2 Answers | Add Yours
If we include the late 1600s, I would pick Pennsylvania as the best colony in which to live. Unlike the South, there was not much slavery in Pennsylvania, which makes it attractive. Unlike New England, it was not dominated by Puritans. In fact, Penn was committed to the idea of freedom of religion. That would have been a major plus for me at least. Finally, the climate would have made Pennsylvania a nicer place to live and an easier place to farm than the New England colonies would have been. For this combination of lack of slavery, good climate, and freedom of religion, Pennsylvania would have been the best place to live.
Pennsylvania would be my choice for the best colony in which to live in the 1600s. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is that there was religious freedom in Pennsylvania. Unlike other colonies, the people who lived in Pennsylvania were free to practice whatever religion they wanted. This may explain why so many people of different nationalities and religions came to live in this colony. Pennsylvania was known as the melting pot because people from so many different backgrounds lived here.
Pennsylvania was a good place to farm. Being closer to the southern colonies than New England was allowed the people to deal with a better climate for farming and having more fertile soil to use for growing crops. Many farmers grew wheat. Wheat was the cash crop of Pennsylvania. It was called the breadbasket colony because of all the wheat that was grown. Additionally, there were some industries in Pennsylvania, so people that didn’t farm, could work in these industries.
Because of the religious freedom and the variety of jobs, Pennsylvania would have been my choice for the best colony in which to live in the 1600s.
We’ve answered 319,175 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question