Question

distribution of wealth in colonial america
proportion of wealth held by | richest 10% | poorest 30%
boston
1684-99 | 41.2 | 3.3
1766-75 | 61.1 | 2.0
philadelphia
1684-99 | 36.4 | 4.5
1766-75 | 69.9 | 1.0
chester, pennsylvania
1684-99 | 23.8 | 17.4
1766-75 | 33.6 | 4.7

wealth per free person, 1774 (in pounds sterling)

total wealth

slaves

land

other

new england | 33 | 0.02 | 28 | 5
mid-atlantic colonies | 51 | 2 | 27 | 22
south | 132 | 58 | 55 | 19

questions to think about

1. how evenly was wealth distributed in the american colonies, in your view? was it more evenly distributed in urban or rural areas?

Explanation:

To determine wealth distribution, we analyze the tables. In the "Distribution of Wealth in Colonial America" table, for urban areas (Boston, Philadelphia) the richest 10% held much more wealth (e.g., Boston 1766 - 75: 61.1, poorest 30%: 2.0) and the gap increased over time. For rural Chester, PA, in 1684 - 99, the richest 10% had 23.8 and poorest 30% had 17.4 (smaller gap), and in 1766 - 75, the gap widened but was still narrower than urban. The "Wealth per free person" table shows regional differences, but the first table’s urban - rural (Chester as rural - like) comparison: urban areas (Boston, Philadelphia) have a larger wealth gap between richest and poorest (e.g., Boston 1766 - 75: 61.1 - 2.0 = 59.1; Chester 1766 - 75: 33.6 - 4.7 = 28.9). So wealth was unevenly distributed overall, more evenly in rural (Chester - type) areas than urban (Boston, Philadelphia) as rural had smaller gaps between richest and poorest groups.

Answer:

Wealth was unevenly distributed in the American colonies (e.g., in urban Boston/Philadelphia, the richest 10% held far more wealth than the poorest 30%, and gaps widened over time). It was more evenly distributed in rural areas (e.g., Chester, Pennsylvania had smaller wealth gaps between richest and poorest groups compared to urban Boston/Philadelphia).