Question: Which two states came to be almost completely dependent on tobacco?

Answer: Virginia and Maryland

Ethnicity made a difference in agricultural practice. As an example, German farmers generally preferred oxen rather than horses to pull their plows and Scots-Irish made a farming economy based on hogs and corn. Eventually cows were brought with the horses. They were more useful than horses for many reasons. Almost all the farms had cows on their land. In Ireland, people farmed intensively, working small pieces of land trying to get the largest possible production-rate from their crops. In the American colonies, settlers from northern Ireland focused on mixed-farming. Using this technique, they grew corn for human consumption and as feed for hogs and other livestock. Many improvement-minded farmers of all different backgrounds began using new agricultural practices to raise their output. During the 1750s, these agricultural innovators replaced the hand sickles and scythes used to harvest hay, wheat, and barley with the cradle scythe, a tool with wooden fingers that arranged the stalks of grain for easy collection. This tool was able to triple the amount of work done by farmers in one day. Farmers also began fertilizing their fields with dung and lime and rotating their crops to keep the soil fertile. By 1700, Philadelphia was exporting 350,000 bushels of wheat and 18,000 tons of flour annually. The Southern colonies in particular relied on cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. South Carolina produced rice and indigo. North Carolina was somewhat less involved in the plantation economy, but because a major producer of naval stores. <hl> Virginia and Maryland came to be almost totally dependent on tobacco, which would ultimately prove fatal at the end of the 18th century thanks to exhausted soil and collapsing prices, but for most of the century, the soil remained good and a single-crop economy profitable. <hl>

Ethnicity made a difference in agricultural practice. As an example, German farmers generally preferred oxen rather than horses to pull their plows and Scots-Irish made a farming economy based on hogs and corn. Eventually cows were brought with the horses. They were more useful than horses for many reasons. Almost all the farms had cows on their land. In Ireland, people farmed intensively, working small pieces of land trying to get the largest possible production-rate from their crops. In the American colonies, settlers from northern Ireland focused on mixed-farming. Using this technique, they grew corn for human consumption and as feed for hogs and other livestock. Many improvement-minded farmers of all different backgrounds began using new agricultural practices to raise their output. During the 1750s, these agricultural innovators replaced the hand sickles and scythes used to harvest hay, wheat, and barley with the cradle scythe, a tool with wooden fingers that arranged the stalks of grain for easy collection. This tool was able to triple the amount of work done by farmers in one day. Farmers also began fertilizing their fields with dung and lime and rotating their crops to keep the soil fertile. By 1700, Philadelphia was exporting 350,000 bushels of wheat and 18,000 tons of flour annually. The Southern colonies in particular relied on cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. South Carolina produced rice and indigo. North Carolina was somewhat less involved in the plantation economy, but because a major producer of naval stores. <hl> Virginia and Maryland <hl> came to be almost totally dependent on tobacco, which would ultimately prove fatal at the end of the 18th century thanks to exhausted soil and collapsing prices, but for most of the century, the soil remained good and a single-crop economy profitable.


Question: What kind of animal was considered more useful than horses?

Ethnicity made a difference in agricultural practice. As an example, German farmers generally preferred oxen rather than horses to pull their plows and Scots-Irish made a farming economy based on hogs and corn. Eventually cows were brought with the horses. They were more useful than horses for many reasons. Almost all the farms had cows on their land. In Ireland, people farmed intensively, working small pieces of land trying to get the largest possible production-rate from their crops. In the American colonies, settlers from northern Ireland focused on mixed-farming. Using this technique, they grew corn for human consumption and as feed for hogs and other livestock. Many improvement-minded farmers of all different backgrounds began using new agricultural practices to raise their output. During the 1750s, these agricultural innovators replaced the hand sickles and scythes used to harvest hay, wheat, and barley with the cradle scythe, a tool with wooden fingers that arranged the stalks of grain for easy collection. This tool was able to triple the amount of work done by farmers in one day. Farmers also began fertilizing their fields with dung and lime and rotating their crops to keep the soil fertile. By 1700, Philadelphia was exporting 350,000 bushels of wheat and 18,000 tons of flour annually. The Southern colonies in particular relied on cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. South Carolina produced rice and indigo. North Carolina was somewhat less involved in the plantation economy, but because a major producer of naval stores. Virginia and Maryland came to be almost totally dependent on tobacco, which would ultimately prove fatal at the end of the 18th century thanks to exhausted soil and collapsing prices, but for most of the century, the soil remained good and a single-crop economy profitable.

