What did the lack of cities in the chesapeake region encourage?

Answer 1

Your implication, that the colonial settlement of the Chesapeake area was different from that of New England is correct. As you can easily see by looking at a map, the Chesapeake area is far different from that of New England. There are many reasons why the settlers did not begin small fortified towns. For one thing, the land grants were different. Most of the early settlers (approximately 1630-1660) established crude "plantations" which were greatly improved in later years. For another, their primary crop was tobacco - even though they knew it impoverished the soil. Yet another reason was that the area was a maze of "fingers" and "necks" of land & an occasional isthmus - many of which were covered by swamp. And yet another reason was the mosquitoes which carried a host of diseases which killed a significant number each year - it was so bad that ships would not stop at the Chesapeake from late spring until early fall. For there to be cities in a given area, there must be an adequate agricultural region. The early (lower) Chesapeake had none of this. This lack of cities pre-ordained that the Chesapeake area would be primarily agricultural. Thus, the Chesapeake was very much like the antebellum South - much fewer cities, with the area "dominated" by plantation "Great Houses," which served as the social and economic hub of the area. It also encouraged the preference of "cash crops" such as tobacco, instead of food crops which would feed a larger population.