Sharecropping comparable to slavery?

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
They are comparable in so far as both were systems designed "to keep the top rail on top, and the bottom rail on the bottom." Sharecropping simply augmented that "bottom rail" with large numbers of poor whites, and guaranteed that they would remain poor.

It was not a "racial thing," but it was very clearly a "class thing."
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Oh so your still referring to 1935, noted it has nothing to do with the period this thread and forum is about.

Perhaps you didn't notice I pointed out before this thread is supposed to concerned with the actual reconstruction period, not the Great Depression, don't think we have a Great Depression forum.......

The economic conditions immediately postwar and under military reconstruction would have been more severe, then a generation later.
I might agree in a 70 year period after a war some could regain some capital......Why don't see why one keeps referring to 70 years later as far as capital or resources, though when the topic is reconstruction immediately postwar.
Perhaps you didn't notice that Harvey Johnson is referring to the 1930's report, as in post #53.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Your source doesn't indicate when the 2/3 applies. It doesn't claim that this was in the immediate post-war period. What is undoubtedly true is that it began as a way to accommodate black freedom while still controlling the freed blacks.
Neither does it say it say it doesnt, as I indicated postwar poverty should have been high among whites. Which would require drastic measures for income/jobs then.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Perhaps you didn't notice that Harvey Johnson is referring to the 1930's report, as in post #53.
Again you dont see me continually responding to 1935 in the thread, every time I have responded to him it has been within the context of reconstruction........again often have seen post period comparisons at CWtalk, however it doesnt mean change the focus or dwell on the post period, the focus of the the thread remain on original time period.

If you feel some need for Great Depression talk, you should create a forum for it. This however remains ReconstructionTalk 1865-1877

Its odd if you seem to acknowledge the report is outside the time period of this forum, probably should quit referring to that period.......as your missing Reconstruction by over 55 years
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Neither does it say it say it doesnt, as I indicated postwar poverty should have been high among whites. Which would require drastic measures for income/jobs then.
Here is one source which notes the rapid rise of white sharecropping, but it didn't happen until after 1900. So if you're going to claim that sharecropping was common for southern whites during Reconstruction, perhaps you should find a source that backs it up.

"In the decades after Reconstruction tenancy and sharecropping became the way of life in the Cotton Belt. By 1930 there were 1,831,470 tenant farmers in the South. What began as a device to get former slaves back to work became a pernicious system that entrapped white as well as black farmers. After 1900 the number of white tenant farmers grew alarmingly. By 1935 nearly half of white farmers and 77 percent of black farmers in the country were landless."​

https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=TE009
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Here is one source which notes the rapid rise of white sharecropping, but it didn't happen until after 1900. So if you're going to claim that sharecropping was common for southern whites during Reconstruction, perhaps you should find a source that backs it up.

"In the decades after Reconstruction tenancy and sharecropping became the way of life in the Cotton Belt. By 1930 there were 1,831,470 tenant farmers in the South. What began as a device to get former slaves back to work became a pernicious system that entrapped white as well as black farmers. After 1900 the number of white tenant farmers grew alarmingly. By 1935 nearly half of white farmers and 77 percent of black farmers in the country were landless."​

https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=TE009

You dont realize tenant farming and sharecropping are not the same thing? Perhaps you wish to start a thread tenant farming?

One requires a level of capital on the part of the leasee, the other doesnt. Coming from a war collapsed economy many would be without capital, which is why the thread is about sharecropping..........

Edit-added-Would not compare tenant farmers with slavery at all, that they had some capital, would not make them as dependent on the lessor or bound to stay in one place
 
Last edited:

Philip Leigh

formerly Harvey Johnson
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Again you dont see me continually responding to 1935 in the thread, every time I have responded to him it has been within the context of reconstruction........again often have seen post period comparisons at CWtalk, however it doesnt mean change the focus or dwell on the post period, the focus of the the thread remain on original time period.

