I however do not agree that their trade with the British was beneficial, even when the colonists traded with Britian they still got in simple terms ripped off, which is why the colonies started trading against british law e.g. triangle trade. This economic tension caused by the British contributed to the growing hate of England in the colonies.
DeleteTrue, the slaves were payed nothing and their labor was "free" in that aspect, but the plantation owners did have to buy the slaves, so you could say from their point of view that while it was cheap, it wasn't free, because they did still have to pay. I agree with both of your explanations of mercantilism, though. Since the British were the colonies' only buyer, they could get away with buying for very low prices, which naturally led to the smuggling that Jeff mentioned.
DeleteWhile the plantation owners did have to purchase these slaves, they did not have to purchase the slaves children and were even allowed to sell them to make profit for themselves. So while the plantation owners did have to purchase them at one point they end up making more money off the slaves than they purchased them for by selling them or their children and using them to do all of their labor.
Deleteslavery is a big topic to discuss for just one person but is a necessary topic to discuss when the elites came over looking for land to make plantations to make money so they ended up sometimes using natives as slaves but this didn't make the natives to happy so this arangements ended badly
ReplyDeleteI agree with your ideas in this post, but you didn't mention the idea of mercantilism which played a major role in the need of free labor in the first place.
DeleteAlso what about the African American slaves and the reason for settlement of the Chesapeake region?
DeleteI agree with what you said in the post you didn't recognize the idea of mercantilism which played a major role in free labor.
DeleteThe idea of slavery, used on both the native american and African peoples, in the colonial period of America brought about faster production of crops which would contribute to the Chesapeake region's economy. Not only that, but slavery was key to developing the early views of the enslaved people by the white colonists; they were a lesser people than they, because they had darker skin. Noting this, it should be acknowledged that because of this dermatological difference, certain political rights were never given to these slaves - such as voting with the town, and individual rights in the colonies. With slavery in mind, the Chesapeake region was home to quite a few due to the richer soil which made for more fertile farmland. Keeping in mind that slavery also extended out to the natives, it would be imagined that the relationship between the colonies was not very good. Forced labor isn't really something people like. The land owners of these slaves were the rich, white elites that had come from Europe seeking to make profit - a profit that was dashed due to the English parliament's decision to enforce mercantilism which forced the colonies to trade only with England. Due to this action, it would cause some tension later on in the colonies.
ReplyDeleteMr. Schwen. U.S. History 7th Period
K. Moreno 8th
ReplyDeleteThe theory of Mercantilism was an economic theory. Colonist were to only trade with the British and not benefit from trade. This led to many colonist to get ripped off, which caused colonist to trade against the British law. The Elites came to America to become wealthy and they were plantation owners some successful others not so much.
In the Chesapeake region they had richer soil that made it more possible to grow crops and have success. With all this farmland it needed lots of work and what better way to save money than free labor? Slavery was the golden ticket to become wealthy at Chesapeake.
Slavery was a big boost to the economy, but the complete opposite to the social and political organizations of the southern colonies. It brought free labor to their large plantations that needed lots of maintenance to prosper. Slavery drove apart their community bond over keeping slaves as property or give them their freedom.
The colonist and natives were friendly with each other at first, but with "I need their help to survive" in their minds. When they no longer needed each other or really the whites didn't need them they wanted to take their land which destroyed the somewhat kind, friendly relationship to battles and wars.
The English colonies were founded on the idea of mercantilism: the colonists created raw materials and could only sell them to England for very low prices, and then had to buy back manufactured goods from England for extremely high prices. Elites came to the colonies to become wealthy from plantations, and many did, but mercantilism still stunted economic growth in the colonies. England bought the crops from their plantations at very low prices, meaning they had to grow enormous quantities to make any kind of real profit, and slavery was what allowed them to do that. With forced labor they started to really make a profit off of farming. I'm not defending slavery, obviously, but because of the cultural disconnect and resulting lack of empathy it probably seemed like the best option at the time.
ReplyDeleteAlex Seaton 3rd.
DeleteIt wasn't fair that the colonists had to sell goods for cheap and then buy them for more. That's what drove them to the black market
I'm sorry Mr. Womack I don't know why I'm showing up as Elizabeth Dietrich. But I promise its Alex Seaton!!!
Deleteok its fixed
DeleteHaha nice work!
DeleteAlex Seaton 3rd Period
ReplyDeleteThe theory of mercantilism for the British was a way to enrich the homeland above all else. It made sure that the colonies could only buy and trade with the homeland. Eventually the British no longer paid them as well for their goods and the colonists turned to the black market. People who wanted to expand and have more land traveled to the south. This lead to confrontations with the natives. At first the natives were kind to the struggling colonists but when the colonist started expanding and showing hostility their relationship went sour. The Chesapeake region had a good climate and better soil for agricultural use than the north. Many colonists and the European Elites went to the south to cultivate agriculture. The elites came here because they were second sons in Britain Meaning they wouldn't Inherait any land of their own. So they came to the south to get their own. The elites became wealthy landowners of huge plantations. Slaves were extremely useful on plantations and were great for the economy. They were a source of free labor that could work any time, all the time. Slavery was horrible for the social and political organization of the southern colonies. Slaves were treated like dirt and whites thought they were above them. This tore the social and political structure apart.
Slavery had a big affect on the natives economy. Mercantilism was the main economic source of the natives, specifically the use and belief of profitable trading it was meant to bring wealth and great economy to England. Whenever the indentured servant system failed they had to start taxing, so they started own slaves illegally to avoid the taxation. Although some did come for religious purposes.
ReplyDeleteThe Chesapeake Region settled when they did the separate themselves form the south, although the north did to believe in slavery the south believed in it more so and the north wasn't too fond of that.
Naturally new settlers did cause a little bit of friction and hostility with the natives, but it wasn't as extreme as some cases.
Third period, sorry my bad
DeleteRemember, please only leave comments that further discussion.
DeleteI agree slavery had a big effect on the natives economy but I think it had an ever bigger effect on plantation owners because they deepened on slaves for their livelihood.
DeleteThats a great point Ms. Garrett, the dependency on the slave trade was one of the primary reasons that the South was so entrenched and apposed to abolition, which of course was the driving factor in the mid 19th century behind secession and ultimately the civil war.