Answer: cows

Ethnicity made a difference in agricultural practice. As an example, German farmers generally preferred oxen rather than horses to pull their plows and Scots-Irish made a farming economy based on hogs and corn. <hl> Eventually cows were brought with the horses. <hl> They were more useful than horses for many reasons. Almost all the farms had cows on their land. In Ireland, people farmed intensively, working small pieces of land trying to get the largest possible production-rate from their crops. In the American colonies, settlers from northern Ireland focused on mixed-farming. Using this technique, they grew corn for human consumption and as feed for hogs and other livestock. Many improvement-minded farmers of all different backgrounds began using new agricultural practices to raise their output. During the 1750s, these agricultural innovators replaced the hand sickles and scythes used to harvest hay, wheat, and barley with the cradle scythe, a tool with wooden fingers that arranged the stalks of grain for easy collection. This tool was able to triple the amount of work done by farmers in one day. Farmers also began fertilizing their fields with dung and lime and rotating their crops to keep the soil fertile. By 1700, Philadelphia was exporting 350,000 bushels of wheat and 18,000 tons of flour annually. The Southern colonies in particular relied on cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. South Carolina produced rice and indigo. North Carolina was somewhat less involved in the plantation economy, but because a major producer of naval stores. Virginia and Maryland came to be almost totally dependent on tobacco, which would ultimately prove fatal at the end of the 18th century thanks to exhausted soil and collapsing prices, but for most of the century, the soil remained good and a single-crop economy profitable.

Ethnicity made a difference in agricultural practice. As an example, German farmers generally preferred oxen rather than horses to pull their plows and Scots-Irish made a farming economy based on hogs and corn. Eventually <hl> cows <hl> were brought with the horses. They were more useful than horses for many reasons. Almost all the farms had cows on their land. In Ireland, people farmed intensively, working small pieces of land trying to get the largest possible production-rate from their crops. In the American colonies, settlers from northern Ireland focused on mixed-farming. Using this technique, they grew corn for human consumption and as feed for hogs and other livestock. Many improvement-minded farmers of all different backgrounds began using new agricultural practices to raise their output. During the 1750s, these agricultural innovators replaced the hand sickles and scythes used to harvest hay, wheat, and barley with the cradle scythe, a tool with wooden fingers that arranged the stalks of grain for easy collection. This tool was able to triple the amount of work done by farmers in one day. Farmers also began fertilizing their fields with dung and lime and rotating their crops to keep the soil fertile. By 1700, Philadelphia was exporting 350,000 bushels of wheat and 18,000 tons of flour annually. The Southern colonies in particular relied on cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. South Carolina produced rice and indigo. North Carolina was somewhat less involved in the plantation economy, but because a major producer of naval stores. Virginia and Maryland came to be almost totally dependent on tobacco, which would ultimately prove fatal at the end of the 18th century thanks to exhausted soil and collapsing prices, but for most of the century, the soil remained good and a single-crop economy profitable.


Question: What kind of crops did South Carolina produce?

Answer: rice and indigo

Ethnicity made a difference in agricultural practice. As an example, German farmers generally preferred oxen rather than horses to pull their plows and Scots-Irish made a farming economy based on hogs and corn. Eventually cows were brought with the horses. They were more useful than horses for many reasons. Almost all the farms had cows on their land. In Ireland, people farmed intensively, working small pieces of land trying to get the largest possible production-rate from their crops. In the American colonies, settlers from northern Ireland focused on mixed-farming. Using this technique, they grew corn for human consumption and as feed for hogs and other livestock. Many improvement-minded farmers of all different backgrounds began using new agricultural practices to raise their output. During the 1750s, these agricultural innovators replaced the hand sickles and scythes used to harvest hay, wheat, and barley with the cradle scythe, a tool with wooden fingers that arranged the stalks of grain for easy collection. This tool was able to triple the amount of work done by farmers in one day. Farmers also began fertilizing their fields with dung and lime and rotating their crops to keep the soil fertile. By 1700, Philadelphia was exporting 350,000 bushels of wheat and 18,000 tons of flour annually. The Southern colonies in particular relied on cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. <hl> South Carolina produced rice and indigo . <hl> North Carolina was somewhat less involved in the plantation economy, but because a major producer of naval stores. Virginia and Maryland came to be almost totally dependent on tobacco, which would ultimately prove fatal at the end of the 18th century thanks to exhausted soil and collapsing prices, but for most of the century, the soil remained good and a single-crop economy profitable.