If you feel some need for Great Depression talk, you should create a forum for it. This however remains ReconstructionTalk 1865-1877

Its odd if you seem to acknowledge the report is outside the time period of this forum, probably should quit referring to that period.......as your missing Reconstruction by over 55 years

Except that Reconstruction really ended long after 1877. It is commonly discussed that segregation and Jim Crow lasted until well into the 20th century, but less often recognized that Southern poverty (white and black) lasted just as long. Not until 1950 did the below average per capita income of the region rise to the 73rd percentile of the national average where it was in 1860.

All that happened in 1877 was that the last of the state Carpetbag regimes were eliminated. But discriminatory national policies injurious to the South continued long afterward including, high protective tariffs, lax monopoly regulations, discriminatory banking regulations, generous Union veterans pensions, absentee ownership, harmful export policies, discriminatory iron pricing and discriminatory freight rates.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
You dont realize tenant farming and sharecropping are not the same thing? Perhaps you wish to start a thread tenant farming?

One requires a level of capital on the part of the leasee, the other doesnt. Coming from a war collapsed economy many would be without capital, which is why the thread is about sharecropping..........

Edit-added-Would not compare tenant farmers with slavery at all, that they had some capital, would not make them as dependent on the lessor or bound to stay in one place
Yes I realize there are differences between tenant and sharecropper. And the article references both.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Yes I realize there are differences between tenant and sharecropper. And the article references both.
Actually the article mainly focused on rise of tenant farming post 1900.....not surprising since Oklahoma didnt gain statehood till 1907, not exactly a shocker their focus isnt on reconstruction years. Certainly do see their perspective being post 1900.....
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Except that Reconstruction really ended long after 1877. It is commonly discussed that segregation and Jim Crow lasted until well into the 20th century, but less often recognized that Southern poverty (white and black) lasted just as long. Not until 1950 did the below average per capita income of the region rise to the 73rd percentile of the national average where it was in 1860.

All that happened in 1877 was that the last of the state Carpetbag regimes were eliminated. But discriminatory national policies injurious to the South continued long afterward including, high protective tariffs, lax monopoly regulations, discriminatory banking regulations, generous Union veterans pensions, absentee ownership, harmful export policies, discriminatory iron pricing and discriminatory freight rates.
However the stated realm of this forum is to 1877, I didn't create it, just abide by the parameter set.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
"So if you're going to claim that sharecropping was common for southern whites during Reconstruction, perhaps you should find a source that backs it up."

Actually white sharecroppers and tenant farmers predate the civil war

http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.u...ght-of-white-tenant-farmers-and-sharecroppers
Interesting, but as you said, sharecroppers and tenant farmers are not the same. Your article notes how white yeoman southern farmers became tenants and sharecroppers after the war because they foolishly switched to cotton planting and then failed.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Interesting, but as you said, sharecroppers and tenant farmers are not the same. Your article notes how white yeoman southern farmers became tenants and sharecroppers after the war because they foolishly switched to cotton planting and then failed.
No that would be selective reading, it states it existed before the war, not only after as you suggest. Nor does it refer to awitching to cotton as "foolish" instead it notes they did it because they needed capital.......Surprising you missed it states the reason as "They needed cash to pay off debts acquired during four years of war and the increased taxes levied during Reconstruction and beyond. "

Yes a cash crop is a better way then a subsistence crop if one is looking for revenue

Would think anyone actively farming would see the folly of blaming them on solely hindsight.......as even today with modern telecommunication/forecasts/market trends/ ect, when we plant in April we dont know what the prices will be October as there's simply too many variables
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
No that would be selective reading, it states it existed before the war, not only after as you suggest. Nor does it refer to awitching to cotton as "foolish" instead it notes they did it because they needed capital.......Surprising you missed it states the reason as "They needed cash to pay off debts acquired during four years of war and the increased taxes levied during Reconstruction and beyond. "

Yes a cash crop is a better way then a subsistence crop if one is looking for revenue
"Increased taxes."

