- 1 Was sharecropping good or bad?
- 2 What was sharecropping and tenant farming?
- 3 How were sharecropping and tenant farming used during the Reconstruction Era?
- 4 Who benefited least from a sharecropping arrangement?
- 5 Did sharecropping help the economy?
- 6 Was sharecropping a success?
- 7 How would a tenant farmer earn his living?
- 8 Does sharecropping still exist today?
- 9 Do tenant farmers still exist?
- 10 Why was sharecropping unfair?
- 11 What did tenant farmers have that sharecroppers did not?
- 12 Was reconstruction a success or failure?
- 13 Did sharecropping help America achieve healing and/or justice?
Sharecropping was bad because it increased the amount of debt that poor people owed the plantation owners. Sharecropping was similar to slavery because after a while, the sharecroppers owed so much money to the plantation owners they had to give them all of the money they made from cotton.
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.
Instead of working in gangs as they had on antebellum plantations, the freedmen became tenants. The planter or landowner assigned each family a small tract of land to farm and provided food, shelter, clothing, and the necessary seeds and farm equipment.
The correct answer is: “The sharecroppers were benefited least from a sharecropping arrangement, they did all of the work, took all of the risks, and got very little in return”.
During Reconstruction, former slaves–and many small white farmers–became trapped in a new system of economic exploitation known as sharecropping. Nevertheless, the sharecropping system did allow freedmen a degree of freedom and autonomy far greater than they experienced under slavery.
While the sharecropping system arose from the devastation following the Civil War and was a response to an urgent situation, it became a permanent situation in the South. And over the span of decades, it was not beneficial for southern agriculture.
How would a tenant farmer earn his living?
Both tenant farmers and sharecroppers were farmers without farms. A tenant farmer typically paid a landowner for the right to grow crops on a certain piece of property. Tenant farmers, in addition to having some cash to pay rent, also generally owned some livestock and tools needed for successful farming.
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.
Do tenant farmers still exist?
There are more tenant farmers than migrant workers in 2015. The typical migrant worker will be Mexican or Central American and will travel from harvest to harvest across the country and will face a variety of working conditions depending on the laws of any given state and the sympathies of any given employer.
Laws favoring landowners made it difficult or even illegal for sharecroppers to sell their crops to others besides their landlord, or prevented sharecroppers from moving if they were indebted to their landlord. Approximately two-thirds of all sharecroppers were white, and one third were black.
Unlike sharecroppers, who could only contribute their labor but had no legal claim to the land or crops they farmed, tenant farmers frequently owned plow animals, equipment, and supplies. Tenant farmers usually received between two-thirds and three-quarters of the harvest, minus deductions for living expenses.
Was reconstruction a success or failure?
Reconstruction was a success in that it restored the United States as a unified nation: by 1877, all of the former Confederate states had drafted new constitutions, acknowledged the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, and pledged their loyalty to the U.S. government.
The landowners benefited most from the system of sharecropping. Landowners had authority over the poor and ex slaves. Sharecropping did not help America achieve healing or justice but instead sent America backwards in terms of progress for equality and abolition.