DeletePaul Polcyn 3rd
ReplyDeleteThe southern colonies were settled mostly by the elites who settled in the south because of the good farmland (perfect for tobacco plantations). The elites knew that because of the idea of mercantilism there wasn't much control over the trade and selling of their products, so the only way to make more money was to grow more tobacco. The Europeans attempted to use natives as labor forces but this lead to a lot of conflict. The introduction of slavery introduced a source of free labor which increased profits even more. Slavery stripped all slaves of any sort of political or economic freedoms and lead to the Europeans treating themselves as far superior to the slaves who were sometimes viewed as animals rather than human beings.
Very well said Paul, you really did your research! :) you rock.
DeleteKelly Casey 3rd period
To be an explorer in the 18th century meant to opportunity to see the world, meet new people, then enslave them and steal their resources for personal profit and the well being of the crown. The core fundamentals of mercantilism have always been the acquisition of resources for ones Mother Country (although the one getting the resources doesn't exactly starve either) no matter what the cost. Human or otherwise. This system lead to the institution of slavery in the Southern American Colonies. Rich, white landowners would travel across the Atlantic in order to purchase a nice piece of property in the south (mostly due to it's fertile soil and hospitable climate) to use in the cultivation of cotton and tobacco. The increasing amount of farmland meant that a larger work force was needed to farm said land. A workforce that didn't yet exist in the south at the time. With no other (affordable) options, the plantation owners turned to Western African slave traders to make up the difference. Before the turn of the century, slaves would make up a large portion of the south's population and almost it's entire rural work force. The increased African population lead to the formation of the familiar African-American culture that we see in the south today. The increase in slaves also meant that the politicians of the south were much more concerned in matters regarding regulation and taxes. This lead to the Anti-Federalist movement and eventually culminated in the American Civil War. The wide increase in population also meant that more land was needed. Land that belonged to the Native Americans. This need for land will lead to a century and a half of bloody conflict between white settlers and Native Americans
ReplyDeleteSorry, Malerie Crow, 8th period
DeleteGreat reply! Gale to see you're keeping up! Feel better soon.
DeleteThe development of slavery is what saved the colonies when the idea of mercantilism was so heavily enforced. The only way to make a even a small amount of money was to mass produce crops for cheap labor. Which leads into why the elites came to America, to make money through plantations. There was also a lot of hostility towards the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Codi that slavery was a key aspect on the idea of mercantilism. With out slaves there wouldn't have been such a huge success in becoming wealth. However I don't believe the natives were paid for their services if they were I think the Europeans wouldn't have been as violent to them as they were. The slaves were there by force not choice.
DeleteSorry Lyndsea Lomas 6th
DeleteI agree, however their relationship with the Natives was peaceful at first because they needed their help, but soon led to hostility afterwards because they didn't need the Native's help anymore once they got the hang of things.
DeleteC. Coyle 5th
I agree with the mass production of crops had to be done in order to make money, but what I think is a key point is the fact that when the Natives let the colonists settle in their region, they had a fair bond until slavery came about once the plantations were made by the Elites.
DeleteS. Marek 2nd
Ronnie Clark 8th
DeleteSlavery did make the colonies very successful in the short term, but it hurt them in the long run as did their hostility towards the Natives. Even a colony like Pennsylvania founded on Quaker values like pacifism over time grew a disdain for the Native Americans once, as Cassie said, the colonists didn't need the Native's help anymore. This seems like a very underhanded thing to do, using people until they are no longer needed, which occurred both in slavery and relations with the Natives, but it falls right into the Mercantilist values that were popular at the time.
Lyndsea Lomas 6th
ReplyDeleteMercantilism was the theory of trade in order to increase a nations economy. The main reason for settling in Chesapeake was that it gave them access to harbors, and the land was fertile which was good for farming. The Europeans relationship with the native american's was in my opinion completely barbaric. They forced them in to labor, working in harsh conditions. Not caring if they live or die as long as they make a profit. However the Europeans eventually realized that in order to have a workable relationship with the natives they needed to treat them with respect and dignity, as they did the whites. Sure slavery did gradually increase the Europeans economy, but socially it caused problems, it brought about the fear of slave revolts and retaliation, putting a strain on the plantations overall atmosphere. The elites came to america to make money in order to have a wealthy economy which eventually lead to them being plantation owners.
Mercantilism was a huge factor in the colonies because the colonies could only trade with Great Britain, or else they could get fined or sent to jail. Adding on to that, some of the colonists actually had good relations with the natives, like how some of the colonists traded with the Indians. On the other hand there were plenty of colonists who were on bad terms with the Natives over things like land disputes and other stuff. Some colonists even went as far as making the natives slaves instead of buying slaves from Great Britain. Also, the Elites came to the New World to make more money aka: plantation owners. Slavery contributed to the economy because farming required labor, which in turn is why the slaves were needed. The way slaves were treated is what lead to people being angry due to equal rights. Since buying slaves from England wasn't cheap, Colonists enslaved Native Americans which lead to feuds between the Indians and the colonists.
ReplyDelete6th Period.
DeleteT. Donhauser 8th
ReplyDeleteThe Chesapeake region was known for their abundance of land. Elites moved to the southern colonies to take this land and make it into large plantations. Colonists sold cheap raw materials to England, who then took these raw materials and made manufactured goods that were sold back to them at high prices. This had a poor impact on their economy since profits from these farms were low. Slavery did help to make the economy better by allowing them cheap labor which helped to make more profit from farming. However, the social and political organization was suffering because the whites were considered superior to the slaves and gave them no empathy.
I agree with your thoughts on the effects of slavery economically but what effect would whites being superior to slaves have on the colonies socially and politically? And what about the relationship between the colonist and Native Americans?
DeleteBriley McAnulty 6th Period
ReplyDeleteWhen the 2nd Sons came to the new world they were looking for land and a place to finally call their own. They wanted to be able to own something that wasn't going to be given to their older brother, so they came here, or more precisely the Chesapeake Area. The Chesapeake Area offered great farm land and rich soil. They thought it was fantastic until they met the Natives. When the Natives came along, the Europeans decided that violence was the only answer, since they had been filled with violent, anti-native propaganda. So they fought the Natives off of their land. The score seemed to be Settlers-1, New Land-0. But then their old families and friends started telling them what they could sell, who they could sell it to, and what price they could sell it for. They started losing money faster than a teenage girl in Sephora. They decided that they needed a new, cheap labor force. So they bought slaves. Sure the slaves were treated like property and told that they weren't real people, but the colonists were starting to make a little bit of money again. Slavery saved the South! It created a new way for the colonists to make money and they actually had a reason to leave there 15-20 acres and meet with people, so that they could buy more slaves. The South built its economy and social structure around slaves and without them, the South would be a little hole in the wall instead the vivacious culture it is today!
