sharecropping

sharecropping system of farm tenancy once common in some parts of the United States. In the United States the institution arose at the end of the Civil War out of the plantation system. Many planters had ample land but little money for wages. At the same time most of the former slaves were uneducated and impoverished. The solution was the sharecropping system, which continued the workers in the routine of cotton cultivation under rigid supervision. Economic features of the system were gradually extended to poor white farmers. The cropper brought to the farm only his own and his family's labor. Most other requirements—land, animals, equipment, and seed—were provided by the landlord, who generally also advanced credit to meet the living expenses of the cropper family. Most croppers worked under the close direction of the landlord, and he marketed the crop and kept accounts. Normally in return for their work they received a share (usually half) of the money realized. From this share was deducted the debt to the landlord. High interest charges, emphasis on production of a single cash crop, slipshod accounting, and chronic cropper irresponsibility were among the abuses of the system. Farm mechanization and a marked reduction in cotton acreage have virtually put an end to the system.

Bibliography: See D. E. Conrad, The Forgotten Farmers: The Story of Sharecroppers in the New Deal (1965); A. F. Raper and I. D. Reid, Sharecroppers All (1941, rep. 1971); R. Coles, Migrants, Sharecroppers, Mountaineers (1972).

Sharecropping and Tenantry, once common forms of farming throughout the United States. The tenant paid the landowner rent; the landowner paid the sharecropper wages. After the Civil War, landowners, former slaves, and yeomen in southern states often disputed rights of land tenure, ownership of crops, and the legal priority of their respective claims. The complex arrangements negotiated by landlord and tenant resulted in frequent litigation.

Sharecroppers brought only their labor to the bargaining table; landowners customarily supervised farming operations, marketed crops, and paid sharecroppers an agreed‐upon sum. Legally, sharecroppers were wage laborers. A sharecropper's claim for wages might conflict with the economic interests of a landowner or a credit merchant. Some states gave the sharecropper's claim priority in such cases, but after Reconstruction, the legislatures and courts generally favored landlords and credit merchants. The number of sharecroppers peaked at 776,000 in the early 1930s. During and after World War II, the number declined, causing the Census Bureau to drop the category after 1959.

Tenant farmers, by contrast, usually brought such resources as implements, draft animals, and credit to the bargaining table. A tenant in effect rented the land and conducted farming operations and marketing independently. After he sold the crop, the tenant paid the landowner an agreed‐upon percentage of the proceeds. A tenant, unlike a sharecropper, could use the growing crop to secure credit through what was termed a crop lien. A 1935 census listed 2.2 million tenant farms; half of the 1 million in the South were farmed by African Americans. Rapid mechanization and government policies reduced tenant farms to 539,000 by 1964.

Local customs often departed from written law, and power, cunning, and particular circumstances figured into tenure arrangements. To enhance landowners’ power, many southern states by the end of the nineteenth century passed punitive laws that restricted farm laborers’ mobility during the crop year. A complex legal history, as well as literary and historical sources, traces the varied tenure arrangements negotiated by farmers and the endless clashes between landowner and tenant. The labor needs and peculiarities of such cash crops as cotton, tobacco, wheat, and rice also shaped tenure contracts and customs.

Beginning in 1933, New Deal agricultural programs delegated enormous power to local agricultural committees composed primarily of wealthier farmers. Such county committees set acreage allotments and mediated landowner‐tenant disputes. Farmers who could take advantage of federal programs and mechanize production prospered. But labor‐intensive farm operations involving tenants and sharecroppers soon faded into insignificance. Millions of farmers left the land as science, technology, and government programs reconfigured U.S. agriculture.
See also Agricultural Adjustment Administration; Cotton Industry; New Deal Era, The; Populism; Southern Tenant Farmers' Union and National Farm Labor Union; Subsidies, Agricultural; Tobacco Industry.

Bibliography

Harold D. Woodman , New South, New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South, 1995.

Pete Daniel

share-cropping The general term given to a variety of arrangements whereby landowners receive a portion of the harvest (‘share of the crop’) from those whom they allow to work their land. A classic example developed after the end of the Civil War in the United States. Freed Black slaves demanded their ‘forty acres and a mule’, and by 1868 share-cropping was the dominant economic arrangement in southern agriculture.

Various explanations have been offered for the emergence of share-cropping. One emphasizes favourable economic preconditions, such as a large class of landholders, combined with shortage of labour, and lack of incentives to mechanize. Neo-classical economists argue that share-cropping is a rational market response advantageous to both sides. However, an alternative explanation suggests that this arrangement typically meets the preferences of neither party, and arises through a ‘constriction of possibilities’ and only when all other alternatives have been defeated. (In the American South, for example, Blacks wanted full economic independence while White plantation owners sought an equivalent to slave labour.)

For an excellent case-study see Edward Royce , The Origins of Southern Sharecropping (1993
). See also PEASANTS.