In addition, while sharecropping
gave African Americans autonomy in their daily work and social lives
, and freed them from the gang-labor system that had dominated during the slavery era, it often resulted in sharecroppers owing more to the landowner (for the use of tools and other supplies, for example) than they were …
Many poor people and African Americans became sharecroppers after the Civil War.
Sharecropping was bad
because it increased the amount of debt that poor people owed the plantation owners.
The
sharecropper needs to buy all his necessities from the landowner
, who usually charged him at sky-high rates. This would have further cut into his cash. The landowner treated the sharecropper unfairly, charging the sharecropper more than he needs to pay.
Sharecropping is when anyone lives and/or works on land that is not theirs and in return for their effort they pay no bills. Sharecroppers could decide they didn’t want to do it any more and leave, slaves couldn’t. … The difference between the two is freedom,
sharecroppers where free people, slaves were not
.
Sharecropping is a term for when
one person farms another person’s land, and then the two share what is produced
. Sharecroppers are almost always poor, and are often in debt to landowners or other people.
Nevertheless, the sharecropping system did allow freedmen a degree of freedom and autonomy far greater than they experienced under slavery. As a symbol of their newly won independence,
freedmen had teams of mules drag their former slave cabins away from the slave quarters into their own
fields.
High interest rates, unpredictable harvests, and unscrupulous landlords and merchants often kept tenant farm families severely indebted
, requiring the debt to be carried over until the next year or the next.
With the southern economy in disarray after the abolition of slavery and the devastation of the Civil War, sharecropping
enabled white landowners to reestablish a labor force, while giving freed Black people a means of subsistence
.
sharecropping?
System of farming in which farmer works land for an owner who provides equipment and seeds and receives a share of the crop
. … Sharecropping began in the south after the Civil War ended in 1865.
A sharecropper is
someone who would farm land that belonged to a landowner
. … Following the Civil War, plantation owners were unable to farm their land. They did not have slaves or money to pay a free labor force, so sharecropping developed as a system that could benefit plantation owners and former slaves.
Which statement most accurately describes the economic impact of sharecropping?
The sharecropping system prevented landowners from making a profit
. Sharecropping was an efficient system that freed laborers to work in new urban factories.
Sharecropping is a
legal
arrangement with regard to agricultural land in which a landowner allows a tenant to use the land in return for a share of the crops produced on that land. … Some are governed by tradition, and others by law.
sharecropping,
form of tenant farming in which the landowner furnished all the capital and most other inputs and the tenants contributed their labour
. Depending on the arrangement, the landowner may have provided the food, clothing, and medical expenses of the tenants and may have also supervised the work.
How did sharecropping and tenant farming compare to plantation slavery?
While living and working conditions were similar, freedmen could choose where to work and no longer faced forced sale and relocation
.
Yes, sharecropping still exists in American
and probably always will. It could be that sharecropping isn’t in fact what you imagine it to be. It is in fact just a way of paying for the use of some land, just think of it as rent. Technically, it isn’t rent but it is rent.
How did sharecropping help shape the social and economic systems of the postwar South? …
It accelerated the process by which southern yeoman farmers and sharecroppers favored cash crops, especially cotton
. It accelerated the process by which southern yeoman farmers and sharecroppers favored cash crops, especially cotton.
The life of a sharecropper was difficult
because they did not pay their rent in cash they paid a share of their crops often as much as one half to two thirds
.
In addition, while sharecropping gave
African Americans autonomy in their daily work and social lives
, and freed them from the gang-labor system that had dominated during the slavery era, it often resulted in sharecroppers owing more to the landowner (for the use of tools and other supplies, for example) than they were …
For laborers, sharecropping
eliminated the pain and humiliation of gang labor and allowed freedmen to move their families out from direct supervision of white supervisors
. Despite the benefits some sharecroppers accrued from the system, planters profited more.
Q. What effect did the system of sharecropping have on the South after the Civil War?
It kept formerly enslaved persons economically dependent.
What was one long-term consequence of the sharecropping system?
Agricultural workers organized labor unions
. Many former slaves became trapped in a cycle of debt. Landowners sold property to pay wages to former slaves.
Sharecropping committed the South to cotton and
created a stagnant farm economy with widespread poverty based on uneasy compromise between landowners and laborers
. … Southern whites who supported Republican Reconstruction and were ridiculed by ex-Confederates as worthless traitors.
How did the sharecropping system work, and why did it create problems for both sharecroppers and small landowners? …
The landowner would provide the farming supplies on credit
, and, because the value of crops was lower after the war, sharecroppers could rarely produce enough of a harvest to pay what they owed.
How was Sharecropping similar to slavery?
Plantation owners benefited while slaves did not. White plantation owners still had control over blacks.
The life of a sharecropper was difficult. Even in the best of situations, sharecropping families
lived in a house and on land that was not their own
. At any time, they could be evicted by their landlord. In the worst situations, tenants could be forced to pay exorbitant fees and split profits in an unfair way.
Which statement accurately describes sharecropping?
It allowed a black family to rent part of a plantation, with the crop divided between worker and owner at the end of the year
. In President Andrew Johnson’s view, African-Americans ought to play what part in Reconstruction?
Who were tenants?
A tenant is
someone who pays rent for the place they live in
, or for land or buildings that they use. Regulations placed clear obligations on the landlord for the benefit of the tenant. Landowners frequently left the management of their estates to tenant farmers.
Sharecropping is
a form of land tenancy
, in which the landowner permits the tenant to use his land in return for a stipulated fraction of the output (the ‘share’). It is an institutional arrangement which has prevailed in both developing countries and less-developed countries [LD(s)].
The debts would increase as the years went by, and for planters in tenant farming, most could not keep up with the rent and had cheap tools or tools that were purchased on credit. … Sharecropping and tenant farming
resembled slavery
, and African Americans were tied to their landowners because of their debts.
Which statement best describes the system of sharecropping?
Sharecropping offered formerly enslaved people an equal opportunity to participate in the Southern economy. Sharecropping gave formerly enslaved people the upper hand in the agricultural South.
How widespread was sharecropping in the South in the late 1800s? Sharecropping varied from state to state, but
it was common in many places
. In the system of sharecropping in the South, many sharecroppers? were unable to make a profit due to their debt.
Sharecropping developed, then, as a system that theoretically benefited
both parties
. Landowners could have access to the large labor force necessary to grow cotton, but they did not need to pay these laborers money, a major benefit in a post-war Georgia that was cash poor but land rich.
