Sharecroppers Essay example

A Sharecropping Contract was a contract between Thomas J. Ross, and the Freedmen. This contract was an agreement for Thomas J. Ross to allow the Freedmen to plant and raise crop on his plantation, so long as the workers followed certain rules and regulations. The background of the parties under the contract were the Freedmen’s desire to be independent from having to work under the authority of Whites, and planters’ desire to have disciplined labor working under them. The contracts intended audience was between planter and labor force. Within the contract, Thomas J. Ross agreed to provide the Freedmen labor workers and their families with provisions, and any expenses that were needed within the plantation, as well as any tools needed for work.

During reconstruction, blacks were no longer forced to work as slaves however they still needed to work to support themselves and their families. Not many blacks had skills outside of farming so most worked the lands of the wealthy white landowners but not as slaves. They had the right to do whatever they wanted and the landowners could do nothing about it. Wealthy landowners still needed work hands and blacks needed an income so former slaveholders established the sharecropping system. Land owned by a white person would be farmed by black families and they shared the crop yield. This often resulted in the white person taking more than their share and the black families struggled to support themselves. Sharecropping did little to help economic advancement for blacks and was a way the white man could prevent blacks from making enough money

In the late nineteenth century, small farmers faced increasing economic insecurities. Millions of tenant farmers were stuck in poverty due to the sharecropping system in the South.Farmers in the south weren't the only ones facing difficult times; farmers in the west had to mortgage their property to purchase seeds, fertilizer, and equipment. Farmers who mortgaged their property faced the chances of losing their farms when they were unable to repay their bank loans. Farmers then sought out to find a solution for their condition by going through the Farmers’ Alliance and the

The sharecroppers paid "rent" with a share of the crops that they raised, with roughly one-half of all they produced belonged to the white owner (Ransom and Sutch, 1977). The landowner also advanced money to the farmer to purchase seed and other necessary farming equipment. The problem was the sharecroppers rarely, if ever, made enough money from the sale of their crops to pay back their debt. This often led to what some called "debt peonage," and it effectively bound sharecroppers to the land, and the landowner (Bowles, 2011). This was a veiled form of slavery, much like convict leasing was.

Sharecropping and tenant farming began during the end of the Civil war all through the great depression. Sharecropping is an agreement between a tenant and a landlord in which a tenant farmer is allowed to work and live on a piece of land for free, but in exchange for living there for free, they give the landlord a share of the crop they grow. Sharecropping was mainly big in the southern states where slavery was once legal. The pay for being a tenant farmer was very low and the living itself was not very desirable.

After the slaves were freed in 1863, the South had to make changes to supply labor for the farming. Many shady practices by the white man occurred because of this. Sharecropping and crop liens were developed to keep the black man somewhat under their control. Since freed slaves had no money and no place to live, land holders would allow a tenant to live on their property and worked the land in exchange for a share of the crop produced, also known as sharecropping. The crop lien system was a developed to allow farmers to receive goods such as food, supplies, and seeds to be paid for after the crop was produced. This kept the black man and poor white farmers in a constant form of debt.

When, Moody first got to Madison County in Mississippi she was surprised to see that the Black community vastly outnumbers the white community and many Black people in the county owned large plots of land. She was at first under the impression that this would mean there was less poverty than what she saw in her hometown, however she soon learned that land did not directly relate to prosperity. “I just didn’t see how the Negros in Madison County could be so badly off…as Mrs. Chinn explained that night, the federal government controls cotton by giving each state a certain allotment. Each state decides how much each county gets and each county distributes the allotments to the farmers. It always ends up with the white people getting most of the allotments” (313). Though the action of the state, the opportunity for Black farmers to accumulate was non-existent. Economic prosperity would always favor white people because with economic freedom came power and influence, neither of which Black people were allowed to have in the Jim Crow south.

