Sunday, September 21, 2008
APUSH Assignment Monday 9/22
WATCH ME FIRST!!!
As colonial Americans struggled to survive throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it became clear that a reliable source of income was necessary. The colonists knew that self-sustaining commerce was the only way to guarantee survival and continued growth. One way the colonists achieved self-sufficiency was through the cultivation of tobacco in the southern colonies. However, the newly-developed tobacco plantation economy required a very large workforce and tremendous amounts of back-breaking labor. Ultimately, that workforce was acquired through slavery.
Could colonial American agriculture have developed as successfully without slavery?
CLICK HERE to Begin Discussion of the Following Topic
After completing the discussion, post a response on this blog to the question, which is...
Could colonial American agriculture have developed as successfully without slavery?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
I think that Coloial America agriculture would have developed as successfully without slavery because people could have hired other people to help them. Their families could have also helped them work on the farms.
-Stephanie L. 903
American agriculture could not have developed successfully without slavery because large rice and indigo plantations required people to work them. Due to a shortage of indentured servants, the colonies did not have any field hands working on their cash crops, and by hiring slaves to do their work, the economy of the colonies progressed.
-Raisa B.
I think that Colonial America agriculture could have been successfull without slaves. The slave owners could do the same exact job as the slaves in around the same amount of time, they didnt want to do it, thats why they had slaves do their work for them.
-Chris C 903
I think that Colonial America agriculture could have been successful without slaves, but there wouldn't be as many plantations. With slaves, there were many cash crops produced, which made the slave owners wealthy. If it was just the slave owners, not as many crops would be produced. The economy and high demand for these crops mostly depended on the slaves that produced them.
I say colonial american could not have surrvived without slavery,yes slavery was horrible,but it had to be done. Plantations needed people to work and nobody wanted to work. There was a shortage going on and what were the colonies suppossed to do?
i think that the American agriculture could successfully developed without slavary because even though the plantations were big and not a lot of people was there to work, they could've hired people to work with them, instead of the hiring the slaves.
I think that American agriculture wouldnt of been as successful without slavery becasue, the slaves grew and raised cash crops without pay which not only raised the economy but also raised the number of trading goods.
-Michael D
i think that american agriculture wouldn't have been as succesful, because there was no work force. in some colonies in the south that had plantations, there were more slaves than colonists. with that ratio, more goods could be produced. On December 18, 1865, when slavery officially ended in America with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, there was enough colonists so there would be no need for the use of slavery. by then, everything worked out. i think that the way slavery was used in america was perfect; and was just a boost to jumpstart our economy.
I think that colonial american could not have surrvived without slavery because although slavery was bad, indenured servants left after 7 or 8 years,also since the colonies had a shorage of indenured servants, all the colonies had were slave. slaves also gave free labor-since they were forced to work
Donna W. 903
American agriculture could not have developed successfully without slavery. SInce there was no work force it would have been harder to develop such a striving economy. IN the South it has been said that for every one white man there was four African american slaves. With such a larger number of Africans then Americans a larger amount of goods could be produced, at much faster rate. BY the time the Thirteenth Amendment was passed there was already enough colonists in the Southern economy to make it where Slavery was no longer needed.
I do not think Colonial American agriculture would have developed successfully without slavery because the colonists needed a large work force for the many plantations that they had. Salves were capable of doing this sort of work,and colonists didn't want to do it. Because of the slaves, they helped boost up the economy.
-Josephine C. 903
I think that colonial America agriculture could have developed successfully without slaves, but not AS successfully as they did with slaves. However, with indentured servants setting their mind to complete one certain task at a time, i think they could of supported colonial American agriculture. But,their was a shortage of indentured servants. On the other hand, unforutnately slaves were morally repsonsible for most jobs, and those jobs were completed. Slaves grew crops without pay, which raised economy and the amount of trading goods.
-- Jenna S. 931
I think that Colonial American agriculture could not have successfully developed without slavery because there were large plantations that required people to work on. But there was a shortage of indentured servants to work on the plantations so the colonists didn't have enough workers to tend the fields. So the colonies hired slaves to tend the plantations. With slaves working on large plantations producing rice, indigo dye and cash crops like tobacco, it increased and improved the colony's economy and the demand for slaves. So the colonies became very dependent on slaves.
-Monica Sharma =]
I think that Colonial American Agriculture could not have developed as successfully as it did without slavery. The reason I say this is because the indentured slave market in England was going downhill and rapidly decreasing. Also it was more profitable to get a slave to work for you for their whole life rather than a indentured servant or free labor worker to work for you for only 4-7years. The Population of the 13 colonies was outnumbering the economy.In 1865 slavery became illegal.