Ethnicity made a difference in agricultural practice. As an example, German farmers generally preferred oxen rather than horses to pull their plows and Scots-Irish made a farming economy based on hogs and corn. Eventually cows were brought with the horses. They were more useful than horses for many reasons. Almost all the farms had cows on their land. In Ireland, people farmed intensively, working small pieces of land trying to get the largest possible production-rate from their crops. In the American colonies, settlers from northern Ireland focused on mixed-farming. Using this technique, they grew corn for human consumption and as feed for hogs and other livestock. Many improvement-minded farmers of all different backgrounds began using new agricultural practices to raise their output. During the 1750s, these agricultural innovators replaced the hand sickles and scythes used to harvest hay, wheat, and barley with the cradle scythe, a tool with wooden fingers that arranged the stalks of grain for easy collection. This tool was able to triple the amount of work done by farmers in one day. Farmers also began fertilizing their fields with dung and lime and rotating their crops to keep the soil fertile. By 1700, Philadelphia was exporting 350,000 bushels of wheat and 18,000 tons of flour annually. The Southern colonies in particular relied on cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. South Carolina produced <hl> rice and indigo <hl>. North Carolina was somewhat less involved in the plantation economy, but because a major producer of naval stores. Virginia and Maryland came to be almost totally dependent on tobacco, which would ultimately prove fatal at the end of the 18th century thanks to exhausted soil and collapsing prices, but for most of the century, the soil remained good and a single-crop economy profitable.

South Carolina produced <hl> rice and indigo <hl> .


Question: Where were the settlers originally from that focused on mixed farming?

Answer: northern Ireland

Ethnicity made a difference in agricultural practice. As an example, German farmers generally preferred oxen rather than horses to pull their plows and Scots-Irish made a farming economy based on hogs and corn. Eventually cows were brought with the horses. They were more useful than horses for many reasons. Almost all the farms had cows on their land. In Ireland, people farmed intensively, working small pieces of land trying to get the largest possible production-rate from their crops. <hl> In the American colonies, settlers from northern Ireland focused on mixed-farming. <hl> Using this technique, they grew corn for human consumption and as feed for hogs and other livestock. Many improvement-minded farmers of all different backgrounds began using new agricultural practices to raise their output. During the 1750s, these agricultural innovators replaced the hand sickles and scythes used to harvest hay, wheat, and barley with the cradle scythe, a tool with wooden fingers that arranged the stalks of grain for easy collection. This tool was able to triple the amount of work done by farmers in one day. Farmers also began fertilizing their fields with dung and lime and rotating their crops to keep the soil fertile. By 1700, Philadelphia was exporting 350,000 bushels of wheat and 18,000 tons of flour annually. The Southern colonies in particular relied on cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. South Carolina produced rice and indigo. North Carolina was somewhat less involved in the plantation economy, but because a major producer of naval stores. Virginia and Maryland came to be almost totally dependent on tobacco, which would ultimately prove fatal at the end of the 18th century thanks to exhausted soil and collapsing prices, but for most of the century, the soil remained good and a single-crop economy profitable.

Ethnicity made a difference in agricultural practice. As an example, German farmers generally preferred oxen rather than horses to pull their plows and Scots-Irish made a farming economy based on hogs and corn. Eventually cows were brought with the horses. They were more useful than horses for many reasons. Almost all the farms had cows on their land. In Ireland, people farmed intensively, working small pieces of land trying to get the largest possible production-rate from their crops. In the American colonies, settlers from <hl> northern Ireland <hl> focused on mixed-farming. Using this technique, they grew corn for human consumption and as feed for hogs and other livestock. Many improvement-minded farmers of all different backgrounds began using new agricultural practices to raise their output. During the 1750s, these agricultural innovators replaced the hand sickles and scythes used to harvest hay, wheat, and barley with the cradle scythe, a tool with wooden fingers that arranged the stalks of grain for easy collection. This tool was able to triple the amount of work done by farmers in one day. Farmers also began fertilizing their fields with dung and lime and rotating their crops to keep the soil fertile. By 1700, Philadelphia was exporting 350,000 bushels of wheat and 18,000 tons of flour annually. The Southern colonies in particular relied on cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. South Carolina produced rice and indigo. North Carolina was somewhat less involved in the plantation economy, but because a major producer of naval stores. Virginia and Maryland came to be almost totally dependent on tobacco, which would ultimately prove fatal at the end of the 18th century thanks to exhausted soil and collapsing prices, but for most of the century, the soil remained good and a single-crop economy profitable.