Sharecropping gave farmers a place to live. The lack of the initial upfront payment is a disadvantage to the landowner, who had to wait for payment until the crops are harvested and sold. They both make

Between the late 1800s and mid-1900s, to help procure land, supplies, and workers, farmers turned to sharecropping. In mostly all instances of sharecropping the croppers would get a percentage of the crops they worked while the rest would go to the landowner. In most situations the croppers got a smaller percentage than the landowners. In this certain contract between a landowner and the Grimes family in North Carolina, there were some unfair condition. One of the unfair conditions was the results of not feeding his team. The cropper was required to feed his team every day in the morning, noon, and night, and if he didn’t he must pay the landowner five cents. The workers were also required to repair the fence if it was blown over or broken

Document B talks about how it was also hard for colored farmers to make a living especially after the Civil War. “They had to get the local merchant or someone else to supply the food for the family to eat while the first crop was being made.” (Document B) After the Civil War they didn’t have much land and many became homesteaders who were given 160 acres along with regulations they must follow. Only 40% of the applicants actually completed the process and were given the extra land promised for them completion of 160 acres. However many found it difficult to make profit off such little amount of land during that time, for that was the reason most failed to finish

It is important mention that lots of farmers did not own their land, even though the government had given out subsidies in states like Oklahoma. Instead, tenant farmers have to give "half of the net proceeds," to the owner of the land, as well as "sell," their crop at the owner's discretion. Document E also states additional nitty gritty types of costs the tenant has to pay the owner. As an effect, the tenants were making little to no money. This was the owner's way of essential making tenant farmers into slaves. To add to this, farmers are making a fraction on their crops in 1890, as they are in 1865. In the latter year, farmers make $2.16 per bushel. Meanwhile in 1900, they are making just 62 cents. The agricultural sector of the late 19th century is suffering what the oil industry is bracing today. An influx of product to the market, driving down prices, thus diminishing profits. Many go on to blame the government for giving out to many subsidies to farmers. Mary Elizabeth Lease, a political activists stresses how the government tells the people to go "work and raise a big crop." She then complains about the "eight-cent corn," and other cheap crops. Regardless, consumers are thriving while the producer is

After the Civil War, African Americans were free but with no place to live in or to work at, they settled with their former ‘masters’. African Americans were technically free, but no one wanted to hire a colored man, so they were put on crop lien work contracts. These contracts allowed African Americans to work and gain a ‘share’ of the harvest. Sounds like a deal right? Wrong. At the end of the harvest a black man would receive his share but the

The development of sharecropping was associated with the endless debt cycles that afflicted the entire South well into the twentieth century. The freedmen endured an economic status likened to peonage, (Bowles, 2011) in addition to having their hopes for political and social equality dashed. The entire South suffered, it was the freedmen who paid the highest price. Ignorant and impoverished, they were easy targets for exploitation by landlords (Bowles, 2011) and merchants alike; moreover, their options were limited by the overt racism in the South, legal restrictions and partiality. Sharecropping resulted from the intense explicit or implicit desire of white Southerners to keep blacks subservient to them. African Americans possessed few skills, and those they did possess related almost exclusively to agricultural production; they owned no property but the clothes on their backs; (Bowles, 2011) Many dreamed of "forty acres and a mule" with which to begin life anew as an integrated part of American society and the proprietor of one's own land. Inside of a year, however, a different reality became obvious to most. By 1868, land confiscation and redistribution was not in the realm of American political possibility. Desperation, familiarity with people and surroundings at the old places coupled with reunion of many lost loved ones, as well as the urgings of

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) restricted the production of crops. The AAA encouraged farmers to not only limit, but also to “destroy their crops” in an effort to help the economy (“Farm Relief”, 2002, p. 10). While the government attempted to support unsuccessful farmers, landlords took advantage of the opportunity to make a profit. The AAA’s scarcity program allowed for landlords in the cotton-growing regions of the South to force sharecroppers and tenant farmers off of the land (Watkins, 1970, p. 193). As some landowners were outraged at the thought of ruining their produce, others went through with the

Sharecropping was the institution in which freed slaves could purchase a plot of land to work themselves and in return they would have to give part of their crop to the landowners. With the Jim Crow Laws, the African Americans were being forced into working for their previous masters again even though they were considered free.