Sharecropping comparable to slavery?

Philip Leigh

formerly Harvey Johnson
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
This is wrong. According the 1938 report:
Some of the South 's credit difficulties have been slightly​
relieved in recent years by the extension of credit from​
Federal agencies — to the business man by the Reconstruc-​
tion Finance Corporation, to the farmer by the Farm Se-​
curity and Farm Credit Administrations, to municipalities​
by the Public Works Administration. Many other agen-​
cies, ranging from the Works Progress Administration to​
the Soil Conservation Service, have brought desperately​
needed funds into the South.​
Yeah, about seventy years after the war ended.
 

Philip Leigh

formerly Harvey Johnson
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Why depend on outside help?

They didn't. But the Yankees depended upon protective tariffs so that they could sell railroad iron to Southerners rebuilding the region's RR network at $80 a ton when it was available in Great Britain for $32 a ton.

If the former slave-owners really cared about their region instead of making money off of a cash crop, they could have fixed the problems.

How?

You don't seem to understand that few Southerners, including landowners, had any money after the Civil War. That is precisely why sharecropping emerged.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
How?

You don't seem to understand that few Southerners, including landowners, had any money after the Civil War. That is precisely why sharecropping emerged.
They had land and they had labor. As the report shows, the landowners controlled the labor, controlled the credit extended to the labor, and controlled what crops could be planted. Too often they chose a risky and foolish single-crop method of agriculture.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Add in some political violence and a criminal justice system designed to create a captive work force, and many features of slavery continued. The biggest change was that many people escaped from the border south to the northern states. That would have never happened under slavery.
And people who could pass for white, may have used that option. We will never know how many people did that.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The Labor Contract developed by the Yankee Racist reformers had more to do with the extension of slavery than sharecropping. The Reformers usEd the Contract to legally made wIves slaves to their husbands. Wives didn’t own their wages, the husband did. Also the labor contract was used to control immigrant labor in the north. Northern manufacturers opened their gates in the morning. If a worker was selected, him walking thru the gate confirmed his labor contract. If workers complained, the company would just go to the docks and get workers. Most couldn’t speak English, so they were at an extreme disadvantage to even understand, what they had agreed to.

How many Northern poor laborers owned land or stock in the company they work for. They were as disadvantaged as the Southern Poor. Whites got the same deal as the minority. This was not Sectional. Only thing Sectional about this is the discussion. Only the South is talked about.
 
Last edited:

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Add in some political violence and a criminal justice system designed to create a captive work force, and many features of slavery continued. The biggest change was that many people escaped from the border south to the northern states. That would have never happened under slavery.
And people who could pass for white, may have used that option. We will never know how many people did that.

Captive work force and violence reminds me of the poor northern immigrants, sweat shops, slum housing and Labor Riots. Republican controlled government violence against the poor disadvantage. Color wasn’t the determined factor, economics was. The Yankee embraced the Mudsill concept. Maybe Hammond was a closet Yankee.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
What else did the south have to offer other than sharecropping for employment? An entire region was chasing one crop, so it wasn't profitable at all for the sharecropper nor was the market teeming with jobs. People who remained in the south pretty much had no other choice..

Actually, I'll say that sharecropping wasn't the same as slavery. Slavery was 40% more efficient than sharecropping, and this is "somewhat" attributed to "leisure" time. I think there was slight variations between the two that were distinguishable. The sharecropper could have sought his employment elsewhere if he was willing to relocate to a different region, whereas the slave was stuck with no way out. It appears, the sharecropper could make up his own hours and quit for the day within reason, conversely the slave worked as long as his master made him.

If anything was extension of slavery it was that corrupt judicial system in the south that framed blacks for crimes they did not commit or those ticky-tacky misdemeanors that sent them to prison to work on those chain gangs.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
What else did the south have to offer other than sharecropping for employment? An entire region was chasing one crop, so it wasn't profitable at all for the sharecropper nor was the market teeming with jobs. People who remained in the south pretty much had no other choice..

Actually, I'll say that sharecropping wasn't the same as slavery. Slavery was 40% more efficient than sharecropping, and this is "somewhat" attributed to "leisure" time. I think there was slight variations between the two that were distinguishable. The sharecropper could have sought his employment elsewhere if he was willing to relocate to a different region, whereas the slave was stuck with no way out. It appears, the sharecropper could make up his own hours and quit for the day within reason, conversely the slave worked as long as his master made him.

If anything was extension of slavery it was that corrupt judicial system in the south that framed blacks for crimes they did not commit or those ticky-tacky misdemeanors that sent them to prison to work on those chain gangs.