Question: What kind of export trade flourished in Europe?

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.

Answer: fur-pelt

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. <hl> In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. <hl> After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. In New York, a <hl> fur-pelt <hl> export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.


Question: After 1720 what was there an international demand for?

Answer: wheat

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. <hl> After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat . <hl> A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for <hl> wheat <hl>. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.

After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for <hl> wheat <hl> .


Question: What was in high demand in the Irish linen industry?

Answer: flax

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. <hl> Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. <hl> Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. Farmers also expanded their production of <hl> flax <hl> seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.


Question: Where was there a high demand for corn?

Answer: West Indies

<hl> Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. <hl> In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the <hl> West Indies <hl> with corn and flour. In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.


Question: How much did a bushel of wheat cost in 1770?

Answer: twice as much as it did in 1720

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. <hl> By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720 . <hl> Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.

Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. In New York, a fur-pelt export trade to Europe flourished adding additional wealth to the region. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost <hl> twice as much as it did in 1720 <hl>. Farmers also expanded their production of flax seed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies. Thus, by mid-century, most colonial farming was a commercial venture, although subsistence agriculture continued to exist in New England and the middle colonies.

By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost <hl> twice as much as it did in 1720 <hl> .


Question: What two factors divided the Mid-Atlantic region in 1750?

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth.

Answer: ethnic background and wealth

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. <hl> The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth . <hl>

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both <hl> ethnic background and wealth <hl>.

The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both <hl> ethnic background and wealth <hl> .


Question: What did merchants often by from farmers?

Answer: wool and flax

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. <hl> Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. <hl> Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth.

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought <hl> wool and flax <hl> from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth.


Question: What were the nationalities of the immigrants that were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers?

Answer: German and Irish

<hl> Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. <hl> Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth.

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor <hl> German and Irish <hl> immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth.


Question: What kind of work did the merchants have the newly arrived immigrants do in their homes?

Answer: spinning the materials into yarn and cloth

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. <hl> Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth . <hl> Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth.

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes <hl> spinning the materials into yarn and cloth <hl>. Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth.

Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes <hl> spinning the materials into yarn and cloth <hl> .


Question: What was the size of the farm that only made enough for subsistence?

Answer: smaller farms

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. <hl> Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence. <hl> The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth.

Some immigrants who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German and Irish immigrants were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans also hired these homeless workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with <hl> smaller farms <hl> and artisans only made enough for subsistence. The Mid-Atlantic region, by 1750, was divided by both ethnic background and wealth.


Question: What percentage of the inhabitants were slaves?

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves. Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent, were slaves. The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote.

Answer: 40 percent

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves. <hl> Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent , were slaves. <hl> The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote.

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves. Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or <hl> 40 percent <hl>, were slaves. The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote.

Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or <hl> 40 percent <hl> , were slaves.


Question: What were the three states that were dominated buy wealthy planters?

Answer: Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina

<hl> The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina . <hl> They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves. Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent, were slaves. The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote.

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in <hl> Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina <hl>. They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves. Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent, were slaves. The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote.

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in <hl> Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina <hl> .


Question: Who worked on the plantations?

Answer: African slaves

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. <hl> They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves . <hl> Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent, were slaves. The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote.

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by <hl> African slaves <hl>. Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent, were slaves. The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote.

They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by <hl> African slaves <hl> .


Question: What did the plantations grow for export?

Answer: tobacco, indigo and rice

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves. Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent, were slaves. <hl> The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. <hl> In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote.

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves. Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent, were slaves. The plantations grew <hl> tobacco, indigo and rice <hl> for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote.


Question: What were you able to do if you were a white man that owned land?

Answer: vote

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves. Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent, were slaves. The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. <hl> Most white men owned some land, and therefore could vote . <hl>

The Southern Colonies were mainly dominated by the wealthy planters in Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. They owned increasingly large plantations that were worked by African slaves. Of the 650,000 inhabitants of the South in 1750, about 250,000 or 40 percent, were slaves. The plantations grew tobacco, indigo and rice for export, and raised most of their own food supplies. In addition, many small subsistence farms were family owned and operated by yeoman. Most white men owned some land, and therefore could <hl> vote <hl>.

Most white men owned some land, and therefore could <hl> vote <hl> .


Question: What did much of Maryland's population consist of?

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. African women entered the colony as early as 1619, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.

