Sharecropping and Tenant Farming
Without owning land, freed blacks could not support their families because they were unable to grow or sell crops. The Freedmen's Bureau did promote the wage-labor system but problems arose: workers thought the wages were too low and white employers held too much power while planters did not have enough money to sufficiently pay their workers. This led to two alternative settlements: sharecropping and tenant farming.
In sharecropping, landowners divided their land and gave each worker a few acres along with seed and tools. During harvest time, each worker gave a share of his crop (usually about half) to his landowner. The share of crop paid the owner back and ended their contract until the following year.
In a theoretical sense, workers who save a little of their crop could eventually buy their own tools and have a better negotiation with their landowners. The hope was that they might even rent land for cash from the planters and keep all of their own harvest. Eventually though this system of tenant farming, workers could move up the economic ladder to become their own owners of their farms.
Unfortunately, these arrangements hardly ever worked. The majority of tenant farmers bought their supplies from merchants who charged them inflated prices. They seldom harvested enough crops to pay for both past debts and future supplies. As a result, almost no farmers saved enough money to buy land.
The intent for these systems was a better future for freed slaves. They supposedly could eventually buy themselves their own land. The opposite effect occurred. Sharecropping and tenant farming were not a big step up from the peculiar institution. Freed slaves worked under landowners that were usually their previous owners and black Americans were still in a subordinate position compared to rich white men.
In sharecropping, landowners divided their land and gave each worker a few acres along with seed and tools. During harvest time, each worker gave a share of his crop (usually about half) to his landowner. The share of crop paid the owner back and ended their contract until the following year.
In a theoretical sense, workers who save a little of their crop could eventually buy their own tools and have a better negotiation with their landowners. The hope was that they might even rent land for cash from the planters and keep all of their own harvest. Eventually though this system of tenant farming, workers could move up the economic ladder to become their own owners of their farms.
Unfortunately, these arrangements hardly ever worked. The majority of tenant farmers bought their supplies from merchants who charged them inflated prices. They seldom harvested enough crops to pay for both past debts and future supplies. As a result, almost no farmers saved enough money to buy land.
The intent for these systems was a better future for freed slaves. They supposedly could eventually buy themselves their own land. The opposite effect occurred. Sharecropping and tenant farming were not a big step up from the peculiar institution. Freed slaves worked under landowners that were usually their previous owners and black Americans were still in a subordinate position compared to rich white men.