Answer:
Below is my <u><em>entire</em></u> essay.
Explanation: The colonies, for the most part, were all in it together to benefit for the best of each others success. However, not all of the colonies could function the same. The New England colonies and Chesapeake colonies were both similar in the sense of their relationships with American Indians, however their economies, founding's, and overall factors of functioning are very different from each other.
The New England colonies had much different land and climate than the Chesapeake colonies. New England had rocky, thin soil that was far from prime for agriculture to be a playing part in the economy. So, New England resorted to lumbering, trading and fishing to keep up and have an active part in the overall economy of the colonies. On the other hand, the Chesapeake colonies were solely based on trading and agriculture. They had relied heavily on the growth of tobacco as it was extremely popular, and their weather, soil and terrain was perfect for its production.
These colonies were also founded on different beliefs. The New England colonies were dominantly puritan. A puritan was a member of a religious reform movement known as Puritanism that arose within the Church of England in the late 16th century. They wanted to get away from the Church of England and started based their reform of church in the New England colonies. Unlike solidly Puritan New England, the Chesapeake colonies presented an assortment of religions. The presence of Quakers, Mennonites, Lutherans, Dutch Calvinists, and Presbyterians made the dominance of one faith next to impossible.
These colonies were similar, however, in the fact that they originally wanted to be allies with the natives who were there before them. They traded with them and it seemed that everything was going smooth, but and the colonists kept encroaching on their territory so wars broke out like the French-American Indian war and Rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion.
Overall, the colonies shared the same objectives and wanted to succeed as a whole, but they had different approaches to their economic successes.