Answer: young, single, white indentured servants

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. <hl> Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants , and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. <hl> African women entered the colony as early as 1619, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of <hl> young, single, white indentured servants <hl>, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. African women entered the colony as early as 1619, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.

Much of the population consisted of <hl> young, single, white indentured servants <hl> , and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness.


Question: Around what year did the population begin to stabilize?

Answer: 1700

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. African women entered the colony as early as 1619, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. <hl> These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. <hl> These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. African women entered the colony as early as 1619, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before <hl> 1700 <hl> fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.


Question: When did African women enter the colony?

Answer: 1619

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. <hl> African women entered the colony as early as 1619 , although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. <hl> In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. African women entered the colony as early as <hl> 1619 <hl>, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.

African women entered the colony as early as <hl> 1619 <hl> , although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate.


Question: What factors made family life impossible or unstable for colonists?

Answer: high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. African women entered the colony as early as 1619, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. <hl> In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. <hl> These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. African women entered the colony as early as 1619, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. In the 17th century <hl> high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women <hl> made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.


Question: Who was often more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse?

Answer: teenage girls who were indentured servants

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. African women entered the colony as early as 1619, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. <hl> Lacking male protectors, women, especially teenage girls who were indentured servants , often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. <hl> On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.

Since the social history revolution in the 1970s historians have paid special attention to the role of women, family and gender in the colonial South. In the early Chesapeake colonies, very few women were present. In 1650, estimates put Maryland's total population near six hundred with fewer than two hundred women present. Much of the population consisted of young, single, white indentured servants, and as such the colonies, to a large degree, lacked any social cohesiveness. African women entered the colony as early as 1619, although their status: free, slave or indentured servant remains a historical debate. In the 17th century high mortality rates for newcomers and a very high ratio of men to women made family life either impossible or unstable for most colonists. These factors, along with dispersed settlements and a reluctance to live in villages, together with a growing immigration of white indentured servants and black slaves made families and communities in the Virginia-Maryland region before 1700 fundamentally different from their counterparts in Europe and New England. These extreme conditions both demeaned and empowered women. Lacking male protectors, women, especially <hl> teenage girls who were indentured servants <hl>, often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, without parental oversight, young women had much more freedom in choosing spouses, and the shortage of eligible women enabled them to use marriage as an avenue to upward mobility. The high death rates meant that Chesapeake wives generally became widows who inherited property; many widows increased their property by remarrying as soon as possible. The population began to stabilize around 1700, with a 1704 census listing 30,437 white people present with 7,163 of those being women. Women married younger, remained wed longer, bore more children, and lost influence within the family polity.

Lacking male protectors, women, especially <hl> teenage girls who were indentured servants <hl> , often were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.


Question: What region was the trading hub between the southern colonies and Europe?

Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.

Answer: New England

<hl> Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. <hl> Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.

Economically, Puritan <hl> New England <hl> fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.


Question: What region was more focused on cash-crops?

Answer: Chesapeake region

Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. <hl> Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region , the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. <hl> There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.

Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the <hl> Chesapeake region <hl>, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.

Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the <hl> Chesapeake region <hl> , the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves.


Question: What region was based on farms that were self-sufficient and only traded for what they couldn't produce?

Answer: Puritan New England

<hl> Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. <hl> Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.

Economically, <hl> Puritan New England <hl> fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.


Question: In which region was the economic standing higher?

Answer: New England

<hl> Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. <hl> Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.

Economically, Puritan <hl> New England <hl> fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.


Question: Which region became an important mercantile area?

Answer: New England

<hl> Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. <hl> Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.

Economically, Puritan <hl> New England <hl> fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. Along with agriculture, fishing, and logging, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.


Question: Where did the first Pilgrims settle?

The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".

Answer: Plymouth, Massachusetts

The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. <hl> One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. <hl> After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".

The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in <hl> Plymouth, Massachusetts <hl> in 1620. After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".


Question: What was the name of the first Pilgrim colony?

Answer: Plymouth Colony

The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. <hl> After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony . <hl> William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".

The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small <hl> Plymouth Colony <hl>. William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".

After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small <hl> Plymouth Colony <hl> .


Question: Who provided the land on which Providence Plantation was founded?

Answer: Narragansett sachem, Canonicus

The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. <hl> Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus . <hl> Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".

The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the <hl> Narragansett sachem, Canonicus <hl>. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".

Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the <hl> Narragansett sachem, Canonicus <hl> .


Question: What type of constitution did Rev. Roger Williams establish with his fellow settlers?

