Why were there fewer slaves in the backcountry of the Southern colonies than those areas closer to the coast? Select all that apply. (1 point) Responses Colonists in the backcountry were primarily self-sufficient. Colonists in the backcountry were primarily self-sufficient. Backcountry colonists were fundamentally opposed to slavery. Backcountry colonists were fundamentally opposed to slavery. Colonists in the backcountry were poor and couldn’t afford slaves. Colonists in the backcountry were poor and couldn’t afford slaves. Slaves had no way to travel to the backcountry to support the colonists.

Answer 1

The correct responses regarding why there were fewer slaves in the backcountry of the Southern colonies than those areas closer to the coast are:

1. Colonists in the backcountry were primarily self-sufficient.
2. Colonists in the backcountry were poor and couldn’t afford slaves.

While some backcountry settlers may have had opposing views on slavery, the prevalence of poverty and self-sufficiency were the primary reasons for the fewer numbers of enslaved individuals in those areas. The statement about slaves not being able to travel to the backcountry is not a significant factor in this context.