New England And Chesapeake Regions example essay topic

Although New England and the Chesapeake region were both settled largely by people of English origin, by 1700 the regions had evolved into two distinct societies. Why did this difference in development occur? Even though the New England and Chesapeake regions were both established primarily by people of English origin, each region had very different qualities. From their reasons for being founded to the development of societies, it was very apparent that these two societies were different by 1700.

This essay will show some of the of social and economic as well as religious reasons for turning the New England and Chesapeake regions into separate, distinct colonies. The largest difference between the New England and Chesapeake regions is why each colony was founded. While the New England Colonies were founded for religious purposes the Chesapeake was founded simply for greed. The colonies of the New England area were founded by deeply religious Puritans and Separatists striving for religious freedom. These people wanted to set a standard for the rest of the world. These people had the belief that even though they were all different they must work together.

This showed the New England area had a great sense of community. John Winthrop, who was one of the people who established the Massachusetts Bay Colony, shows this in his settlement called "a city upon a hill". The people who founded the Chesapeake Philadelphia merchant, Robert Morris, who in 1781 became the nation's superintendent of finance. Morris proposed that the states authorize the collection of a national import duty of 5 percent to finance the congressional budget and to guarantee interest payments on the war debt. On November 30, 1782, a letter from the Rhode Island Assembly to Congress explains the rejection of Morris's proposal of the collection for a national import duty.

Rhode Island stated that it was unequal and against the constitution. Because all 13 states had to agree, the proposal was thrown out and was not enforced. Morris and Alexander Hamilton devised a dangerous plot called the Newburgh Conspiracy in order to relieve the panic. (Doc A) In 1783, a letter form Delegate Joseph Jones to George Washing suggests the immediate pay to the soldier by enforcing tariffs and taxation.

Washington blocked this threatened military coup aimed at strengthening the central government and guaranteeing back pay and pensions to officers as the war came close. These events proved the Confederation was weak and unable to control financial problems. Diplomatic problems multiplied after the war. Congress was unable to convince states to repay prewar debts to British citizens and allow Loyalists to recover confiscated property. European governments closed off nearly all American trade with the colonies. (Doc.

C) After the Declaration of Independence, the profit of exports to Britain steadily declined. This shows that the export trade to Britain was declining. Britain took away the rights of the United States to trade with the British colonies, yet Britain goods were still flooding in the United States. This, in return caused an economic depression within the colonies. (Doc. B) Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay negotiated many treaties with Spain, Britain, and other European countries, but it was blocked by Congress.

In John Jay's Instructions to the United States Minister to Great Britain, Jay insists that the British remove themselves from the United States. The British still remained in the United States even after the war. Western land claims were a long source of dispute between the states and European nations. (Doc.

D) While seven states had huge land based on colonial charters, the other six had none. The addition of the western lands would strengthen the Congress because the sale of lands would provide a source of national revenue. Spain wanted the United States to give up highway rights of the Mississippi. The Mississippi was generally a money highway for the United States. The seizing of the Mississippi rover was unnecessary and took away the opportunities of the Americans. However, John Jay's negotiation of a trade treaty with Spain was blocked by Congress.

(Doc. E, F) Shays' Rebellion showed the inability of the Articles of Confederation to keep maintaining things in order to satisfy the citizens. In 1786, farmers with debts demanded more paper currency, postponement of debt and tax payments, and an end to mortgage foreclosures. In Rhode Island, government issued a flood of paper money. In western Massachusetts, rebel farmers led by Daniel Shays attempted to interrupt the operations of the courts.

The rebellion was easily crushed, but attempted to interrupt the operations of the courts. The rebellion was easily crushed, but fears of anarchy grew among the wealthy. In June of 1786, a letter from John Jay to George Washington addressed his fear of the failure of the confederation and the various uproars. His faith in a new changed constitution (as well as many other political figures) showed hat the previous Articles of Confederation was a sure failure. Unable to control foreign affairs, financial problems and rebellions, the Congress decided to revise the Confederations. (Doc.

G) In a speech to the South Carolina House of Representatives, Rawlins Lowndes explains the failures of the Confederation and the demanding of a new and revised government with more central powers and more regulations on the states. These changes were necessary to the Confederation and the United States to secure justice and organization. (Doc. H) Overall, The Articles of Confederation did not provide an effective government.

It did not satisfy the people, unify the states, nor keep the people financially and economically happy. The Confederation was too weak, while the states had strong separate government. The states had much of freedom and independence. There were some great achievements which were the Bill of Rights and the western land claims, but these achievements did not really help the Congress to make a strong central government. These were good to the states, giving them more rights and freedom, not the central government. Later on, these problems would lead to a stronger central government in order to keep an effective government.

1 of 1 Include original text in reply.