why where backcountry farmers more self sufficiant than plantation owners?
1.they had more slaves to help them
2. Farming along the coast provided everything they needed.
3. Living the in the "breadbasket" provided them with enough money from their cash crops.
3.nearly everything that was needed was made at home.
The correct option out of the given choices that explains why backcountry farmers were more self-sufficient than plantation owners is:
3. nearly everything that was needed was made at home.
Backcountry farmers, living in more rural and isolated areas, had limited access to market centers and towns. Therefore, they had to rely on themselves and their immediate community to meet their needs. They cultivated a variety of crops for food and livestock feed, and they also raised animals for meat, milk, and other products. They often produced their own goods such as textiles, tools, and basic household items. In contrast, plantation owners relied heavily on cash crops, such as tobacco or cotton, which they sold in market centers to generate income. They had fewer incentives to be self-sufficient in producing their own goods, as they could afford to purchase items and services from the market.
why was mayflower compact significant?
The Mayflower Compact was significant for several reasons:
1. Establishment of Self-Government: The Compact was a written agreement developed and signed by the Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower in 1620. It established a basic form of self-government and a social contract among the settlers. It provided a framework for decision-making and the creation of laws, ensuring that the colonists would govern themselves in the New World.
2. Legitimacy and Authority: The Compact was important because it provided legitimacy and authority to the Pilgrims' settlement. It declared that the colonists intended to establish a self-governing community under the English King's jurisdiction, ensuring that their actions would be recognized as lawful and authorized.
3. Unity and Equality: The Compact emphasized the principle of equality among the settlers, stating that decisions would be made collectively for the general good of the colony. It promoted unity and collaboration among the Pilgrims, regardless of their social or economic status, which was essential for their survival in the harsh conditions of the New World.
4. Influence on American Democracy: The Mayflower Compact is considered a precursor to the democratic principles that later shaped the United States. Its principles of self-government, social contract, and rule by consent would influence the development of representative democracy in America, including the drafting of the United States Constitution.
Overall, the Mayflower Compact was significant in establishing a foundation for self-government, legitimizing the Pilgrims' settlement, promoting equality and unity, and influencing democratic principles in American history.
1.it was the first written document forbidding from voting directly on laws.
2. It was the first written document that did not reconize citizens rights.
3, It was the first written document to express citizens rights by the colonists.
4. It was the first written goverment document not written by the colonists
Out of the given options, option three is the correct statement explaining why the Mayflower Compact was significant:
3. It was the first written document to express citizens' rights by the colonists.
The Mayflower Compact outlined the colonists' commitment to self-governance and established rules and regulations for the Plymouth Colony. Though it did not explicitly mention specific rights as we understand them today, it reflected the colonists' desire for equal participation in decision-making processes and the creation of laws. It can be seen as an early expression of the ideals and aspirations for self-government and individual liberties that would later influence the development of the United States.
how was the gonverment outlined in fundemental orders of connnecticut different from massatusets?
1.the foc gave the vote to all men who were property owners.
2.
The correct option out of the given choices that explains how the government outlined in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut was different from Massachusetts is:
1. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut gave the vote to all men who were property owners.
In Massachusetts, the right to vote was initially restricted to adult male church members who had gone through a process known as "freeman status." The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, on the other hand, extended the right to vote to all men who were property owners, regardless of their religious affiliation. This was a significant departure from the more exclusive voting requirements in Massachusetts, and it expanded the participation in the political process to a broader segment of the male population in Connecticut.
what else? 1 more.
Another difference between the government outlined in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut and Massachusetts was the structure of the government.
In Massachusetts, there was a governor and a general court made up of freemen who were elected by the freemen of the colony. The governor held significant power and was the head of the government.
In contrast, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut established a more democratic form of government. It created a General Assembly composed of elected representatives from each town. This General Assembly held legislative power and made decisions collectively. The governor's role in Connecticut was more limited compared to Massachusetts, as the governor was elected by the General Assembly and did not possess the same level of executive authority as in Massachusetts.
Therefore, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut established a more representative and participatory form of government, with power dispersed among elected representatives and a more limited role for the governor, distinguishing it from the Massachusetts government structure at the time.
Backcountry farmers were often more self-sufficient than plantation owners for a few reasons:
1. They had fewer slaves to rely on: While plantation owners had large numbers of enslaved people to work on their plantations, backcountry farmers typically had a smaller workforce and had to perform a significant portion of the work themselves. This forced them to learn a wide range of skills and become more self-reliant.
2. Farming along the coast provided everything they needed: Backcountry farmers often lived in regions where fertile land and natural resources were abundant. They could grow their own crops, raise livestock, and gather resources from the forests and rivers nearby. This allowed them to meet many of their basic needs without relying heavily on trade or outside resources.
3. Living in the "breadbasket" provided enough income: The backcountry regions were often referred to as the "breadbasket" because they produced a surplus of grains, such as corn, wheat, and oats. This surplus could be sold or traded for other goods, providing the backcountry farmers with a source of income. They were not dependent on the cash crops like tobacco or cotton that plantation owners relied on.
4. Nearly everything they needed was made at home: Backcountry farmers had to be resourceful and self-sufficient due to their limited access to markets and transportation. They often manufactured their own tools, clothing, and other necessities. They would make their own furniture, weave cloth, and even build their own homes. This allowed them to save money and rely less on external sources for their needs.
In summary, backcountry farmers were more self-sufficient than plantation owners because they had to rely on themselves and had the necessary resources in their immediate surroundings to meet their basic needs. They had fewer slaves, plentiful land for farming, access to marketable produce, and the ability to make most of what they needed at home.