Answer: egalitarian

The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. <hl> Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience". <hl>

The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an <hl> egalitarian <hl> constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".


Question: What religion were the Pilgrims?

Answer: Protestant

<hl> The Pilgrims were a small Protestant sect based in England and the Netherlands. <hl> One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".

The Pilgrims were a small <hl> Protestant <hl> sect based in England and the Netherlands. One group sailed on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. After drawing up the Mayflower Compact by which they gave themselves broad powers of self-governance, they established the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Rev. Roger Williams on land provided by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience".


Question: What was the name of the united colonies of New England, New York and the Jerseys under King James II?

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.

Answer: Province of Massachusetts Bay

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. <hl> However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay . <hl> Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the <hl> Province of Massachusetts Bay <hl>. Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.

However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the <hl> Province of Massachusetts Bay <hl> .


Question: What act inspired the 1689 Boston revolt?

Answer: England's Glorious Revolution

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. <hl> The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. <hl> Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by <hl> England's Glorious Revolution <hl> against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.


Question: In what year was the Massachusetts charter revoked?

Answer: 1684

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. <hl> However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684 , and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. <hl> Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in <hl> 1684 <hl>, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.

However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in <hl> 1684 <hl> , and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay.


Question: In what year was the new Massachusetts charter issued?

Answer: 1691

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. <hl> However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. <hl> Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in <hl> 1691 <hl> that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.


Question: What two settlements comprised the Province of Massachusetts Bay?

Answer: Massachusetts and Plymouth

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. <hl> However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. <hl> Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.

Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined <hl> Massachusetts and Plymouth <hl> into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Although King William III sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.


Question: The top five percent of the white population of Virginia and Maryland had what occupation?

In terms of the white population of Virginia and Maryland in the mid-18th century, the top five percent or so were planters who possessed growing wealth and increasing political power and social prestige. They controlled the local Anglican church, choosing ministers and handling church property and disbursing local charity. They sought initially obtained election to the house of purchases, or appointment has justice of the peace.  About 60 percent of white Virginians were part of a broad middle class that owns substantial farms; By the second generation, death rates from malaria and other local diseases had declined so much that a stable family structure was possible. The bottom third owned no land, and verged on poverty. Many were recent arrivals, are recently released from indentured servitude.  In some districts (near present-day Washington DC) 70 percent of the land was owned by a handful of families, and three fourths of the whites had no land at all. In the frontier districts, large numbers of Irish and German Protestants had settled, often moving down from Pennsylvania. Tobacco was not important there; farmers focused on hemp, grain, cattle, and horses. Entrepreneurs had begun to mine and smelt the local iron ores.

Answer: planters

<hl> In terms of the white population of Virginia and Maryland in the mid-18th century, the top five percent or so were planters who possessed growing wealth and increasing political power and social prestige. <hl> They controlled the local Anglican church, choosing ministers and handling church property and disbursing local charity. They sought initially obtained election to the house of purchases, or appointment has justice of the peace. About 60 percent of white Virginians were part of a broad middle class that owns substantial farms; By the second generation, death rates from malaria and other local diseases had declined so much that a stable family structure was possible. The bottom third owned no land, and verged on poverty. Many were recent arrivals, are recently released from indentured servitude. In some districts (near present-day Washington DC) 70 percent of the land was owned by a handful of families, and three fourths of the whites had no land at all. In the frontier districts, large numbers of Irish and German Protestants had settled, often moving down from Pennsylvania. Tobacco was not important there; farmers focused on hemp, grain, cattle, and horses. Entrepreneurs had begun to mine and smelt the local iron ores.

In terms of the white population of Virginia and Maryland in the mid-18th century, the top five percent or so were <hl> planters <hl> who possessed growing wealth and increasing political power and social prestige. They controlled the local Anglican church, choosing ministers and handling church property and disbursing local charity. They sought initially obtained election to the house of purchases, or appointment has justice of the peace. About 60 percent of white Virginians were part of a broad middle class that owns substantial farms; By the second generation, death rates from malaria and other local diseases had declined so much that a stable family structure was possible. The bottom third owned no land, and verged on poverty. Many were recent arrivals, are recently released from indentured servitude. In some districts (near present-day Washington DC) 70 percent of the land was owned by a handful of families, and three fourths of the whites had no land at all. In the frontier districts, large numbers of Irish and German Protestants had settled, often moving down from Pennsylvania. Tobacco was not important there; farmers focused on hemp, grain, cattle, and horses. Entrepreneurs had begun to mine and smelt the local iron ores.