While Jamestown initially turned out to be a failure, other colonies quickly prospered and grew at an astonishing rate. The Puritan settlements in New England are examples of colonies that were successful practically from day one. By comparing the English colonies in Virginia and Massachusetts, founded by lower class English males and Puritan families respectively, we will soon see that different ways of satisfying the need for labour were important factors in determining the success rate of a colony. The settlements also applied different regulations for land distribution, and this does without doubt provide some of the explanation why Massachusetts turned out the be the most successful of the two states. Yet, it will also be made clear that the successful system implemented by the Massachusetts settlers not necessarily would have suited the earlier settlers of Virginia. This paper will discuss the major differences between two groups of settlers, and discuss how these and other factors affected land distribution and the demand for labour. Even though the New England settlers will present themselves as the most successful of the two groups, this does not mean the colonists in Virginia simply could have copied their northern countrymen. The background information for the two colonies explains why.

The very first English colonists leaving for Jamestown were by no means a diverse group demographically speaking. As most explorers looking for adventure, they did not bring their families with them, and an obsession for gold left little time for agriculture. In addition to the poor location chosen for Jamestown, their shortsighted dedication to gold and hunger for wealth must take much of the blame for the earlier mentioned high death rate. The Puritan settlers in New England were on the other hand aware of the importance of agriculture, and their success in building a thriving society would ultimately contribute immensely to the shaping of America. It has been said "No group has played a more pivotal role in shaping American values than the New England Puritans" (Winthrop, 63). The around twenty thousand immigrants Puritans consisted of entire families searching for a place to practice their religion in peace, and they did not believe that contentment could be achieved through material means. It was thus not only the religious faith that separated the two demographically distinct groups of colonists, but essentially their reasons for leaving England and their future goals were different. While the Puritans sought to build a new life on the new continent, the adventurers arriving in Virginia rather hoped to get rich before returning to the old. We will see how this had major implications for the division of land and the need for labour.

John Winthrop, the famous Puritan minister, wrote on his way to New England "God Almighty in His most holy and wise providence hath so disposed of the Condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in subjection". Yet, he goes on to emphasise that "we must knit together in this work as one man" (Winthrop, 65), meaning that the gap between the classes should not widen beyond the point where village unity gets threatened. Dedham was one of the first towns to get settled in the Massachusetts Bay area in the years 1630-1635. The goals that governed the distribution of land in this village illustrate Winthrop’s teaching. There were two main standards determining an individual’s share of land, the first being the number of people in a household. Any individual did consequently have a right to land. While this certainly is a characteristic of social fairness, the second standard shows how the English system of hierarchy partly transferred itself to the New World. It was namely "usefulness either in Church or Commonwealth" (Lockridge, 10). In addition to language and religion, rank was obviously part of the cultural baggage brought over from England. People with stature and land in the Old World thus usually became part of the upper class in the New World as well. Since generally only the distinguished members of the community were eligible of offering service to the local community, the second standard for the distribution of land obviously helped more affluent immigrants from England maintain their social and economic status. Many will also argue that this contributed to laying the foundation for the social stability that was to become such an important characteristic of the Puritan communities.

Because of the effective and fair policies for land distribution generally upheld in New England, there was plenty of land available for arriving immigrants, and this left little room for conflicts of the kind experienced in Virginia. The colonies in New England are partly for this reason today known by historians as the Christian Utopian Closed Corporate Communities, and they were indeed closed to people who could threaten the Puritan harmony. There are several reasons why the Puritans preferred to limit the immigration. One was obviously religious, and as Puritan values and ideas acted as cornerstones for the New England colonies, it is not difficult to comprehend why the Puritans were anxious to protect what they considered to be the moral fundament of their communities. Another reason for the closure is simply that the demand for labour largely was satisfied through internal population growth. The New England birth rate was notably higher than that of contemporary Europe, but the long life expectancy enjoyed in New England was an even more important factor in determining the population growth. Additionally, the northern colonies suffered less serious plagues than even England, and most of the immigrants arrived with family members (Boroughs, 4). This, in addition to the prosperous division of land, can be credited for much of the growth of the New England colonies.

The Virginian colonies do on the other hand tell a very different story. The state had 40% of the entire American slave population when the first consensus was held in 1790 (Morgan, 266), and as big a percentage of Virginia’s population were slaves by 1730 (Beeman, 09/21/00). There are many reasons why slaves would become such a dominant factor in the Virginian economy. The earlier discussed high mortality rate is obviously partly to blame, and Virginia is generally considered to have been a death trap until around 1640 (Morgan, 278), a sharp contrast to the Massachusetts Bay colony that reached natural reproduction already in the colony’s second year. Additionally, the extremely labour intensive tobacco farming that started gaining ground in the 1620s quickly increased the demand for workers, and impoverished Englishmen started arriving in large numbers. The colony thus reinforced the conception of Virginia as "a haven for England’s suffering poor" (Morgan, 275). People were lured to Virginia with the prospects of receiving free land, this in exchange for several years of labour. As it became more and more difficult to satisfy the demand for labour, these initial years were often prolonged. This, also, as land became more expensive. Freed labourers often ended up without any land at all, and the growing class difference led to an increased fear of revolt and social unrest. Thus, as slaves became more readily available by the 1650s, the incentives to buy were many, and the cost of labour also went down considerably.

We have now seen how Virginia needed African slaves to support its tobacco industry, and that a disproportionally large male population and a high death rate hindered natural population growth. There were additionally no ethical standards or religious morals in place to create a strong social fabric similar to that of New England. Consequently, Winthrop’s ideas concerning social and moral obligations did not receive much attention. Land was therefore generally appropriated to the first to claim it, and no consideration was given to the needs of those less fortunate. The contrast between the first servant-driven, then slave-driven, economy in the South, and the society of primarily free men in New England is striking. Even though it is true that around three percent of the labour force in the Puritan havens were African slaves, this number hardly compares to the forty percent kept in Virginia (Jordan, 306). The Puritans did additionally raise some, though certainly not many, moral and ethical problems concerning the keeping of slaves.

I will conclude by saying that it is not difficult to see why Americans prefer to point out Puritans as having had the most influence on American culture. Yet, one can as a European wonder what happened to Winthrop’s ideas of social compassion. Rather than a corporate community, many will today describe America as a rather divided society. As was the case of Virginia several hundred years ago, the entire country currently relies on immigration to satisfy the demand for labour, and also for not to face a shrinking population level. One can certainly discuss what colony America learnt more from in terms of land distribution, and also if Winthrop himself would have wanted much of the credit he and his fellow Puritans receive for the shaping of American values and society. In other words if America managed to fulfill Winthrop’s dream of becoming "like a City upon a Hill", a nation which distribution of wealth, property and opportunities, should be admired by all people.