Why were Africans used as slaves instead of Native Americans?
It was largely a matter of logistics and socio-political influences. A summarized list of these elements would be as follows: Lack of immunity to diseases; high mortality rates made Natives a poor investment as slaves (e.g. they died off in greater numbers) Military strength of tribal nations sufficient enough to be a threat to the young colonies; taking Native slaves could be risky and sometimes costly endeavor. The African slave market was more convenient and cost-effective, compared to warring with tribes and trying to enslave a people that would either die quickly in bondage, or could escape more readily. Suicide was vastly more common at the point of enslavement. This was a sort of macabre market force. Those African slaves that made it through the gauntlet - being captured by slave raiders, amassed in horrific staging areas, and then taken across the sea in slave ships, were less likely to kill themselves after they arrived in the Americas. Natives being captured in their homelands and enslaved would often kill themselves (just as Africans were more prone to commit suicide in Africa during the initial stages of their enslavement). This is precisely why the Indian slave trade that did exist from the late 1600 until the early 1700s, actually sent the majority of Native slaves to the Caribbean, ironically, often in exchange for African slaves. The same principle was at play though...when the Indians arrived in these locations where Blacks made up the majority of the population, they had nowhere to run and seek freedom.Page on nih.govAfrican slaves, once brought to the Americans, were presumed to have slave status by the nature of their racial identity. Thus, it was easier to maintain the perpetual slave status of Blacks. There were few places an escaped Black slave could run and hide out, and nowhere to effectively maintain this freedom for any length of time (Maroon communities in North America were always of a fleeting nature). Natives were being treated as sovereign nations during the colonial era, and their individual freedom was acknowledge by default. Racial views varied, and Europeans saw Native Americans in a slightly more positive light - even as they sought to dispossess them and destroy their cultures. This question is similar to:Why were Native Americans never or not widely enslaved in America despite being coloured?
How did the first transcontinental railroad affect native americans? (DAR essay contest)?
Even as the transcontinental railroad brought the new country together, it brought change to the world of Native Americans. The tracks ran through a number of tribal territories, bringing into conflict cultures that held very different views of the land and how it might be used and lived on. The painting The First Train, by Herbert Schuyler, depicts three Indians pointing past their encampment at a train in the far distance. The railroad also brought an increasing number of European Americans west. One consequence of this influx was the depletion of the buffalo herds, a major food source for Plains Indians. European Americans would often shoot buffalo for sport from the train; by 1880, the buffalo were mostly gone and Plains Indians had been gathered onto reservations. Millions of acres of open grassland were being settled by the people moving west. Eventually, much of this land became the farmland that fed a growing nation. http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifo... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Trans... Meanwhile, the Union Pacific was heading west, into Indian territory. The railroad slowly destroyed the Indians' way of life. The raised train tracks separated vast buffalo herds. More and more whites began to settle on what was Indian land, pushing Native Americans into smaller and smaller spaces. Some Native Americans tried to negotiate with the whites. But the message they got was clear. General William T. Sherman told them: "We will build iron roads, and you cannot stop the locomotive any more than you can stop the sun or the moon." Indians fought as well as they could. But the Union Pacific armed their workers, and the U.S. government sent in soldiers. Finally, the Indians were overpowered o·ver·pow·er tr.v. o·ver·pow·ered, o·ver·pow·er·ing, o·ver·pow·ers 1. To overcome or vanquish by superior force; subdue. 2. To affect so strongly as to make helpless or ineffective; overwhelm. 3. by U.S. military might. Chief Red Cloud later said: "The white people have surrounded me, and left me nothing but an island. When we first had this land we were strong. Now we are melting like snow on a hillside, while you are growing like spring grass." Like Red Cloud, most Native Americans would soon be forced onto reservations http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Building+t...
Compare the economic characteristics of the new england, middle, chesapeake, and southern colonies?
During the 1700's, they were very different. In fact, there were more differences than similarities. New England colonies subsisted on trade, whaling, fishing, and subsistence farming. In addition, there was timber production for ship building. Moving south, to the mid-Atlantic region, you have more subsistence farming and an expanding population. In fact, Philadelphia at one time was the largest city in the thirteen colonies. The population moved west, and realized its need for protection on it's western frontier, so it brought in a lot of Scots-Irish, who later moved south along the Appalachian mountains and west into Kentucky. The Chesapeake bay region grew along the rivers, as it was easy to trade and move goods to the ocean that way. Along the rivers, you have the first semblance of plantations, but in small quantities. The crop most grown there is tobacco, and the land was worked first by indentured servants and later by slaves. In addition, the cultural and in some cases religious background of the people who moved here was different from the cultural background of people moving into the north. Off of the rivers, you have primarily subsistence farming, and to the west, the Scots-Irish moving south into the Shenandoah valley regions of Virginia and modern day West Virginia. The Southern colonies economies were based on trade and the farming of tobacco, indigo and rice; changing from north to south. Cotton itself did not come into vogue until the next century, although there was short staple cotton grown along the coast in limited quantities. As one left the coast, once again subsistence farming by individual families was popular. The one big difference here from the other colonies was the popularity of deer skins, which were used in England, and so the traders in this area would purchase deer skins from the Native Americans in the region, mainly the Yuchee, Creek, and the Cherokee. Another popular item was naval stores, primarily pine pitch, which was used as a sealant on the wooden ships of the day.
How did the Puritan beliefs affect the New England Economy?
Puritans expected that economic prosperity would result from piety and good works. Yet they were very ambivalent about the prospect of success; John Winthrop, the Governor of Massachusetts Bay, feared that his people would derive more satisfaction from wealth itself than from the piety that was supposed to bring about such financial rewards. Their own religion promoted economic success (the protestant work ethic). The New England colonies developed an economy based on shipbuilding, fishing, lumbering, small scale subsistence farming, and eventually, manufacturing. The colonies prospered, reflecting the Puritans’ strong belief in the values of hard work and thrift. Poor soil, fast rivers, short growing seasons, natural harbors, and a long coast dictated this economy.
How did life expectancy vary during the time of colonial America?
There were various things that could lead to an early death in colonial America: Indian attacks were a constant danger on the frontier, infant mortality was widespread and limited medical knowledge meant that many ailments we now don’t even think about could lead to death. These were constants no matter where you were in the colonies, but the overall life expectancy also depended on where you lived.In the southern colonies, the humid climate bred mosquitoes and all sorts of ailments that led to early deaths. A huge portion of the arrivals to the southern colonies fell victim to disease, and the only reason the population kept growing was due to a steady influx of immigrants and slaves. It took nearly 100 years for the Virginia colony’s population to start increasing naturally.The New England colonies were a completely different story. Here, where the weather wasn’t as brutal, and diseases like malaria and yellow fever weren’t as common. Unlike the southern colonies, which were settled by individuals, the New England colonies were settled by families, which tend to have a better chance of survival than individuals.As a very general rule, in the 17th century the life expectancy of an Englishman was about 60. Those who came to New England tended to add 10 years to that, while those who came to the southern colonies took 10–20 years off.