Question: Where did the Irish and German Protestants move from?

Answer: Pennsylvania

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. <hl> In the frontier districts, large numbers of Irish and German Protestants had settled, often moving down from Pennsylvania . <hl> 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 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 <hl> Pennsylvania <hl>. 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 the frontier districts, large numbers of Irish and German Protestants had settled, often moving down from <hl> Pennsylvania <hl> .


Question: What percent of white people in Virginia owned farms?

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: 60 percent

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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 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 <hl> 60 percent <hl> 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.


Question: What substance was being mined?

Answer: iron ores

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. <hl> Entrepreneurs had begun to mine and smelt the local iron ores . <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. 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 <hl> iron ores <hl>.

Entrepreneurs had begun to mine and smelt the local <hl> iron ores <hl> .


Question: What group controlled the local church?

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.


Question: What was the main event at the competitions organized by Sir Francis Nicholson?

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top.  In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers. In American game was more than plentiful. Everyone—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.”  Horse racing was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers.  Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves.  Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values.

Answer: Horse racing

Horse racing was the main event.

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers. In American game was more than plentiful. Everyone—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” <hl> Horse racing was the main event. <hl> The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values.

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers. In American game was more than plentiful. Everyone—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” <hl> Horse racing <hl> was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values.


Question: What are three main aspects of gentry values?

Answer: competitiveness, individualism, and materialism

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers. In American game was more than plentiful. Everyone—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” Horse racing was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. <hl> When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values. <hl>

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers. In American game was more than plentiful. Everyone—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” Horse racing was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that <hl> competitiveness, individualism, and materialism <hl> where the core elements of gentry values.


Question: What two things were necessary to maintain the status of the gentry?

Answer: horse racing and high-stakes gambling

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers. In American game was more than plentiful. Everyone—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” Horse racing was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. <hl> Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. <hl> When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values.

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers. In American game was more than plentiful. Everyone—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” Horse racing was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. Historian Timothy Breen explains that <hl> horse racing and high-stakes gambling <hl> were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values.


Question: Who enforced hunting laws in England?

Answer: armed gameskeepers

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. <hl> In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers . <hl> In American game was more than plentiful. Everyone—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” Horse racing was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values.

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by <hl> armed gameskeepers <hl>. In American game was more than plentiful. Everyone—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” Horse racing was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values.

In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by <hl> armed gameskeepers <hl> .


Question: Who was allowed to hunt in America?

Answer: Everyone

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers. In American game was more than plentiful. <hl> Everyone —including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. <hl> Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” Horse racing was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values.

Sports occupied a great deal of attention at every social level, starting at the top. In England hunting was sharply restricted to landowners, and enforced by armed gameskeepers. In American game was more than plentiful. <hl> Everyone <hl>—including servants and slaves—could and did hunt. Poor men with a good rifle aim won praise; rich gentlemen who were off target won ridicule. In 1691 Sir Francis Nicholson, the governor, organized competitions for the “better sort of Virginians onely who are Batchelors,” and he offered prizes “to be shot for, wrastled, played at backswords, & Run for by Horse and foott.” Horse racing was the main event. The typical farmer did not own a horse in the first place, and racing was a matter for gentlemen only, but ordinary farmers were spectators and gamblers. Selected slaves often became skilled horse trainers. Horse racing was especially important for knitting the gentry together. The race was a major public event designed to demonstrate to the world the superior social status of the gentry through expensive breeding, training, boasting and gambling, and especially winning the races themselves. Historian Timothy Breen explains that horse racing and high-stakes gambling were essential to maintaining the status of the gentry. When they publicly bet a large sum on their favorite horse, it told the world that competitiveness, individualism, and materialism where the core elements of gentry values.

<hl> Everyone <hl> —including servants and slaves—could and did hunt.


Question: Which invasion was a threat to England in the 17th century?

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.

Answer: Spanish invasion

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. <hl> During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion , assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. <hl> At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of <hl> Spanish invasion <hl>, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.

During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of <hl> Spanish invasion <hl> , assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth.


Question: Which English queen helped propell national assertiveness in the 17the century?

Answer: Queen Elizabeth

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. <hl> During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth . <hl> At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of <hl> Queen Elizabeth <hl>. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.

