Why were backcountry colonists more self - sufficient than plantation owners
a) they had more slaves to help them
b) Farming along the cost provided everything they needed
c)living near the breadbasket provided them with enough money for their cash crops
d) nearly everything they needed was made at home
I think the answer is c, but i need help double checking my answer, any help is a blessing, lol
The correct answer is d) nearly everything they needed was made at home.
Backcountry colonists were more self-sufficient than plantation owners primarily because they lived in more isolated and remote areas, away from the coastal regions where plantation owners resided. The backcountry colonists had less access to trade networks and markets, so they had to rely on themselves and their local resources to meet their needs. They typically grew their own crops and raised their own livestock, and they also produced their own household goods, tools, and clothing. This self-sufficiency allowed them to survive and thrive without depending heavily on external resources, unlike plantation owners who often relied on enslaved labor and cash crops for their income.
No worries! I'm here to help you double-check your answer. The question is asking why backcountry colonists were more self-sufficient than plantation owners. Let's go through the options together:
a) They had more slaves to help them: This option suggests that having more slaves would contribute to their self-sufficiency. However, having slaves does not necessarily mean greater self-sufficiency. Slave labor may be more closely associated with plantation owners rather than backcountry colonists.
b) Farming along the coast provided everything they needed: This option presents the idea that the backcountry colonists obtained everything they needed from farming along the coast. However, keep in mind that the question is specifically asking about backcountry colonists, who typically lived further inland and not directly along the coast. Therefore, this option is inconsistent with the question.
c) Living near the breadbasket provided them with enough money for their cash crops: This option claims that living near the "breadbasket" provided enough money for their cash crops, which may suggest financial self-sufficiency. However, the term "breadbasket" generally refers to regions known for abundant grain production, such as the Great Plains in the United States or the Ukraine in Europe. Since the backcountry was not typically considered a major grain-producing region, this option does not accurately address the self-sufficiency aspect for backcountry colonists.
d) Nearly everything they needed was made at home: This option indicates that backcountry colonists made nearly everything they needed at home. This aligns with the idea of self-sufficiency, as it suggests they were able to produce or create most of their necessities without relying heavily on external sources.
Considering the information above, it seems that option d) makes the most sense. Backcountry colonists were more self-sufficient because they produced or made nearly everything they needed at home.
Feel free to ask for further clarification or any other questions you may have!