[scarecrowluv]

Why are there no colonies founded in america between 1634 and 1670?

[tickle]

England played a very important part in colonizing North America in the late l500s by way of Sir Walter Raleigh with funds he received from Queen Elizabeth the First.

Where have you been reading your history ?

[ScottGem]

Where are you getting your info. There were 4 colonies founded inthat period:

American Colonies

[Dark_crow]

why are there no colonies founded in america between 1634 and 1670?

The primary reason that no new colonies were founded between 1634 and 1670 was because of the civil war in England.

[ScottGem]

The primary reason that no new colonies were founded between 1634 and 1670 was because of the civil war in England.

Um do you dispute the link I prvided which shows 5 colonies; CT, RI, DE, NC and NL founded during that period?

[Dark_crow]

25. The primary reason that no new colonies were founded between 1634 and 1670 was
Correct the civil war in England.

Not me, The American Pageant: A History of the Republic, Twelfth Edition Chapter 2 : The Planting of English America, 1500-1733 does though

[ScottGem]

Well since I don't have a copy of that book so I can't check exactly what it says, I've found additional sites that confirm the dates in the original link:

Chart of the Thirteen Original Colonies - Basic Information on the Founding of the 13 Colonies
13 Colonies/United States
13 Originals
13 Colonies founded

I could have gone further. Maybe you need to reread what your reference says.

[Dark_crow]

Well since I don't have a copy of that book so I can't check exactly what it says, I've found additional sites that confirm the dates in the the original link:

Chart of the Thirteen Original Colonies - Basic Information on the Founding of the 13 Colonies
13 Colonies/United States
13 Originals
13 Colonies founded

I could have gone further. Maybe you need to reread what your reference says.

As it is with every conclusion, it is with this one. If one assumes the question to mean “Royal British Colony” there were none. If one assumes a colony by means of existing colonist moving to another geographical area and establishing a new colony, then the answer is yes, there were some established during that period.

The question assumes there were none; that sets the context [“Royal British Colony”]. So the correct answer to the question is…because of the civil war in England.

[tickle]

Dark Crow, what do you mean I made a'hasty and wrong decision'. Do you mean I stated wrong in that I posted about Sir Walter Raleigh and Queen Elizabeth funding his first colony in N. Carolina. Everyone knows what happened in Roanoke, but nonetheless it was still one of the first colonies in the late l500s. You had better get your ducks in a row, here is an excerpt from his biography:

"In 1578 Raleigh sailed to America with his half brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, a voyage that may have stimulated his plan to found an English empire there. In 1585, Raleigh sponsored the first English colony in America on Roanoke Island in present-day North Carolina."

Now tell me why my decision was hasty and wrong. I am a Canadian, english history is second nature to some of us who studied well.

According to some of your beauty queens, and university graduates, Canada is somewhere down in S. America.

Account for your statement please, or remove your 'disagreement'.

[Dark_crow]

Dark Crow, what do you mean I made a'hasty and wrong decision'. Do you mean i stated wrong in that i posted about Sir Walter Raleigh and Queen Elizabeth funding his first colony in N. Carolina. Everyone knows what happened in Roanoke, but nonetheless it was still one of the first colonies in the late l500s. You had better get your ducks in a row, here is an excerpt from his biography:

"In 1578 Raleigh sailed to America with his half brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, a voyage that may have stimulated his plan to found an English empire there. In 1585, Raleigh sponsored the first English colony in America on Roanoke Island in present-day North Carolina."

Now tell me why my decision was hasty and wrong. I am a Canadian, english history is second nature to some of us who studied well.

According to some of your beauty queens, and university graduates, Canada is somewhere down in S. America.

Account for your statement please, or remove your 'disagreement'.

You did not answer the question, [Except by attempting to put down the author. ]and you disagreed with my comment which was true.

P.S. Edit, you also are speaking to a different century than the author of the question.

[tickle]

Dark crow, I have a feeling you are the author of this entire post and you have two user names. Why else would you be defending the author of the original post. He can do that himself, but yet, have heard nothing from 'scarecrowluv' who has only issued one topic, this particular one on 'colonies'.