- Avi S. 903
Colonial American Agriculture wouldn't have been successful and advanced without the hard and forced work of slaves. The hard works of the plantation in America was the leasted wanted jobs of the colonists. NO ONE wanted to do such harsh job. But thanks to the slaves, they were able to get done with the jobs that colonists did NOT want to do. If they did not inherit the slavery system, the colonists would still refuse to do such harsh labor and try finding easier ways of making money. Therefore, American Agriculture would have wound up in a failure, falling behind other countries all over the world, being less developed.
Surely the slavery system have helped the colonists. But Slavery has given them a bad reputation. Because they did not want to do it, they captured and sold or used innocent people to do their work for them. But all in all, the Colonial American Agriculture wouldn't have developed as much without slavery.
-Min Kang 903
Colonial American Agriculture could not have developed as mush as it did without slavery because in some colonies in the south were there were plantaions, there were more slaves than colonist. With this situation, more goods would be produced. The colonists depended on the slaves and without them, things wouldn't have turned out like they did.
-Amanda Brandell
I believe that american agriculture could have survived without slavery because just look at the northern colonies, they were able to survive without slavery. So to say that the southern colonies could not have survived without slavery is a understatement. They could of still have tobacco for a export, but in order to do this, they could have smaller fields.
-Marc S.
I think Colonial America would not have developed crops successfully without slavery because there was not enough labor in the colonies and because there wasn't enough money, especially in the earlier years, to pay for labor, usually only enough for slaves. They also bought slaves for amounts of years, rather than a lifetime because people in the colonies did not live that long.
-Danielle C.
I don't think that American agriculture could have developed as much without slaves. All the plantations required people to work on them. The people were too lazy to do the work so they needed slaves to do it for them. Also, in some colonies, slaves were most of the population. Without them, the colonists couldn't have had as many plantations because there wouldn't be as many people to take care of them. Slaves also worked without pay so that raised the economy and benefited the colonists.
I believe that colonial American agriculture wouldn't be a success without slavery because no other colonist would do such harsh work. The problem was unfortunately solved when the system of slavery was created. Without slaves producing cash crops, the country will fall behind tremendously economicially. Even if slavery in America gave a bad reputation, it was still a good cause because withput slavery there won't be an America like today.
-Alex Bao 902
I think that Colonial America agriculture would not have survived without slaves. According to the video, they said that for every white man there were four African slaves. This shows that the population of Africans over powered the population of Americans. This obviously says that with the Africans, the work would get done a lot faster. Also, there was work to be done, and without the slaves it would not have gotten done.
I think that Colonial America couldn't have developed successfully without slaves. Large plantations needed lots of workers, but no one was willing to do it. Because of a decreasing population, colonists believed that African slaves was the best way to help them.
- Janet C.
I dont think the american agriculture would have been as great as it was without slaves because, if there were no slaves it would be next to impossible to find that much free labor. If they could not find any free labor, they would start having to pay them like employees and soon the profits wouldnt be as great. I also think that if there was no slavery, it would have inspired people to look to science and start inventing things earlier on.
This is gabby yannottis.
She had a bit of a problem logging onto her blog. So, this is IT.
I do not think that american agriculture would have thrived the way it did without slavery. Slavery was essential for many reasons. First of all, the cost of slave labor was cheaper than that of indentured servants, saving many plantations owners money. Slaves were also more abundant than indentured servants. Colonial america probably could have been somewhat successful without the use of slavery, but not nearly as successful as it was. As Zoe said, there was a shortage of labor and there were not many other options. Not to say that i think it was right of the americans to use slavery. I just mean that without slaves, america's economy would not have progressed nearly as much. and p.s, can anyone help me figure out how to make words bold and stuff?
Now, this is mine. :]
I don't believe that Colonial American agriculture could have developed successfully without slavery. In fact, many plantation owners needed slavery to do labor for them. At that time, the colonies were poor in money, and wasn't familiar to their new surroundings. Besides growing plantations and shipping goods to England, there wasn't many other jobs offered with a reasonable pay. If it wasn't for the big plantation run by numberous of hard working slaves then, colonies such as Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland may not survive back then which eventually well make a big impact on life today. Although this method is harsh and inhumane, but, concerning the fact that it was there way of survival; someone had to pay the price.
Michelle X
902
I think Colonial American agriculture could not have developed successfully with out slavery because their were more slaves than colonists, and the plantations needed lots of workers. There was no one willing to do it other than the slaves.
-Edina K.
Post a Comment