10s of thousands of Northerners came south to get rich and grow cotton. You might should Study them and determine how differently, or not, they treated blacks. Most historians I’ve read including the accounts of the Radical Reformers, Yankees treated them worse.

Something else that has been overlooked, Yankee investors, as well as the Brits, which have been discussed, bought huge tracks of land. Yankees floated the idea of colonizing Texas, growing Cotton with free labor. So, much of the reason these plantations weren’t divided up, was because the Racist Yankee wasn’t going to give this opportunity to the Negro. They wanted it. Also the Yankee failed with the Free Labor experiment. The Negro didn’t kiss their Feet, nor work for them for Free, as in Free Labor concept. The do-Good Yankee came to the conclusion that the Negro would take generations to convert to free labors. Few Of the Radicals helped the Negro to become land owners. By 72, the Yankee grew tired of dealing with the Negro. No mystery, reconstruction ended. Northern White Racist rejected social equality and embraced Jim Crow.

And again, not all southern states grew cotton. Sharecropping extended to the upper south, which didn’t grow cotton.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Captive work force and violence reminds me of the poor northern immigrants, sweat shops, slum housing and Labor Riots. Republican controlled government violence against the poor disadvantage. Color wasn’t the determined factor, economics was. The Yankee embraced the Mudsill concept. Maybe Hammond was a closet Yankee.

Edited. My grandparents on both sides were immigrants from Italy, and all were rather successful and all the generations that followed them were successful as well. Edited.
Yes, they were treated badly when they arrived in America but they seemed to overcome your applied out of context Mudsill concept. They never cried or felt sorry for themselves they persevered and weathered the storm and moved up the capitalist ladder and became the backbone of America. Edited.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
They had land and they had labor. As the report shows, the landowners controlled the labor, controlled the credit extended to the labor, and controlled what crops could be planted. Too often they chose a risky and foolish single-crop method of agriculture.
Hmmm it would seem to me they stuck with what they knew best, what their tenets knew best, and what they would have been set up for equipment wise best as well......…..

Having cotton gins, balers, and warehouses, will do little for corn that needs picked/shelled/milled and needs corn cribs, nor wheat that needs cut threshed, milled and dry storage, the transportation needs would differ as well. To switch from large scale production of one to another requires large infrastructure and support industries changes ,and different skill sets in those industries
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Hmmm it would seem to me they stuck with what they knew best, what their tenets knew best, and what they would have been set up for equipment wise best as well......…..

Having cotton gins, balers, and warehouses, will do little for corn that needs picked/shelled/milled and needs corn cribs, nor wheat that needs cut threshed, milled and dry storage, the transportation needs would differ as well. To switch from large scale production of one to another requires large infrastructure and support industries changes ,and different skill sets in those industries
I disagree. Having grown up on a family farm, I know there was never a year in which we did not grow multiple crops. The market fluctuates and the prices are not static for any one crop. So you invest in some equipment, or you haul the crop to facilities which have capabilities that you lack, such as the drying and milling and whatever processing in necessary. As well as more storage if needed.

The single-crop method is risky, and the report acknowledged that. You can't say for sure what the prices are going to be when it comes time to harvest. It's boom or bust, and it kept poor tenants in debt. Not to mention that it depletes the soil, further impoverishing those who farm it.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I disagree. Having grown up on a family farm, I know there was never a year in which we did not grow multiple crops. The market fluctuates and the prices are not static for any one crop. So you invest in some equipment, or you haul the crop to facilities which have capabilities that you lack, such as the drying and milling and whatever processing in necessary. As well as more storage if needed.

The single-crop method is risky, and the report acknowledged that. You can't say for sure what the prices are going to be when it comes time to harvest. It's boom or bust, and it kept poor tenants in debt. Not to mention that it depletes the soil, further impoverishing those who farm it.
I did too, and still own a multi crop farm. Muti crop farms have multi crop equipment however, a single crop one would not.....And frankly different crops have different needs. Especially a comparing textile crop to a grain crop would be comparing apple to oranges. Any farm back then could grow anything small scale and get by being inefficient, but if one is going to make something its primary crop, efficiency becomes of the essence, And the storage of bales of dry goods, would not be the same as storage for loose grain.....nor would storage of dry grain be efficient for transport back then.....corn would be milled or distilled to ease transport, both which takes support industries.

Who is going to make to make the investments, not the owners who lost most of their capital to the war and confederate money becoming worthless, and lost equity to borrow against with slaves becoming worthless, perhaps you think the Radical Republicans were going to offer subsidies?