During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of <hl> Queen Elizabeth <hl> .


Question: What was the major profession of immigrants to America after 1700?

Answer: indentured servants

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. <hl> After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants —young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. <hl> Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as <hl> indentured servants <hl>—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.

After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as <hl> indentured servants <hl> —young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment.


Question: How many convicts did the British ship to American colonies between late 1610s and the American Revolution?

Answer: 50,000

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. <hl> Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. <hl> The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated <hl> 50,000 <hl> convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.


Question: In which century the main waves of settlement entered America?

Answer: 17th century

<hl> England made its first successful efforts at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. <hl> During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.

England made its first successful efforts at the start of the <hl> 17th century <hl> for several reasons. During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts. The main waves of settlement came in the 17th century. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, the British shipped an estimated 50,000 convicts to its American colonies. The first convicts to arrive pre-dated the arrival of the Mayflower.


Question: Name the most notable American who was trained by British officers for battle.

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.

Answer: George Washington

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. <hl> Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington ) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution. <hl> Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably <hl> George Washington <hl>) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.

Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably <hl> George Washington <hl> ) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution.


Question: What increased in American men and encouraged to live their own colony, travel across the continent and fight alongside other Americans??

Answer: a sense of American unity

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. <hl> The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. <hl> It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. The war also increased <hl> a sense of American unity <hl> in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.


Question: Which two groups of people increased their presence in American lives?

Answer: British military and civilian officials

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". <hl> During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. <hl> The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as <hl> British military and civilian officials <hl> took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.


Question: In what later war did the British training for battle benefit Americans?

Answer: American Revolution

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. <hl> Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution . <hl> Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the <hl> American Revolution <hl>. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.

Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the <hl> American Revolution <hl> .


Question: What did William Pitt decide needed to be done to when the war against France?

Answer: major military resources needed to be devoted to North America

<hl> The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, major military resources needed to be devoted to North America . <hl> For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, <hl> major military resources needed to be devoted to North America <hl>. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, the position of the British colonies as part of the British Empire was made truly apparent, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in the lives of Americans. The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men, who might normally have never left their own colony, to travel across the continent, fighting alongside men from decidedly different, yet still "American", backgrounds. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained American ones (most notably George Washington) for battle—which would later benefit the American Revolution. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively, for the first time, in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort. The relations between the British military establishment and the colonists were not always positive, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops.

The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that, in order to win the war against France, <hl> major military resources needed to be devoted to North America <hl> .


Question: Who were the main source of labor after Bacon's Rebellion?

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. In 1676, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.

Answer: African slaves

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. In 1676, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. <hl> After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force. <hl>

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. In 1676, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. After Bacon's Rebellion, <hl> African slaves <hl> rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.


Question: Which group of labors African slaves replaced after Bacon's Rebellion?

Answer: indentured servants

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. <hl> By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. <hl> In 1676, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import <hl> indentured servants <hl> and slaves. In 1676, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.


Question: In which year did Bacon's Rebellion happen?

Answer: 1676

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. <hl> In 1676 , Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. <hl> After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. In <hl> 1676 <hl>, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.

In <hl> 1676 <hl> , Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials.


Question: What was the main export item of Virginia in the late 17th century?

Answer: tobacco

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. <hl> The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. <hl> By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. In 1676, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to <hl> tobacco <hl> as a cash crop. By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. In 1676, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.


Question: When was Jamestown founded?

Answer: May 14, 1607

<hl> The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. <hl> The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. In 1676, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.

The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established <hl> May 14, 1607 <hl> near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop. By the late 17th century, Virginia's export economy was largely based on tobacco, and new, richer settlers came in to take up large portions of land, build large plantations and import indentured servants and slaves. In 1676, Bacon's Rebellion occurred, but was suppressed by royal officials. After Bacon's Rebellion, African slaves rapidly replaced indentured servants as Virginia's main labor force.


Question: Which Canadian province was given over to the British by France?

In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year). Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.

Answer: Quebec

In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year). Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. <hl> Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec , the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. <hl> Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.

In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year). Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including <hl> Quebec <hl>, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.

Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including <hl> Quebec <hl> , the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley.


Question: France gave of up which region of North American?

Answer: eastern part

<hl> In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year). <hl> Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.

