Divergent Development: New England and Chesapeake Region in 17th Century

During the 17th century, many different economic, geographic, and social factors shaped the Chesapeake region and New England. The difference in development between New England and the Chesapeake region occurred because they were founded for different purposes, they had very different climates, and they had very different economic gaps.

The first reason why the difference in development between New England and the Chesapeake region occurred was because they were founded for different purposes. The primary reason for the settlement of New England was to create a safe haven for the Puritans of England where they could freely express their religion. The Puritans believed that it was their responsibility and God’s expectation that they create moral, Christian communities. John Winthrop reflects this in document A when he says that their failure would “open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of…God.” The Chesapeake settlers

had different goals from those who settled in New England. People’s main motives were not religious, but to “dig gold, wash gold, refine gold, load gold,” as shown in document F. Chesapeake settlers were mainly trying to gain wealth. This resulted in competition, rather than bonding, over the settlement. The different purposes of each colony resulted in the attraction of different types of people. Document B shows that people settled in New England with their families, unlike document C, that shows Chesapeake settlers were mostly single men. This happened because the religious freedom and practice was more appealing to families, and resulted in a much more unified settlement in New England.
Another reason why differences in development in New England and the Chesapeake region occurred was because of the very different climates of each region.

The hot climate of the Chesapeake region was appealing to large landholders. It was profitable, especially along the rivers, because mass production of rice and tobacco was possible. The colder climate of New England, however, made the production of crops more difficult, requiring the New England industry to diversify and include smaller farms, fishing for cod, and ship building. The climate in New England also made the spread of disease more difficult, increasing life expectancy, more so for men, in the region. The Chesapeake climate allowed the rapid spread of disease; life spans were shorter, making it even more difficult for families to grow. The abundance of large plantations and crops due to the Chesapeake climate made outside help from slaves and servants was much more necessary and profitable than in New England because of New England’s colder climate, limiting their farming

capabilities.
A third reason as to why the development in New England and the Chesapeake region was very different was because of the economic gaps in each region. The economic gap between rich and poor was much larger in the Chesapeake region, especially after the introduction of slaves and indentured servants, than in New England. New England was a much tighter community in regards to the economic gap because of their common goal to serve God and have a religious community where they won’t be persecuted. The Articles of Agreement shown in document D stated a common goal of “everyone’s quality and estate”. Because New England had developed a much tighter community, they were more invested in the prosperity of everyone in their community. Document E asks that laborers “consider the religious end of their callings,” demonstrating that there was a religious motive to serve God by striving to maintain the strength of their settlement. They would be a better “city upon a hill” if they set the example of not impoverishing their neighbors. In the Chesapeake, however, they had a largely aristocratic way of dividing land, leaving most of the land in the hands of the few. They did not have such a religious calling to help their neighbors, as New England did. Bacon’s rebellion, explained in document H, demonstrated social dissatisfaction from many free poor men who saw the large landholders as “sponges [who] have sucked up the public treasure.” This wealthy-poor economic gap was only increased at the end of the century when the market for slaves and servants grew, because it introduced a new class of poor to be ruled by the same wealthy elites.