I agree with what you have to say about slavery and it did save the south. It was cheaper and it got what they needed done.
DeleteEnglish elites settled in the Chesapeake region to make more money. There was fertile land for farming, and there were ports near by to trade with England. By with mercantilism in place these elites had to turn to slave trade to make money, because with free labor, you make more of a profit. This changed the economy because the colonies were producing mass amounts of raw materials. Because of these mass amounts of materials the colonists started trading with the natives, thus putting them on good terms with one another. The trading with the natives changed the culture of the people in the area because each group started picking up on each others cultures in order for relations to stay good.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what lee ha to say, but I feel that was more of the situation in the north
DeleteS. Conrey 3rd
ReplyDeleteThe cheapskate land in the New World was know for its fertile soil and abundance if land. So of course the english who settled in this area took advantage of that. Thy began to grow raw materials which they traded with their homeland (England). But because they cost of labor was becoming more costly and because they were only allowed to trade with their homeland their economic advantage began to decrease. So as a result if this they began to secretly trade with other countries and thy also began to use the Natives and African Americans as slave in order to have cheaper labor.
to under stand the reasons for elites of england to come to america we must first understand mercantilism. what mercantilism is the belif that there was a finite amount of wealth in the world and every nation was in competion for their share on the wealth. the chesapeake region had some of the most fertile soil in the new world so settlers could grow bountiful crops. the relations with native americans at first was peaceful. they traded a little but manly left the colonists to their own devices. this all contributed to the elites wanting to come to america and and grow their wealth beyond their imagining. these elites realized that the most profitable way to make money was to run plantaions but they would need a cheap labor force. the answer was slaves. this would lead to a an economic boom for the elites as well as the region. it also lead to discrimination towards the slaves as the free men of the region saw them as inferior. with elites making most of the money they would have most of the power.
ReplyDeleteyou are right and due to mercantilism the race for wealth forced these plantation owners to find the cheapest form of labor which at the time was slavery
DeleteO. Price 2nd Period
ReplyDeleteMercantilism was a way to help boost their way of life and to improve it. The Cheaspeake region had good land for farming which was a good reason to settle there.They soon were able to produce to an abundant amount of raw materials. Eventually the British had too many goods from the colonists and they had to turn to the black market. Some colonists had good relations with the natives but others did not and they used them as slaves for cheap labor.
I agree with what you are saying, but how did the slaves help them accomplish what they needed to?
DeleteS. Marek 2nd
ReplyDeleteWhen found in the Americas, the Chesapeake region had fertile soil to grow crops and had enough land to settle on. For the colonists that came and settled, the Natives, that were there before the colonists were, had helped them. The fertile land was good to grow many crops for trading amongst them. Both the colonists and the Natives had traded and had good relations. The Elites from England, however, came to create and own plantations to make more money. For their plantations, the thought of slavery became higher since there was such cheap labor. Mercantilism became part of the idea. In order to make a good profit from such low sell prices, there was to be lots of crops to be grown. To achieve this, the Natives were then used as slaves for the plantations which then caused the relationship between them and the English to break apart.
The natives and European settlers didn't start off on a good foot because of how they tried to dominate the natives by taking their land. Slavery also started before mercantilism.
DeleteSierra Mikulenka 6th period
Yes I believe natives were slaves, but the white settlers also imported many laborers. Enslaved Africans became high in populations and would later declare their rights and freedoms.
DeleteAlthough I do not agree with slavery, I believe that it was a necessary part of the southern colonies. Because the middle class came with money to buy land and become someone, this led to an increase need for slaves to maintain the crops, and provide labor. Slavery obviously contributed largely to the agriculture part of the economy. Having good soil in the South, led to them having a plantation based economy, and the cheap labor was the clear choice when having to make what little profit they could from getting ripped off by mercantilism: being only allowed to trade with England. Slavery created quite a social stir. It divided up the colonists as to whether they thought the slaves to be equal, or considered property. This later led to rebellions for equality. It also created a wider gap between the rich and the poor. This led to a disruption in their political organization as well. Their relationship with the Native Americans was peaceful at first with the Indians taking pity on them, but turned hostile because the Europeans conflicted with them. Elites came from Europe to the Americas to become wealthy land owners.
ReplyDeleteC. Coyle 5th
Due to mercantilism they were able to increase their way of life. While the southern colonies had better plantations due to the fertile soil, which they were able to produce tobacco. They would have huge plantations and the only way they could make a profit was by slaves. After a couple of years England started to lower the prices so the colonies were technically giving them all their goods. This was the start of the black market where they would trade with other countries and the natives.
ReplyDeleteWhile tobacco was a staple that was grown, the soil was terrible after harvesting it. You have to take the entire plant when harvesting, and due to this, there was nothing to give back into the soil. Production slowed, and other products, like cotton were grown in place.
DeleteMany people who came to the Americas were middle class, average Joes that wanted money and, for some, freedom to practice their own religion. At first, they had quarrels with the natives because the Europeans just came in and took the land as if it belonged to them and didn't want to work with the Indians. After a while, the settlers and the Indians learned how to work together and respect each others' ways. Some settlers even participated in the Indian's ceremonies. After a while, though, newer settlers came to the Americas and refused to learn the Indian's ways. Later, Britain started being more strict with who the colonists could trade with and implemented their whole idea of mercantilism, which lead to the colonists not making as much money. The colonists, trying to maximize their profits, began buying slaves (some even forcing Indian's into 'slavery' *) and stopped hiring as many indentured servants because owning someone was cheaper than paying someone to work. Afterward, the colonists relied heavily on slaves to make them money and support their way of life.
ReplyDelete* I put slavery in quotations because when we think of slaves today, we think of the traditional African American as a slave. But the Indian's, though not always thought of as slaves, could be forced into the same type of situation
5th Period btw . . .