In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the <hl> eastern part <hl> of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year). Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.


Question: Besides the territory that was formally ceded by France, what other land was given over to the British?

Answer: Spanish Florida

In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year). Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. <hl> Britain also gained Spanish Florida , from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. <hl> In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.

In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year). Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained <hl> Spanish Florida <hl>, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.

Britain also gained <hl> Spanish Florida <hl> , from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida.


Question: What is the major geographical body that divides the east from the west?

Answer: Mississippi River

<hl> In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year) <hl> . Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.

In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the <hl> Mississippi River <hl> to Spain the previous year). Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.


Question: After France ceded what did the colonist no longer need?

Answer: colonial protection.

In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year). Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. <hl> In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection. <hl>

In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded the eastern part of its vast North American empire to Britain (having secretly given the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain the previous year). Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of <hl> colonial protection. <hl>


Question: What was the death rates of Cheasepeake colony during early days?

The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England. With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. High death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years.

Answer: High

The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England. With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. <hl> High death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years. <hl>

The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England. With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. <hl> High <hl> death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years.


Question: What the usual age of Cheasepeake colonists during early days?

Answer: very young

The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England. With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. <hl> High death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years. <hl>

The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England. With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. High death rates and a <hl> very young <hl> population profile characterized the colony during its first years.


Question: With which country did the Cheasepeake planters trade heavily?

Answer: England

The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). <hl> As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England . <hl> With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. High death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years.

The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with <hl> England <hl>. With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. High death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years.

As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with <hl> England <hl> .


Question: What did the Cheasepeake planters produce?

Answer: cash crop

The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). <hl> As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England. <hl> With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. High death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years.

The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). As <hl> cash crop <hl> producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England. With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. High death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years.


Question: With whom did the colonial assembly share power?

Answer: royally appointed governor

<hl> The colonial assembly shared power with a royally appointed governor . <hl> On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England. With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. High death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years.

The colonial assembly shared power with a <hl> royally appointed governor <hl>. On a more local level, governmental power was invested in county courts, which were self-perpetuating (the incumbents filled any vacancies and there never were popular elections). As cash crop producers, Chesapeake plantations were heavily dependent on trade with England. With easy navigation by river, there were few towns and no cities; planters shipped directly to Britain. High death rates and a very young population profile characterized the colony during its first years.

The colonial assembly shared power with a <hl> royally appointed governor <hl> .


Question: Which colony absorbed the New Haven colony in the 17th century?

The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.

Answer: Connecticut

The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. <hl> The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. <hl> During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.

The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and <hl> Connecticut <hl> colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.


Question: In which year the Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded?

Answer: 1629

<hl> The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. <hl> They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.

The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in <hl> 1629 <hl> with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.


Question: How many settlers founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony?

Answer: 400

<hl> The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. <hl> They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.

The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with <hl> 400 <hl> settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.


Question: Which church did the Massachusetts Bay Colony settlers try to reform?

Answer: Church of England

The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. <hl> They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. <hl> By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.

The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the <hl> Church of England <hl> by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.


Question: How many settlers arrived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony by 1640?

Answer: 20,000

The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. <hl> By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. <hl> The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.

The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, <hl> 20,000 <hl> had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.


Question: What utimately caused lack of unity among the British and the colonist?

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.

Answer: troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. <hl> British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. <hl> This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of <hl> troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain <hl> itself. This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.


Question: Which group of Europeans held strong grienvences about the war?

Answer: The British elite

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. <hl> The British elite , the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. <hl> The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. <hl> The British elite <hl>, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.

<hl> The British elite <hl> , the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers.


Question: What historical event utimately seperated the 13 conlonies from Britain?

Answer: the American Revolution

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. <hl> This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution . <hl>

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about <hl> the American Revolution <hl>.

This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about <hl> the American Revolution <hl> .


Question: What sentiments were held by both the colonist and Britains after the French war ended?

Answer: each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. <hl> This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other . <hl> The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, <hl> each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other <hl>. The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.

This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, <hl> each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other <hl> .


Question: What did the colonist feel they had sacrifced the most for the war?

Answer: their sons

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. <hl> The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. <hl> This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.

The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. This was a successful wartime strategy, but after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that <hl> their sons <hl> had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.