According to the set of our history lectures, there were more disadvantages than advantages in colonial America. However, every disadvantage has its own advantage, in this case, land and will of separation. In this essay, I will evaluate the main pros, the abundance of land in colonies economy till the modern days, and the main cons that were the problems of labor and capital. First, land abundance in the colonies was an advantage that led to a wider electorate because it made a difference economically, socially and politically. Economically, the land was a key source of wealth, it was cheap and in big quantities. The land was part of the stock market, where investors bought it for low prices, they carried it until rising prices brought profits.
…show more content…
The lack of labor was a problem for the masters and land resources that were available. The solution was to attract free labor, that will work the land, but this resulted in the large scale of immigration. There were two types of labor: indentured services and slavery. When comparing the status, the difference is tremendous. For instance, servants had legal right-hand limited time service to the master. Whereas slaves were bound to a master for life and had no legal rights. Land worked by tenants in England was greater, about 70% than in America about 30%. Land worked by freeholders in England was fewer, about 30% than in America about 70%. tHe numbers were flipped as a result of the abundant amount of slaves. In the Northeast, the labor of producing tobacco was less difficult because the environment was healthy for humans which lead to longer life expectancy. However, in the deep South where rice and indigo produced, the environment considered dangerous for humans. The labor was difficult and life expectancy was shorter compared to the Northeast. Caribbean was known as the most dangerous destination for slaves. Sugar plantations required more maintenance thus, the life expectancy of a slave lasted at best from 7-10 yrs. In my opinion, the life expectancy was higher in the north thus, it was the best destination for slaves, versus the south and the Caribbean where the environment was dangerous and life expectancy was very
The lack of labor was a problem for the masters and land resources that were available. The solution was to attract free labor, that will work the land, but this resulted in the large scale of immigration. There were two types of labor: indentured services and slavery. When comparing the status, the difference is tremendous. For instance, servants had legal right-hand limited time service to the master. Whereas slaves were bound to a master for life and had no legal rights. Land worked by tenants in England was greater, about 70% than in America about 30%. Land worked by freeholders in England was fewer, about 30% than in America about 70%. tHe numbers were flipped as a result of the abundant amount of slaves. In the Northeast, the labor of producing tobacco was less difficult because the environment was healthy for humans which lead to longer life expectancy. However, in the deep South where rice and indigo produced, the environment considered dangerous for humans. The labor was difficult and life expectancy was shorter compared to the Northeast. Caribbean was known as the most dangerous destination for slaves. Sugar plantations required more maintenance thus, the life expectancy of a slave lasted at best from 7-10 yrs. In my opinion, the life expectancy was higher in the north thus, it was the best destination for slaves, versus the south and the Caribbean where the environment was dangerous and life expectancy was very