DeleteI agree with some of your information, but slavery(early 1600's) started before mercantilism(1650).
DeleteSierra Mikulenka 6th period
Sierra Mikulenka 6th period
ReplyDeleteThe development of slavery positively contributed to the economic, social, and political organization of the southern colonies. Economically, slaves were a cheap and effective way of mass production. Native American Indians were also a cheaper labor source than shipping African slaves to The New World. European colonist could easily overtake a tribe of Indians, so they did.
Politically and socially, slaves were not seen as a good thing. The northern colonies didn't approve of slaves like the South did, but that doesn't mean the North never owned slaves. In today's time slaves seem taboo, but in the 15th-18th century slaves were an "accepted" way of life.
Because of mercantilism, Great Britain controlled The New World colonies' economy. This economic system wasn't a "great" idea because it limited the full trade income products could bring.
Europeans came to The New World and settled in the Chesapeake region because of the fertile land, which meant the settlers could easily become successful farmers. But not everyone succeeded in The New World.
At first, the French were actually in good relations with the Indians. Some even chose to marry within the tribes. The French recognized the importance of treating the Indian Chief well and even took part in some ceremonies. It wasn't until later when the British became more dominant in the area that they tried to overpower the Indians. However, after a while, they learned what the French knew and began getting along with the Indians as well. After the population of the British grew, the newer settlers didn't learn the Indian's ways as well and the Indians were treated badly which destroyed the friendly relationship between the colonists and the Indians.
Delete5th Period
Thanks for the new information
DeleteK. Fransen 2nd period
ReplyDeleteThe English settled in the Chesapeake Region because there was lots of good land and was close to water. They used Mercantilism to try to get the colonies to be only dependent on trade from the native land. This helps Britain, their homeland's economy. The British started farming and growing crops to trade. As the colonists were trying to save money slavery started growing because slaves were a source of very cheap labor.
I agree with your point, but did they only come for land? Also what about the natives?
DeleteWhat about the relations with the natives? The colonists planted tobacco, and although it was a huge cash crop, it ended up being detrimental to their plantations. The natives planted crops like corn, beans and squash which helped keep their soil fertilized and healthy. The colonists should have followed the native's methods, as they clearly knew what they were doing.
DeleteM.Martinez 5th period
DeleteThe English did travel to the Chesapeake region for good land, but it was also in a great location for trading with other Native Americans
K. Villarreal period 2nd
ReplyDeleteThe theory of mercantilism was the way that the mother country could receive and make the most amount of money. The mother country should export more goods for trade and import less from other nations more money coming in less money going out. They would make what they felt their people needed that way they did not have to trade with other nations. Reasons for settlement in the Chesapeake region was the land was good for agriculture and it was the bay which has an easy access to harbors, which is good for trade and importing slaves. Slaves contributed positively to the economy in the south because they were mainly free labor the European elites did not care how they treated them they just wanted the slaves to work in their farms. The slaves were often worked to death. Slaves owners treated their slaves very poorly, which caused an uprising in the workforce, with the slaves not cooperating with the owners damage was done to the crops. There was social and political disputes on whether or not the slaves should be treated equally as the rest of the world. Everyone took their own side on what they felt was right and it ultimately ended in chaos. The elites came over to the new world because they wanted to be wealthier and have something to inherit because they were second sons most of them were not going to get anything. Their relationships with the natives start out good as they the elites got to learn the way of life and how to survive and adapt in the area they were in they did not feel the need to keep a good relationship with the natives they ended up killing them off.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI disagree- there weren't major slavery issues until the decades preceding the Civil War, and this is the Colonial Period...
DeleteI disagree with Brooke. There was actually talk of abolition in 1791 when the members if the commons voted on it. Even though it wasn't a full movement against slavery yet, it was still an issue.
DeleteStephanie Schaefer 2nd period.
The first people that came to The New World (Chesapeake region) were in search of a better way of life. Many people came because of the fertile land. They thought the land would make them great farmers and they could bring in great riches. Other people came simply for freedom.
ReplyDeleteGreat Britain controlled The New Worlds Colonies economy because of mercantilism. The economic system was bad because Britain had control over the trade and income the goods brought.
Slavery impacted the southern colonies greatly. The slaves were great economically. They were a great source of cheap labor. They also helped mass produce a lot of goods for trade. The Natives were also a great source of labor because they were so easy to take over.
On the other hand there were down sides to owning slaves. They weren't great socially and politically. The Northern colonies were against the south owning slaves.
6th period
DeleteI completely agree with you. Even though the treatment to the slaves was really bad, the outcome of it greatly improved their economy by adding in the "cheap labor". Good Job! :)
DeleteI agree with you, but weren't the people who came to the Chesapeake region wealthy and seeking for land oppurtinites to make plantations?
DeleteCatherine C. 3rd period
ReplyDeleteMercantilism was a good way for the English to make a profit with many of the natives with their fertile lands in the new world so that put the English on good trading terms with the natives and their home land. Eventually though the English started to get greedy and took land from the natives like the Chesapeake so they could produce things like tobacco and to be able to produce these things they created plantations in the south and to produce large amounts of these products they created the slave system.
Mercantilism was the main view or philosophy of the English colonies. To trade or give out less money that is being taken or received. Very manipulative, but also very impressive. The Chesapeake region was mainly in search for economic advancements. Gold, silver, trade routes, and just mainly to better their colonies. Chesapeake's relations with natives were good. The indians gave the colonies food and tips for farming and agriculture mainly out of pity for the colonies lack of farming skills.
ReplyDeleteThe slavery in the southern colonies did increase economic activity. Socially, it created a hierarchy because the slaves were seen as property and not as people. Politically, the North frowned upon the use of slaves so there was some conflict about that. The political organization was set up around slaves. The slaves were everything pretty much.
The Chesapeake region had large areas of fertile land which could be used for farming. The Elites came to this region to create their own plantations from that land which they saw as an opportunity to create a profit. The colonists also settled in this area for the fertile land but mainly used it for trade with Native American near them, maintaining a steady relationship between the colonists and the Native Americans, until they discovered the idea of mercantilism. The idea of selling materials at a higher cost than the one to make them appealed to the colonists. Once slavery was introduced, colonists saw it as opportunity to make an even larger profit from the slaves. The colonist utilized the Native Americans for cheap labor. Slavery benefited the colonies tremendously economically, but slavery eventually divided the colonies, tearing them apart socially and politically.
