- 1 What was the difference between sharecropping and tenant farming?
- 2 How were tenant farmers different from sharecroppers answers com?
- 3 What did sharecropping and tenant farming have in common?
- 4 Why is sharecropping bad?
- 5 How did sharecropping help the economy?
- 6 How were black sharecroppers treated by white landowners?
- 7 What usually happens to sharecroppers who did not make enough money?
- 8 Did tenant farmers use credit?
- 9 Does sharecropping still exist today?
- 10 Who benefited most from sharecropping?
- 11 Do tenant farmers still exist?
- 12 Why was sharecropping a difficult system to get away from?
- 13 What were the effects of sharecropping?
- 14 Why did sharecropping lead to a cycle of poverty?
In tenant farming, tenants live in the same land and engage in agricultural practices for a given period, and finally get their payments as money, fixed amount of crop, or in combination. In the case of sharecropping, tenant receives his portion as a share. He has to give a share to the landowner, which is pre decided.
Tenant Farmers owner the crops, animals and tools while sharecroppers owned nothing. Tenant Farmers had to work longer and harder then sharecroppers.
These small farmers didn’t own any land, so they were forced into labor systems called sharecropping and tenant farming. They paid the landlord – often through a portion of the crop they raised – to use his land. Sharecroppers and tenants rarely broke out of this system to become landowners themselves.
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 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.”
Contracts between landowners and sharecroppers were typically harsh and restrictive. Many contracts forbade sharecroppers from saving cotton seeds from their harvest, forcing them to increase their debt by obtaining seeds from the landowner. Landowners also charged extremely high interest rates.
Answer: Once the sharecropper was in debt, they were tied to the land and to the landowners for many years, they were also forced to sign exploitative or labor contracts that were favorable to the landowner.
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.
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.
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.
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. The Great Depression, mechanization, and other factors lead sharecropping to fade away in the 1940s.
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
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.