During the 1600s, each of the thirteen colonies were unique entities to themselves. However, there was little conflict or consensus between them.
I'm suppose to write a paragraph on whether the communities was conflict or consensus and back it up with fractual evidence. I believe there was more conflict than consensus. I don't want to say it's both or neither, I'm afraid he might makr it wrong. The textbook says
The earliest historians of colonial society portrayed close-knit, homogeneous, and hierarchical communities. Richard Bushman in From Puritan to Yankee (1967) challenged that traditional view. He described colonial New England as an expanding, open society in which the colonist gradually lost the religious discipline and social structure of the founding generations. Rhys Isaac viewed the Great Awakening in the South as similar evidence of erosion in the social constraints and deference that once held colonial society together.
Since this paragraph mentions nothing about conflict between the colonies, we must assume that there was consensus between them.
Oh there's actually 3 more paragraphs. I didn't want you to read too much so I only copy and paste the first paragraph. The other paragraphs are just different viewpoints of scholars. The only thing I find really confusing is the question. Colonial America: Communities of conflict or consensus? I don't think there was a lot of conflict between colonies but inside the colonies, there was always some sort of conflict. So is it talking about conflict between colonies or conflict in colonies?
Is this exactly the way your question reads?
During the seventeeth century. Was the first thirteen colonies mostly a communities of conflict or consensus? Why were they in conflict or consensus?
Since it has some grammatical errors, I suggest you go back and reread the assignment and type it here exactly as it should be.
No, the question is
Colonial America: Communities of Conflict or Consensus?