Sharecropping in United States
Sharecropping in the United States of America
Sharecropping became widespread as a response to economic upheaval caused by the end of slavery during and after Reconstruction Links to an external site..[12] Links to an external site. Sharecropping was a way for very poor farmers (both black and white) to earn a living from land owned by someone else. The landowner provided land, housing, tools and seed, and perhaps a mule, and a local merchant loaned money for food and supplies. At harvest time the sharecropper received a share of the crop (from one-third to one-half), which paid off his debt to the merchant. By the late 1860s white farmers also became sharecroppers. The system was distinct from that of the tenant farmer, who rented the land, provided his own tools and mule, and received half the crop. Landowners provided more supervision to sharecroppers, and less or none to tenant farmers.
Sharecropping in the United States probably originated in the Natchez District, roughly centered in Adams County, Mississippi Links to an external site. with its county seat, Natchez Links to an external site..[13] Links to an external site. The mass influx of immigrants in the 1900s (decade) brought an increase in sharecropping during the World War I Links to an external site. era. Sharecroppers worked a section of the plantation independently, usually growing cotton Links to an external site., tobacco Links to an external site., rice Links to an external site., and other cash crops Links to an external site. and received a small portion of the parcel's output.[14] Links to an external site.[15] Links to an external site.
Although the sharecropping system was primarily a post-Civil War development, it did exist in antebellum Links to an external site. Mississippi, especially in the northeastern part of the state, an area with few slaves or plantations,[16] Links to an external site. and most likely existed in Tennessee Links to an external site..[17] Links to an external site. Sharecropping, along with tenant farming, was a dominant form in the cotton South from the 1870s to the 1950s, among both blacks and whites, but it has largely disappeared.
After the War, plantation owners had to borrow money to produce crops. Interest rates on these loans were around 15%. The indebtedness of cotton planters increased through the early 1940s, and the average plantation fell into bankruptcy about every twenty years. It is against this backdrop that the wealthiest owners maintained their concentrated ownership of the land.[18] Links to an external site.
In Reconstruction Links to an external site.-era United States Links to an external site., sharecropping was one of few options for penniless freedmen Links to an external site. to conduct subsistence farming Links to an external site. and support themselves and their families. Other solutions included the crop-lien system (where the farmer was extended credit for seed and other supplies by the merchant), a rent labor system (where the former slave rents their land but keeps their entire crop), and the wage system (worker earns a fixed wage, but keeps none of their crop). Sharecropping was by far the most economically efficient, as it provided incentives for workers to produce a bigger harvest. It was a stage beyond simple hired labor, because the sharecropper had an annual contract. During Reconstruction Links to an external site., the federal Freedmen's Bureau Links to an external site. ordered the arrangements[19] Links to an external site. and wrote and enforced the contracts.
Croppers were assigned a plot of land to work, and in exchange owed the owner a share of the crop at the end of the season, usually one-half. The owner provided the tools and farm animals. Farmers who owned their own mule and plow were at a higher stage and are called tenant farmers Links to an external site.; they paid the landowner less, usually only a third of each crop. In both cases the farmer kept the produce of gardens.
The sharecropper purchased seed, tools and fertilizer, as well as food and clothing, on credit from a local merchant, or sometimes from a plantation store. When the harvest came, the cropper would harvest the whole crop and sell it to the merchant who had extended credit. Purchases and the landowner's share were deducted and the cropper kept the difference—or added to his debt.
Though the arrangement protected sharecroppers from the negative effects of a bad crop, many sharecroppers (both black and white) were economically confined to serf Links to an external site.-like conditions of poverty Links to an external site.. To work the land, sharecroppers had to buy seed and implements, sometimes from the plantation owner who often charged exorbitant prices against the sharecropper's next season. Arrangements also typically gave half or less of the crop to the sharecropper, and the sale price in some cases was set by the landowner. Lacking the resources to market his crops independently, the sharecropper was sometimes compensated in scrip Links to an external site. redeemable only at the plantation.
Thus the cost of production and price of sale were both largely controlled by the land owner, with the sharecropper having little, if any, margin for profit. These factors made sharecroppers dependent on the plantation owners in a way that perpetuated some of the aspects of slavery, and in the late 19th century maintained a stable, low-cost work force that replaced slave labor; it was the bottom rung in the Southern tenancy ladder.