ReplyDeleteZ.Tristan 5th
The English settled some of their first colonies in the Chesapeake region due to it's fertile soil and water source. Slavery was a huge part of the economy for the Chesapeake region. While it wasn't so good socially and economically it played a giant role in the maintenance of plantations and cheap labor for land owners. Mercantilism was also a big part of the economy because the belief that it brought profitable trade and wealth to England.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree that slavery was not beneficial to the economy of the Chesapeake region. The Southern colonies economy revolved around agriculture, and slavery was an extremely cheap and effective way of farming the land. I do agree, however, that it did cause problems socially later in America's history because it was not morally or ethically correct whatsoever.
Delete-Morgan Catching, 7th
Whoops I meant to put it wasn't good socially and politically, not economically. But yeah those are some good ideas
DeleteOh and I'm in 3rd period I forgot that too
DeleteJulian Delagarza 6th Period
ReplyDeleteSlavery let the large plantation owners grow wealthy, this created an upperclass type of social standing. Elites wanted more wealth and used force labor, slavery, to get more produce. The government controlled all trade with their mother country Britain which kept the upper class upper class and the slaves in the lower class.
^
Deletethis is supposed to be my post to the blog Mr. Womack i dont know why but it wouldnt let me post only comment. sorry...
Exactly what you needed to do Mr. Garza, poor phrasing on my part it seems.
DeleteBrooke Sjoberg 8th
ReplyDeleteMercantillism is the idea that a parent country has and can exercise the right to exclusive trade with their colonies (the Dutch being the exception in the case of the British American colonies). The Chesapeake region (which was originally chosen because both the Spanish and the British believed that there was gold to be found there, although only the British colonized the area, settling Jamestown) was settled largely because of how well cash crops like tobacco and indigo grew there, which were very lucrative exports. The Relationships between the natives and colonists varied by region- the colonists of New England was very ambiguous, as each community had its own dynamic in dealing with the natives, the Chesapeake region was by and large the most volatile, with colonits encroaching on native lands and generally treating them badly. The spanish, however, mostly tried to convert the natives to catholicism, masking it as the only way to evade the epidemics (brought by europeans) that slaughtered the native population. Otherwise, they enslaved them to work on sugar plantations, along with africans. Elite Europeans came to the americas seeking to increase their wealthby owning plantations, which produced large amounts of crops like sugarcane, indigo, tobacco, and rice.
H. Schievelbein 3rd period
ReplyDeleteElites settled in the Chesapeake region because of its land and fertile soil. But because of the idea of mercantilism, maintaining crops wasn't so easy economically. They decided to secretly trade with other countries and use the natives and African Americans as a source of cheap labor. So economically, trade was a good thing because it was a cheap way to get raw materials in a mass production. But socially and politically, slavery wasn't so good. Slavery was starting to be viewed as wrong while others viewed slaves as just property. This created conflict between many people.
At one point they were actually friends with the Natives, after their settlement started expanding and once they knew how to survive there they started enslaving the natives. You didn't really elaborate on the natives and they played major role in that time period. I agree with your points. Good job!
DeleteYes i agree with you on the part were they thought it was economically good but also how it actually did some damage internally within the society as a whole.Good points.
Delete~Adriana Gonzalez Valles -6th period
Brittany Anderson, 2nd
ReplyDeleteMercantilism is an economic theory that strives to produce powerful, wealthy states. This was a key asset to colonies because they relied on Great Britain for trade. Colonists settled in the Chesapeake region because of the land (fertile soil) and proximity to water (harbors). This made growing crops, trading, and importing slaves a lot easier. The southern colonies focused the most on slavery and began using the natives as a source of cheap labor. Using natives as slaves eventually increased the European economy, but also caused a lot of social problems along the way. The slaves were treated unfairly, most of the time in excruciatingly harsh conditions. However, not all relations were cruel. Some cultures had strong relations with the natives (like the French) which allowed for trade opportunity and helped forge expansionist ideas. Others, however, were hostile to begin with, or turned hostile (the English). Elites came to the Americas for many different reasons, a few being the want for religious freedom and money (they became plantation owners). Eventually the strain on the colonies led to revolts such as Bacon's Rebellion and King Phillips War.
I agree that the use of slaves helped the European economy.
Delete3rd C. Flores
ReplyDeleteThe development of slavery positively contributed to the economy and negatively impacted the social and political organization of the southern colonies. The theory of mercantilism is the belief that one nation can achieve wealth and power by exporting more then they import. Only to export more calls for more land and colonies and empires. Elites came to the Americas for wealth and many became plantation owners. The crops were labor intense, so they had a growing need for indentured servants. The white settlers enforced the natives of the region, but found it cheaper to buy or trade the enslaved Africans. By the 17th century there were four times as many imported African Slaves then the white settlers of the south. The slaves aloud for cheaper mass production for commercial agriculture, but the southerners found it cheaper to monitor and work them to death then care for their well being. So most whites had little to no empathy for their salves, which lead to problems and riots. And with the large number of slaves in the south they were able to demand rights, which would later lead to discrimination and the civil war. For the most part having slaves economically did well in the past, but was not morally right and has resulted in problems we still see today.
I agree with you that slavery helped the economy but was negative towards society
Delete2nd
M. Martinez 5th period
ReplyDeleteMercantilism, the main economic source, increased the economy and the way of life. It was used for the colonies to be dependent on trade from the native land. Elites moved to the Chesapeake region had rich, fertile soil which helped farming and crops, it also had a water resource. Slavery helped boost the economy by providing cheap labor but started socially suffering because whites were considered above the slaves, and the slaves were treated very very poorly. A growing social gap. Soon enough the British had collected many goods from the colonists and turned to the black market to trade with other countries and natives.
M. Vargas 6th
DeleteI completely agree with you the introduction of Slavery in the Chesapeake region did help the economy but it also damaged the social structure of the colonies.
