{"id":147,"date":"2020-09-25T20:41:25","date_gmt":"2020-09-26T00:41:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/preconfederation2e\/chapter\/6-6-contrasting-farming-frontiers\/"},"modified":"2025-05-02T16:38:25","modified_gmt":"2025-05-02T20:38:25","slug":"6-6-contrasting-farming-frontiers","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/preconfederation2e\/chapter\/6-6-contrasting-farming-frontiers\/","title":{"raw":"6.6 Contrasting Farming Frontiers","rendered":"6.6 Contrasting Farming Frontiers"},"content":{"raw":"The colonies north of Virginia were built on a model of small independent producers:\u00a0farmers who owned and worked their own piece of land usually using family labour.\u00a0This model was very different from the historical system of\u00a0British farming under\u00a0[pb_glossary id=\"1035\"]feudalism[\/pb_glossary], which was based on peasants being\u00a0under obligation to landlords.\u00a0Although most coastal colonies (Newfoundland,\u00a0Maine, Boston, New York) were oriented to\u00a0fishing,\u00a0the bulk of colonial growth from New England south to the Potomac River was based on the land ownership model of independent farmers.\u00a0These colonies were not free of slavery, but it was never applied as extensively or as intensively as in the plantation colonies to the south, where the land parcels were much larger.\r\n\r\nAll the English colonies generally adhered to a block-shaped survey pattern of farmland, which was different from the seigneurial system in New France. There,\u00a0farms were divided into long strips of land running back from the river and administered in\u00a0a quasi-feudal relationship with the seigneur, who was\u00a0obliged to provide the community of habitants\u00a0or\u00a0censitaires<\/em> a mill, a church,\u00a0and other built facilities in support of their farming efforts.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1041\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"400\"]\"Plots Figure 6.2 Illustration of land distribution under the seigneurial system in Canada from 1627 to 1854.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe different land use patterns had different\u00a0implications. A colony that covered the landscape like a spreading checkerboard (the English system) was\u00a0more difficult to subdue by an army, but impossible to defend against guerrilla-style offensives.\u00a0Massachusetts developed in this\u00a0township pattern: Boston remained pre-eminent as the colony's port and centre of commerce, and there were several smaller tidewater settlements, but the second tier of rural towns were all more or less equal, and they carpeted the colonial landscape rather than running across it in a string. Family homes\u00a0in the English colonies, however, were more likely to be clustered in a village setting around a square or commons, which\u00a0strengthened community ties,\u00a0but also made small, individual towns a good target for raiding parties from the north.\r\n\r\nIn contrast, the French model of narrow strips of property along the river was more easily patrolled (and taxed), but also vulnerable to an invading naval force sailing up the St. Lawrence, which could \u2014 and did \u2014 systematically lay waste to one farm after the next. The river and, from the 1730s, the [pb_glossary id=\"1036\"]Chemin du Roy[\/pb_glossary] at the back of the first row or rang<\/em> of seigneuries\u00a0<\/i>connected the major settlements with the markets. It also allowed neighbouring farm families to see each other's homes and promote a lively Canadien culture. As well, it made possible the unchallenged rise of three main settlements: Montreal, Trois Rivi\u00e8res, and Quebec.\r\n
\r\n

Exercise: History Around You \u2014 Seigneurialism\u2019s Fingerprint<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n\r\nLandscapes are historic documents. Take a look at the map coordinates\u00a0below using satellite images\u00a0such as Google Earth<\/a>.\r\n