Why did fewer towns develop in the southern colonies compared to the New England colonies? A.
The roads were in poor condition, so waterways were the prime source of transportation.
B.
Each community of planters had its own church and school and provided for all of the community’s needs.
C.
The colonists made huge profits from the trade in cash crops and had no incentive to develop towns.
D.
The plantations were huge and far apart, so the population was scattered.
E.
Much of the land along the Chesapeake Bay was not suited for settlement.
Reset Next

Your answer is D. The plantations were huge and far apart, so the population was scattered.

Explanation:

The Southern colonies back then were in their time of slavery. The Northern area (including the New England colonies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Connecticut) was more on the industrial side. With new and improved machines, they did not need slaves to do the work.

As we all know, big cities tend have a quite compacted population.

Down in the South, the land was much more spread out because they did not have all of those technologies and relied on slavery. The South had farms and plantations. These plantations were indeed, huge and far apart.

So, out of your options, the one that makes the most sense is D. The plantations were huge and far apart, so the population was scattered.

~Kicho [nm68]

assuming that you are talking about the one in egypt: hecka oil

explanation:

b)

it created free trade throughout the colonial territories.