I am not up to debate with you on this. My original answer stands as being genuine. I really don't know what you are posting about, dark crow. End of story.

[ScottGem]

If one assumes the question to mean “Royal British Colony” there were none. If one assumes a colony by means of existing colonist moving to another geographical area and establishing a new colony, then the answer is yes, there were some established during that period.

The question assumes there were none; that sets the context [“Royal British Colony”]. So the correct answer to the question is…because of the civil war in England.

Ok, you have a point, one that can only be answered by the OP. But, since I had already answered differently, including citing some proof, then I think it behooved you to explain why you contradicted me. Not for my sake, but for the OP's sake since he was getting two different answers. It certainly appears that your answer was based on the assumption that the OP meant Royal British Colony. Yet it required two response to get you to explain the reason for the contradiction. I don't quite understand that.

[Dark_crow]

Ok, you have a point, one that can only be answered by the OP. But, since I had already answered differently, including citing some proof, then I think it behooved you to explain why you contradicted me. Not for my sake, but for the OP's sake since he was getting two different answers. It certainly appears that your answer was based on the assumption that the OP meant Royal British Colony. Yet it required two response to get you to explain the reason for the contradiction. I don't quite understand that.

I simply replied to the OP; it was then that you responded to me; and then tickle saw fit to disagree with my answer; so I read what she wrote and realized she was even in the wrong century. So it is really you who contradicted me.

It has already been answered by the form of the OP question. The question was not ask in the form of "IF", but why?

[ScottGem]

Since you posted after I had, then it was you contradicting my answer. Once you explained, I acknowledged that you had a valid interpretation, However, since the OP referred only to colonies in general, my interpretation also has validity. Notice I also gave the OP the opportunity to explain himself further.

Had the positions been reversed, I would have explained, initially, why I thought there was a difference of interpretation. My point is simply, that you could have avoided all of this by explaining your answer in more detail. Especially since the OP was not getting different answers. Not only didn't you do that, but it took two responses to elicit the background for your answer.

I will reiterate that my concern is primarily for the askers. If you are going to contradict a previous answer, then you should explain why. How you handled this was NOT in the best interest of the asker and rude to the other respondents.

[Dark_crow]

Since you posted after I had, then it was you contradicting my answer. Once you explained, I acknowledged that you had a valid interpretation, However, since the OP referred only to colonies in general, my intepretation also has validity. Notice I also gave the OP the opportunity to explain himself further.

Had the positions been reversed, I would have explained, initially, why I thought there was a difference of interpretation. My point is simply, that you could have avoided all of this by explaining your answer in more detail. Especially since the OP was not getting different answers. Not only didn't you do that, but it took two responses to elicit the background for your answer.

I will reiterate that my concern is primarily for the askers. If you are going to contradict a previous answer, then you should explain why. How you handled this was NOT in the best interest of the asker and rude to the other respondents.

I don't know why you're going on about this; I said in post #8: “If one assumes a colony by means of existing colonist moving to another geographical area and establishing a new colony, then the answer is yes, there were some established during that period.”

So far as your subjective conclusions regarding my motives, and tickle as well; well that's just what they are, and there is no possible way for me to refute them. That is the very reason I don't indulge in that sort of wild speculation, or else I could reply in kind to you both.

P.S. I am not the only one who answers questions without reading others responses; as someone else who does not do that said; [they] “did not want to be influenced by the comments of others.”

[ScottGem]

I've explained the reason why I'm going on about this. Again, its because I'm concerned about the asker and their getting contradictory information.
As for not reading other responses to not be influenced by them, that's fine in certain types of questions where the answer is subject to differing opinions. But it does NOT work when the answer is a matter of cut and dried fact as was the case here.

The fact remains that the OP got two different answers. The reason for the two answers was a difference in interpreting the question. Therefore both answers were factually correct, but only one would satisfy the question depending on the OP's meaning. Therefore, In my opinion, it was important to explain the reason behind the differing interpretation so the OP can understand why he got two different answers.