By the early 1930s there were 5.5 million white tenants, sharecroppers, and mixed cropping/laborers in the United States, and 3 million blacks.[20] Links to an external site.[21] Links to an external site. In Tennessee whites made up two thirds or more of the sharecroppers.[17] Links to an external site. In Mississippi, by 1900, 36% of all white farmers were tenants or sharecroppers, while 85 percent of black farmers were.[16] Links to an external site. Sharecropping continued to be a significant institution in Tennessee agriculture for more than sixty years after the Civil War Links to an external site., peaking in importance in the early 1930s, when sharecroppers operated approximately one-third of all farm units in the state.[17] Links to an external site.
The situation of landless farmers who challenged the system in the rural south as late as 1941 has been described thus: "he is at once a target subject of ridicule and vitriolic denunciation; he may even be waylaid by hooded or unhooded leaders of the community, some of whom may be public officials. If a white man persists in 'causing trouble', the night riders Links to an external site. may pay him a visit, or the officials may haul him into court; if he is a Negro, a mob may hunt him down."[22] Links to an external site.
Sharecroppers formed unions in the 1930s, beginning in Tallapoosa County, Alabama in 1931, and Arkansas in 1934. Membership in the Southern Tenant Farmers Union included both blacks and poor whites. As leadership strengthened, meetings became more successful, and protest became more vigorous, landlords responded with a wave of terror.[23] Links to an external site.
Sharecroppers' strikes in Arkansas and the Bootheel of Missouri, the 1939 Missouri Sharecroppers' Strike, were documented in the film Oh Freedom After While.[24] Links to an external site. The plight of a sharecropper was addressed in the song " " recorded by Charlie Barnet Links to an external site. and His Orchestra with vocals by Kay Starr Links to an external site. (Decca 24264)in 1944. [25] Links to an external site. It was rerecorded and released by Capitol with Starr being backed by the "Dave Cavanaugh Links to an external site. Ork" (Capitol Americanna 40051).[26] Links to an external site. Decca then reissued the Barnet/Star recording.[27] Links to an external site.
In the 1930s and 1940s, increasing mechanization virtually brought the institution of sharecropping to an end in the United States.[17] Links to an external site.[28] Links to an external site. The sharecropping system in the U.S. increased during the Great Depression Links to an external site. with the creation of tenant farmers following the failure of many small farms throughout the Dust bowl Links to an external site.. Traditional sharecropping declined after mechanization Links to an external site. of farm work became economical in the mid-20th century. As a result, many sharecroppers were forced off the farms, and migrated to the industrialized North to work in factories, or become migrant workers in the Western United States Links to an external site. during World War II Links to an external site..
Typically, a sharecropping agreement would specify which party was expected to cover certain expenses, like seed, fertilizer, weed control, irrigation district assessments, and fuel. Sometimes the sharecropper covered those costs, but they expected a larger share of the crop in return. The agreement would also indicate whether the sharecropper would use his own equipment to raise the crops, or use the landlord's equipment. The agreement would also indicate whether the landlord would pick up his or her share of the crop in the field or whether the sharecropper would deliver it (and where it would be delivered.)
For example, a landowner may have a sharecropper farming an irrigated hayfield. The sharecropper uses his own equipment, and covers all the costs of fuel and fertilizer. The landowner pays the irrigation district assessments and does the irrigating himself. The sharecropper cuts and bales the hay, and delivers one-third of the baled hay to the landlord's feedlot. The sharecropper might also leave the landlord's share of the baled hay in the field, where the landlord would fetch it when he wanted hay.
Another arrangement could have the sharecropper delivering the landlord's share of the product to market, in which case the landlord would get his share in the form of the sale proceeds. In that case, the agreement should indicate the timing of the delivery to market, which can have a significant effect on the ultimate price of some crops. The market timing Links to an external site. decision should probably be decided shortly before harvest, so that the landlord has more complete information about the area's harvest, to determine whether the crop will earn more money immediately after harvest, or whether it should be stored until the price rises. Market timing can entail storage costs and losses to spoilage as well, for some crops.