Colonies in the Chesapeake region were established by the English colonists because the land was very fertile and ideal for farming. The Southern economy revolved around agriculture, and free and forced labor (aka slavery) was used by many colonists to farm their land, and while not socially or politically correct, proved to be extremely profitable. Mercantilism is the idea that one country (England) will profit at the expense of another (the Colonies). Mercantilism ensured that England still profited off the colonies in America by selling the colonies goods for a higher price than England bought them for. The colonies traded with the Natives and relations were mostly peaceful until colonists started forcibly taking more and more land and pushed boundary lines back further and further as more colonists moved to the Chesapeake area.
ReplyDeleteC. Guajardo 6th
DeleteI agree that Chesapeake was established for agriculture and that the south had free labor for the colonies. England also took advantage of there colonies by using mercantilism. They practically abused there power towards them and made themselves get lots of money while there colonies suffered.
B. Alexander 5th period
ReplyDeleteThe elites came over for god, gold, and glory. The elites wanted to express their own religion. They wanted the money and settled in Chesapeake because of it's fertility and the trading ports with England. The elites used slave trade due to mercantilism. The fact that Britain wanted them to trade only with them. Reducing the amount of money the elites would make. The Europeans treated the natives with respect until they figured out how to survive on their own and then used the native through harsh conditions to do the hard labor for them. Slavery made the elites money because mercantilism made their income decrease but having people "do labor work for free" saved many out going expensises that had to be paid. The natives transformed the elites socially by teaching them their ways and helped them economically make more money as slavery was enforced. The last G- Glory was the elites being able to expand their claim to the land and gaining all new resources to trade back to their mother country.
I agree with what you said, nicely done.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShelby Garrett 6th
ReplyDeleteThe theory of Mercantilism was the wealthier a nation was the more powerful they were. The point was to increase the wealth in England by trading. The Chesapeake region was settled for it's fertile land. Slavery added to the economic success in the Southern colonies by slaves working hard for the whites but never getting paid in return so whites in the south got richer and richer. Depending upon the amount of slaves and money each plantation owner had kind of determined their social status by different classes.
I completely agree with you, it just caused for bigger and bigger gaps in the economic classes to form.
Delete-Madelyn reininger-3rd
Karla Beltran Period 6th
ReplyDeleteThe Chesapeake region was settled for many reasons. It was mainly settled for its location and for its rich fertile land. Chesapeake was surrounded by harbors. The fact they the colonies were really close to the coast made trading with Britain easier. The mercantilism that was involved helped the colonies trade with their mother country, or in other words the only country they could trade with was a kind of "collateral" they had. It had two different results: It secured the colonies the products they needed with a 100% guarantee, but because England was the only country they could trade with, gave England an advantage which resulted them in sky-rocketing prices for the goods. They're economy relied on trade and on tobacco. Thanks to the capture of the natives and the African slaves, their economy boomed. Yes, it was extremely unethical an immoral but it gave the plantation owners what they wanted. Money and greed are what drove the elites to treat the natives and Africans as slaves. The elites were Europeans that arrived in America in hopes of building a better life economically. Although slavery was unjust, it was a major help to their economy. Socially, the slaves revolted and became hateful. Whereas at the beginning, they were peaceful. The southern colonies really had a lot of advantages with the slaves, but politically it was one of the major issues that ended up diving the North and the South into the Union and the Confederacy in the long run.
Madelyn Reininger- 3rd
ReplyDeleteMercantilism was a way for England to regulate who the colonists traded with and what they traded. It enabled England to force the colonists to only trade with England and no one else. The colonists had to sell their raw materials and their crops to England who would in return sell those products back to the colonists and other European countries at a much higher price. The Chesapeake region was a very fertile region for farming which prompted the use of extremely cheap labor(slaves) to work the plantations of the rich colonists. Slavery became the center of the South's economy creating a very large gap in economic classes. The relationship the colonists had with the natives was reasonably good until the colonists started forcefully taking more and more of the natives land.
I agree with everything sorry it's like midnight
DeleteR. Briseno 3rd
ReplyDeleteMercantilism is the belief that trade leads to wealth and usually benefits the wealthier country. In this case it was Britain.The New World finally started trading with Natives and stopped relying so much on Britain. They eventually got greedy and overtook the Natives and their land. Elites settled in the Chesapeake region because of the fertile soil, abundance of land, and determination to make their own wealth. They settled close to harbors for accessible trade routes. Plantations were a result of the settlements of the Elites (2nd Sons) and that led to slaves. Slaves boosted the economy with their endless hours of hard work and mass production of raw materials for no pay. Politically and socially was where it went wrong, the North valued community and family which then led to disagreement.
I agree with the points made because in the south family was not valued and neither was religion that much.
DeleteMartha Vargas 6th period
ReplyDeleteMercantilism was a system created by England to insure that the new world would be dependent on them for trade and that they would not be able to trade with no one else. Eventually England got enough products so they started paying less and less for the trading of goods which led the colonists to start trading with natives and to sell things through the black market.
The elites came to the Chesapeake region because they knew it had fertile soils and would be good for an agricultural society and which meant they would be able to make a profit of the land. But who would do all the hard work in the fields? That is when slavery comes in, the colonist discovered a way to obtain cheap labor. The colonists adopted slavery which helped to boost the economy due to the cheap labor but it negatively affected the social status of the southern colonies, it lead to a social gap to be formed.The relationship the Colonists kept with the natives was peaceful at first the natives helped the colonists at their arrival and later on they maintained trade until the colonists became more and more land hungry, that is when the problems began because the colonists started taking the natives land away from them.
Slaves were very valuable to elites that came form Europeans looking for wealth. The elites made the slaves work on plantations that ere made up of tobacco and cotton, and all the profit made them rich. The countries of these elites and settlers traded and taxed them making the country rich and the is where mercantilism comes in. Ares such as the Chesapeake region were perfect for these landowners because the land had rich soil for crops and it had water access for trade and travel. The Native Americans played a huge role when it came to economics and politics within countries such as Spain and England, Most of the time they did not care about the well being of the natives unless they were their slaves, they did care about which side they were on. England and Spain did not want the natives (and slaves) favoring another country more than theirs. Though those conflicts were going on, there were settlers who interacted and traded with the natives peacefully.
ReplyDeleteThe natives did not have a big part on anything considering the England and Spain. They did however play a major rule in the colonies survival when the Natives taught the new settlers how to farm.