Plus the Union wanted production to continue for 2 reasons, one was for the northern mills......the other is the elephant in the room, they wanted a labor intensive crop to continue, because they didn't want a million plus blacks immigrating north........they still didnt 50-60 years later when they historically did, touching off large scale race riots.......when the great migration did occur

Would add I toured a working cotton plantation last year, even today it would hard switch, if there was large switch going on due to a bad economy, farmers would still require subsidies.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I did too, and still own a multi crop farm. Muti crop farms have multi crop equipment however, a single crop one would not.....And frankly different crops have different needs. Especially a comparing textile crop to a grain crop would be comparing apple to oranges. Any farm back then could grow anything small scale and get by being inefficient, but if one is going to make something its primary crop, efficiency becomes of the essence, And the storage of bales of dry goods, would not be the same as storage for loose grain.....nor would storage of dry grain be efficient for transport back then.....corn would be milled or distilled to ease transport, both which takes support industries.

Who is going to make to make the investments, not the owners who lost most of their capital to the war and confederate money becoming worthless, and lost equity to borrow against with slaves becoming worthless, perhaps you think the Radical Republicans were going to offer subsidies?

Plus the Union wanted production to continue for 2 reasons, one was for the northern mills......the other is the elephant in the room, they wanted a labor intensive crop to continue, because they didn't want a million plus blacks immigrating north........they still didnt 50-60 years later when they historically did, touching off large scale race riots.......when the great migration did occur

Would add I toured a working cotton plantation last year, even today it would hard switch, if there was large switch going on due to a bad economy, farmers would still require subsidies.
Seriously, just give the "blame the Union" a break. The report that has been referenced is from the 1930's. Seventy years after the war.

If the south could not figure out how to make agriculture profitable by that time, than they probably should have found a different line of work.

The north had family farms that were viable into, at least, the late 20th century. Now, the corporations farm.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Seriously, just give the "blame the Union" a break. The report that has been referenced is from the 1930's. Seventy years after the war.

If the south could not figure out how to make agriculture profitable by that time, than they probably should have found a different line of work.

The north had family farms that were viable into, at least, the late 20th century. Now, the corporations farm.
??? The economics of farming have nothing to do with "blaming anyone" nor does recognizing the south was devastated economically postwar....I'm sorry if your "blame the south" game wont stand the scrutiny of a serious discussion, The south has had farms continue into the late 20th century as well, and the family farm while decreasing is hardly dead, as mine goes back to 1834

Your suggestion for that any region (north or south) could wholesale abandon a primary crop as cotton for grain, or vice versa is absurd. It would be hard for A farm to do so, for a entire region to do so.......seriously the market would be flooded with either grain or cotton producing equipment, so it would bring pennies on the dollar, and if the whole point of a switch was bad economics, there is simply no capital for such a switch........ whether in 1870, 1930, or even today
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
??? The economics of farming have nothing to do with "blaming anyone" nor does recognizing the south was devastated economically postwar....I'm sorry if your "blame the south" game wont stand the scrutiny of a serious discussion, The south has had farms continue into the late 20th century as well, and the family farm while decreasing is hardly dead, as mine goes back to 1834
If you're not blaming the Union for the Souths failure to recover, then stop bringing it up. The South had land and labor, and failed miserably to adjust to a new labor system. The South surely should have figured it out in 70 years. The excuses get old.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
If you're not blaming the Union for the Souths failure to recover, then stop bringing it up. The South had land and labor, and failed miserably to adjust to a new labor system. The South surely should have figured it out in 70 years. The excuses get old.
I'm not the one bringing up a suggestion of selling what little you do have for nothing, because of a poor economy and little capital to then try to replace everything at high cost, when there would be no money to do so.......thats your absurd suggestion....and practices such as that is why some family farms are indeed gone. Back in the 80's some did exactly that for hog confinements and indeed did go bankrupt
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I'm not the one bringing up a suggestion of selling what little you do have for nothing, because of a poor economy and little capital to then try to replace everything at high cost, when there would be no money to do so.......thats your absurd suggestion....and practices such as that is why some family farms are indeed gone. Back in the 80's some did exactly that for hog confinements and indeed did go bankrupt
The excuses for failing are never-ending.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The excuses for failing are never-ending.
yes yours for the diminishing family farms seem to be, you seem to describe yours in the past tense...........However not all ascribe to nonsense business suggestions, so are there are those surviving both north and south.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
yes yours for the diminishing family farms seem to be, you seem to describe yours in the past tense...........However not all ascribe to nonsense business suggestions, so are there are those surviving both north and south.
Ah, okay, so you don't think that family farms have been devastated. You should look into that a bit more.
 
Top