- 1 How is sharecropping different from tenant farming?
- 2 What was the main difference between sharecroppers and tenant farmers Brainly?
- 3 Why is sharecropping bad?
- 4 What are problems with sharecropping and tenant farming?
- 5 Did tenant farmers use credit?
- 6 Why did sharecropping have a negative effect on southern society?
- 7 What was possible for a sharecropper who made?
- 8 Does sharecropping still exist today?
- 9 How did sharecropping affect the economy?
- 10 Why did sharecropping lead to a cycle of poverty?
- 11 What is the best description of a tenant farmer?
- 12 What was the major drawback of the sharecropping system?
- 13 Who benefited most from sharecropping?
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. With few resources and little or no cash, sharecroppers agreed to farm a certain plot of land in exchange for a share of the crops they raised.
In sharecropping, the landowner provides the land, equipment, seed, living area, etc, and the landowner had more control of what was planted. Unlike sharecroppers, tenant farmers used their own equipment and seeds to plant.
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.
The absence of cash or an independent credit system led to the creation of sharecropping. 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.
Did tenant farmers use credit?
Sharecroppers and tenant farmers, who did not own the land they worked, obtained supplies and food on credit from local merchants. Local merchants provided food and supplies all year long on credit; when the cotton crop was harvested farmers turned it over to the merchant to pay back their loan.
Sharecropping was a way to earn a living for poor American farmers during the Reconstruction, after the Civil War. They worked on other people’s land. This was the farmer paid all his debt to the owner. So sharecropping had a negative effect on Souther society in that sharecroppers were locked in a cycle of debt.
What was possible for a sharecropper who made money during a growing season? All of the above. using money to rent land.
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.
The high interest rates landlords and sharecroppers charged for goods bought on credit (sometimes as high as 70 percent a year) transformed sharecropping into a system of economic dependency and poverty. The freedmen found that “freedom could make folks proud but it didn’t make ’em rich.”
Instead, they struck a deal with a landowner, often a former master. Under this deal, the farmer would rent a plot of land to grow crops. In practice, sharecroppers did not make enough money from the half of the crops they could keep, placing them into debt and an endless cycle of poverty.
What is the best description of a tenant farmer?
Tenant farming is an agricultural production system in which landowners contribute their land and often a measure of operating capital and management, while tenant farmers contribute their labor along with at times varying amounts of capital and management.
The requirement of little or no up-front cash for land purchase provided the major advantage for farmers in the sharecropping arrangement. The lack of the initial up-front payment, however, also created disadvantages for the landowner who waited for payment until crops were harvested and then sold.
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.