The South was controlled by the wealthy planters, so no region of the US taxed its poor like the south. Sales taxes were the norm. It's ironic that if not for the poll taxes and other voter disenfranchisement of blacks, the poor southern whites might have had enough of a political coalition to influence and change the tax system. So, it was self-inflicted. And debts due to the war? Again, self-inflicted.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
"Increased taxes."

The South was controlled by the wealthy planters, so no region of the US taxed its poor like the south. Sales taxes were the norm. It's ironic that if not for the poll taxes and other voter disenfranchisement of blacks, the poor southern whites might have had enough of a political coalition to influence and change the tax system. Self-inflicted. And debts due to the war? Again, self-inflicted.
Your point? Simply biased nonsense to try to point fingers? Whether one thinks something is self inflicted such as the war matters little. Life goes on, this forum is about reconstruction which is postwar.....its what they could do under the existing conditions. The tax system postwar was a way to keep the south down, by redistributing it to the north.

Also really don't get your flippant attitude as to self inflicted, as it affected white unionist, immigrants, former slaves, everyone in the south, don't subscribe to this view of yours that all were somehow guilty or should suffer at all.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Your point? Simply biased nonsense to try to point fingers? Whether one thinks something is self inflicted such as the war matters little. Life goes on, this forum is about reconstruction which is postwar.....its what they could do under the existing conditions. The tax system postwar was a way to keep the south down, by redistributing it to the north.
Speaking of "biased nonsense."

Rather than accepting the 'Southern Victimhood' nonsense, try reading about why the south failed for so long once slavery disappeared. It was the culture, and it was self-inflicted.

The south failed until the New Deal and WW2 destroyed the systemic factors of it's self-imposed failure.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Lol, good luck with your spin. The reality is what it is.
Most assuredly agree with reality, which is where you failing to note the big landowners were capital poor postwar, as were the small one which is exactly why they felt they had to switch to a cash crop as cotton, falls completely on its face. Despite your weak spin attempts
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Most assuredly agree with reality, which is where you failing to note the big landowners were capital poor postwar, as were the small one which is exactly why they felt they had to switch to a cash crop as cotton, falls completely on its face. Despite your weak spin attempts
Actually, I noted in post #50 the massive loss of wealth post-war.

It was implied in this thread that there were more white sharecroppers during Reconstruction than black sharecroppers. I asked for some proof that sharecropping was common for whites during Reconstruction. The only link that has been provided states that by 1900, 36% of white farmers were either tenant farmers or sharecroppers, which as discussed, are two different things. This compared to 85% of black farmers.

So it does not appear that white farmers were commonly sharecroppers during Reconstruction. It was mainly black farmers who were sharecroppers during Reconstruction.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Actually, I noted in post #50 the massive loss of wealth post-war.

It was implied in this thread that there were more white sharecroppers during Reconstruction than black sharecroppers. I asked for some proof that sharecropping was common for whites during Reconstruction. The only link that has been provided states that by 1900, 36% of white farmers were either tenant farmers or sharecroppers, which as discussed, are two different things. This compared to 85% of black farmers.

So it does not appear that white farmers were commonly sharecroppers during Reconstruction. It was mainly black farmers who were sharecroppers during Reconstruction.
And I have repeatedly noted Sharecropping and Tenant farming are not the same. Including tenant farming with sharecropping is going to obviously skew the numbers from sharecropping alone. Nor is 1900 relevent to 1865-77 as number could rise or fall afterwards. You have provided nothing to show it wasn't

nteresting, but as you said, sharecroppers and tenant farmers are not the same. Your article notes how white yeoman southern farmers became tenants and sharecroppers after the war because they foolishly switched to cotton planting and then failed.
Yes interesting indeed as you continue to throw out numbers of both combined as if the are the same, when they aren't , and still outside the context of the period of this forum....

Again this OP is "was sharecropping comparable with slavery" has nothing to do with some false blame game. Not seeing where the majority of your posts have had anything to do with whether you feel they are comparable or not.
 
Top