Sharecroppers In The 1800s

Through the period of 1865-1900, America’s agriculture underwent a series of changes .Changes that were a product of influential role that technology, government policy and economic conditions played. To extend on this idea, changes included the increase on exported goods, do the availability of products as well as the improved traveling system of rail roads. In the primate stages of these developing changes, farmers were able to benefit from the product, yet as time passed by, dissatisfaction grew within them. They no longer benefited from the changes (economy went bad), and therefore they no longer supported railroads. Moreover they were discontented with the approach that the government had taken towards the situation.

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

     After the devastation left from the Civil War, many field owners looked for new ways to replace their former slaves with field hands for farming and production use. From this need for new field hands came sharecroppers, a “response to the destitution and disorganized” agricultural results of the Civil War (Wilson 29). Sharecropping is the working of a piece of land by a tenant in exchange for a portion of the crops that they bring in for their landowners. These farmhands provided their labor, while the landowners provided living accommodations for the worker and his family, along with tools, seeds, fertilizers, and a portion of the crops that they had harvested that season. A sharecropper had “no entitlement

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.

As a person that has grown most of my own food, without chemicals or engine powered equipment, for the last 15 years and lesser so for many more years I can relate to some degree what it may have been like for a farmer in the 1800’s (I even live in a house built in 1850).

These types of arrangements were quite common at this time between sharecroppers and their landlords. The sharecroppers had little to no money, so the landlords would charge them for items, or take an extra percentage of their crops.

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.

In the late nineteenth century shortly after the Civil War and Reconstruction, farmers in the Midwestern United States found themselves in quite a predicament. During the second industrial revolution of the United States that contained mass introduction of: railroads, oil, steel, and electricity, the risk-taking entrepreneurs of this era took an adventure into the world of cutthroat capitalism. In just a little time, a handful of monopolies arose in all these industries which hurt both the consumer of the product and the producer of the material (Doc. F). Because of the corrupt politicians in Washington DC, the absence of regulation on the monopolies put into place by bribes and greed or moderation from them, and the devious ways of the

In order to do this, the new Agricultural Adjustment Administration paid landowners to take property out of production. What ended up happening was

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

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.

In 1786, American planters also began to notice the rising prices for cotton engendered by the rapid expansion of mechanized cotton textile production in the United Kingdom. That year, planters grew the first long-staple Sea Island cotton, named after the location of their plantations on islands just off the coast of Georgia, with seeds they had brought from the Bahamas. Unlike the local cottons, this cotton had a long, silky fiber, which made it exceedingly well suited for finer yarns and cloths, much in demand by Manchester manufacturers. Though accounts vary, it is possible that a Frank Levett was the first to take this momentous step. Levett, a native of the great cotton mart of Izmir, had left the rebelling American colonies for the Bahamas,