DeleteNicole Capurro 5th Period
ReplyDeleteSlavery played a major role in the sothern colonies economically, socially and politically. The colonist relationship with the natives was friendly and respectful at first, but once they gained what they wanted they enslaved them, they made them work under harsh conditions for cheap labor. It was cruel because the natives gave them their trust, a place to settle in and taught them their ways. It was an economical advantage for the colonist. There were laws that did not allow natives many benefits such as learning how to read and write. The theory of Mercantilism was for English to ensure that they would have all the benefits that came with the Chesapeake area due to the good location and fertile land. They didn't want a trading triangle therefore they passed laws and made people pay taxes, but that then lead for people to start smuggling goods. Elites came from Europe to the Americas for God, Gold and Glory (3 G's). Elites wanted to spread their religion and beliefs in the New World, They wanted to gain all the benefits that came with the land, the riches, and they wanted to spread and concur more land as they spread through the New World.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking back the other one didn't address the prompt.
DeleteMercantilism was a way for England to force the colonies to trade with them exclusively. England also imposed heavy taxes so the colonists didn't have much room to profit on trading. Thus they turned to slave labor because instead of having to pay other people to work they could now get work done for free.
The people who owned many slaves were farmers of cash crops like tobacco or cotton, crops that required tough labor to harvest. The Chesapeake region was full of fertile soil for these farmers to abuse for their own gain so they naturally went there with their slaves.
Because much of the south was full of vast farm lands people were separated and their wasn't as much of a sense of society.
Relationships with the natives were at first friendly when the colonists were seeking help. Most of the colonies quickly became aggressive towards the natives as they wanted to expand the amount of land that they could farm on to create even more profit. Profit was of course the main factor for where you would move in the colonies. In the north people moved their for religious freedom and the south for becoming a profitable plantation owner that was run by slave labor.
Although, there wasn't much of a society because of the vast farm lands that's not the main reason why. With all the slavery and plantation wealth booming that caused a big social ladder with slaves being the bottom and depending on how big and profitable your crops were when you were more and more socially accepted.
DeleteRonnie Clark 8th
ReplyDeleteSlavery became a cornerstone of Southern economics in the colonies. The large plantations the slaves worked on were extremely profitable, which caused a wage gap to appear between the poor and ultra rich citizens in the new world. Mercantilism encouraged the use of slavery for profit, as it emphasized the elevation of one group at the expense of another. Many of the extremely rich were wealthy Europeans, especially nobility that were not the first born son in their family, that came to the New World looking for wealth and found it in the fertile soils of the Chesapeake region. The Mercantilist values that allowed the rich to exploit the slaves also allowed them to fester hatred for the Natives by spreading propaganda portraying them as savages and evil people. Eventually, even colonies such as Pennsylvania that supported pacifism were treating Native Americans negatively.
I agree with your points, but just as a question in what ways would they spread the propaganda portraying natives and how long did it take for people to believe it?
DeleteWhen the English came to the New World, they quickly inhabited the Chesapeake regions because of it's fertile soil which allowed them to grow crops and make a way of living. As the new immigrants settled, they met with the Natives (which helped the colonist in many beneficial ways). The fertile land that the Chesapeake region provided, was a blessing to the Immigrants by allowing them to advance in agriculture as well as trading (with other colonists, Natives, and the Mother Country). As the colonist kept producing goods and growing raw materials, they traded but becasue of the cost of labor, their economic advantage lowed drastically when their Mother Country lowered the prices. Once the prices were basically unprofitable. the colonists had to use slaves and Native Americans as a source of cheap labor. Mercantilism was used by the colonist as a way to improve their lives, as well as make a profit in coming to the New World.
ReplyDeleteLannette Bone 5th
Daniel Davis 7th,
ReplyDeleteThe Chesapeake area was settled because of its vast fertile amounts of land which encouraged both farming (agriculture) and slavery. The relationships between the colonists and natives were good, but got worse once the europeans took advantage of their help. Their "vulnerability" was seen as a target for the elites who came to america in search of wealth. In Britain the they believed that money equals power, so they used the theory of mercantilism to gain more wealth by keeping the colonies dependent on their goods.
Kenneth Sebourn 5th,
ReplyDeleteThe elites came over to the Chesapeake region with hopes to profit from mercantilism. Even though it was had to profit from mercantilism because the colonies could only trade with their Mother Country (England), the elites did it by buying large sums of land and enslaving the Natives for cheap labor. The land owners settled this area because the soil was good for growing.
The elite Europeans came to the Americas in order to establish their own colonies. Also they came to develop their religions. The Europeans didn't have a very good relationship with the natives because once they came they began to take over their land which resulted in fighting etc.. But some Europeans did get along with the natives in the Northern colonies. I agree that they settled in the South because of the fertile land which helped with growing purposes which led to more profit on tobacco. The Northern colonies didn't have fertile land like the south did which was an impediment for their growing purposes.
ReplyDeleteMany people went to the Chesapeake area because it was a pretty big deal. It gave people plentiful and good soil and for this reason it was great farming land,not to mention there was a LOT of it so this gave people the opportunity to make living. Mainly this area seemed like a good place to trade and make profits.As already people were coming to make a better life than before (to try and become wealthier and live better) the natives weren't always so lucky,some became slaves.In other words in a lot of cases you were either well off or not so much.In the eyes of the people though this was all just a way of surviving. The way they perceived slavery was that it was what needed to be done if they ever wanted to go anywhere in life,thought obviously everyone has their own thought about the topic,
ReplyDeletei agree that they were just trying to survive but at the same time i think they were being a bit greedy
DeleteThe elites settled the Chesapeake region because of it's fertile soil. They began to get slaves as cheap labor. This helped them economically because there was no worker to be paid. The idea of mercantilism though only let the colonist trade with England. That did not help them out because they were not making much money, only trading. The English in all settled in the Chesapeake region because of the opportunities it held and slavery played a big role in the settlement.
ReplyDeleteJohn Ranft
ReplyDelete8th Period
Slavery was undoubtedly a major political, social and economic factor in the colonies. The theory of Mercantilism greatly contributed to the promotion of slavery for profit. The Elites came to the New World for god, gold and glory, and settled the Chesapeake region for its abundance of arable land, which they used to create tobacco and cotton plantations, where slaves were forced to work as a free source of labor. The same lack of morals that allowed the Elites to treat the slaves as sub- human is also what allowed them to feel similarly towards the natives. The common mindset of the time was that anyone who was not of European descent was a savage, and should be treated as such.
I agree with the statement, when you said that "anyone who was not of European descent was a savage, and should be treated as such." I think the Europeans had a very biased view when it came to anyone other then them.
DeleteAriana Hernandez 2nd period
ReplyDeleteMercantilism was an abundant way to increase wealth through trade. The Europeans used this to their advantage. The Chesapeake region was established because it had all the necessary resources to sustain a thriving economy. The region had an abundance of land and good soil for plantation. The elites came to the Chesapeake region in hopes of gaining what the colonies had acquired. They wanted to make profit off what was being traded but they also wanted to spread villages beliefs and values. The natives, because of their great knowledge of the land, became enslaved so that they could work the land. They had good relations with the natives at first, but the relationships quickly dissolved. Although immoral, slavery did help the economy escalate.
Slavery was strongest in the south due to the plantations the whites owned. Slavery was very beneficial to the economy because of low wages, (zero) and getting and keeping slaves was fairly easy. The government was very supportive of slavery because of this, and felt it was nessesary to maintain a steady supply of goods to England for mercantilism. Unfortunatly, the slaves were black, and due to centuries old belief, were mistreated. They were bought and sold like property, had cruddy housing, scraps for food, and were beaten. These beliefs quickly transferred to the natives, but not before peaceful relations between them existed.
ReplyDelete8th period
DeleteScott Moss, 5th Period
ReplyDeleteMercantilism was a system to earn the motherland many fortunes by making to colonies produce so many crops so they could get resources cheaply. The Chesapeake region was inhabited by Europeans for the opportunity to open plantations and to seek gold. The relationship between Europeans and natives were good when the Europeans were struggling, but when the Europeans began to get a good holding in America, they turned hostile and chased the natives off. The reason that English elites came to America so that they could hold huge plantations and earn riches from the vast land.
In the Southern Colonies slavery was the main source of labor. Many European elites came to the southern colonies for large plantations and to run these plantations effectively they used slaves. This also shows how mercantilism was shown in the colonies, mercantilism being exploiting another countries raw materials for the benefit of an individual or the mother country.
ReplyDeleteReyna Carroll, 8th Period
ReplyDeleteMercantilism is the theory that was created by England to be the center of trade. They got wealth and profits from trade and made sure their trade was regular and the colonies depended on the mother land. Starting to trade they created a good, civil bond with the natives. They had a profitable relationship with the natives learning farming skills, and good trade helping their economy, but once the english got greedy and wanted more tensions grew. They started to figure out they could use them as cheap labor. Slavery boosted their economy for sure. They prospered the growth of their plantations being their base of their economy. Although, slavery greatly improved their economy but it didn't affect their political and social system in a good way at all. It began a lot of rebellion and conflicts with their political system and even more seperation in their society. Slaves were at the bottom of the social system with wealthy plantation owners at the top. The reason for the Chesapeake region being chose was that it was a great area for agriculture. It was near good water resources(rivers/harbors) and it had very good fertile soil contributing to the plantation boom.
I agree with you saying that slavery improved the economy, but not so much political and social system because that is very true. They weren't even viewed as real "people" in society's eyes. They were just little "pests" doing their dirty work for them.
DeleteL Guzman 8th Period
M. Mendez- 5th period
ReplyDeleteMercantilism is known as a theory of trade, mainly used in England. They believe that it benefits them more to export more than they import. Many wealthy people who sought to have a better life settled in the Chesapeake region. There was plenty of land for them to grow plantations. The most successful plantation was tobbacco. It was a bit dangerous for these people to move to the Chesapeake region due to diseases, but for the plantation owners the risk was worth it. Their relationship with the natives was a bit mixed. They craved for more land and wanted to take what was rightfully the natives, which caused conflicts between them. The development of slavery greatly benefited the southern colonies due to their cheap labor. Yes, it was morally wrong of them to treat the slaves the way they did and keep them in harsh living conditions but overall without slaves we would not have the economy we have come to know today.
Elites came to the New world with the idea that by using free labor to produce a large amount of products they would get rich quickly. They saw mercantilism as a cheap way to make a profit, and founded colonies in the New World based on those ideas. They figured out that if they used slaves they could get a lot done and make more crops to sell. While they're relationship with the natives was friendly when they first moved to the New World, as time progressed they're relationship with them got a lot more hostile.
ReplyDeleteKaylee Atchley 3rd period
ReplyDeleteElites settled in the Chesepeake region because of its fertile land and determination to make their own wealth. Many settled close to harbors for trade routes that were easily accessible. As a result of the settlement of the Elites, plantations came about which then led to slavery. Slaves boosted the economy with their endless hours of hard work for free. Mercantilism encouraged the use of slavery for profit, as it emphasized the elevation of one group at the expense of another.
Slavery contributed to the economic,social, and political organization of the southern colonies in a vast way. The Elites settle in the Chesapeake region for more land, wealth and religious freedom. They came to the Americas, cause they seeked opportunities. The Elites became wealthy plantation owners due to cheap slave labor. The Elites were mercantilist to make sure they always had and income. Their relationship with the natives was friendly until more Europeans came and ruined the friendly relationship.
ReplyDeleteComing to America, the Elites wanted to use the vast land to farm and easily making a huge profit. Mercantilism was already being used in England, a way of using trade for profit. The elites would obviously used this theory. Mainly focusing on their exports to make the most money. Their main product was tobacco. With many plantation growing, they introduced slavery in their new world to help. Because slavery is making people do labor with no pay, the Elites saw it as a huge advantage. Because tobacco kills the soil in the ground they needed to expand to more area to produce more. With more exploration they soon create many conflicts between the Native that were already living in those areas.
ReplyDelete2nd period
DeleteEconomically it helped slave owners save a lot of money by using cheap labor (slavery) they also got a lot more money because they made the slaves work long and hard hours so they brought in more profit with the goods they were selling or trading. Socially, slave owners would only talk to other slave owners. So if you were also selling or trading crops or goods but you didn’t own slaves and did it your self, you probably wouldn’t sell or trade as much crops because you weren’t a slave owner so they wouldn’t do business with you. Politically later on in the 1800s it brought up many debates about if the north or the south should own slaves or not. It eventually started a war.
ReplyDelete