Sharecropping contract summary Continue Immediately after the Civil War, many former slaves set up natural farms on land that had been abandoned by fleeing white southerners. President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat and former slave owner, soon restored the land to his white owners, making many freed slaves an economic dependence on the old planter class in the south. The freed, who wanted autonomy and independence, refused to sign contracts that required gang labor, and shareholder construction became a compromise. Landowners have divided plantations into 20 to 50 acres suitable for farming by one family. In exchange for the use of land, huts and supplies, the shareholders agreed to collect the money culture and give a portion, usually 50 per cent of the harvest to their owner. Landowners loaned to shareholders to buy goods and charged high interest rates, sometimes up to 70 per cent per year, creating a system of economic dependence and poverty. This 1867 contract between landowner Isham G. Bailey in Marshall County, Mississippi, and two freedmen provides for a different arrangement for the family of each man. Both Charles Roberts and Cooper Hughes had to pick up cotton and corn and give more than half the cotton and two-thirds of the corn they raised at Bailey, but the Roberts family had to get 487 pounds of meat from the Hughes family at 550 pounds. In addition, Charles Roberts and his wife agreed to do housework for an additional $50 a year, while the Hughes family agreed to care for the cattle without additional compensation. As a symbol of their recent pro-independence, the Freemen had teams of mules dragging their former slave houses from slave quarters into their own fields. The couple and daughters drastically reduced their work in the field and instead devoted more time to home and childcare. But the exploitative shareholder system has also helped ensure that the south's economy becomes almost entirely dependent on one crop - cotton - and an increasing number of Southerners, white and black, are reduced to farming tenants working as workers on land they do not own. The full transcript is available. Transcript... said Cooper Hughes Friedman with his wife and another woman, and said Charles Roberts with his wife Hannah and one boy should work on said farm and cultivate forty acres in corn and twenty acres of cotton to help put fences on said farm in good condition and keep them well and do all the other work on said farm must be done to keep the same in good condition and raise a good crop and be in control and be in control and IG said Bailey and get for their services one half cotton and one-third of the corn and feed raised by them on said farm in 1867 and said Charles Roberts Friedman his wife Hannah further agrees and binds himself to do laundry and eyring, and all the other work home for said IG Bailey and his family during said 1867 and getting for his services fifty dollars in money after said 1867 and said Cooper Hughes Friedman further agrees and binds himself to give the necessary attention feeding stocks of cattle and milking cows twice a day owned by IG Bailey , and do churning ever needed during this year . Not to be confused with cropsharing. Use of land by a tenant in exchange for a share of crop production agricultural history of the history of organic farming Neolithic revolution agriculture in Mesoamerica Austronesia Expansion Ancient Egyptian Agriculture in Ancient Greece Agriculture in Ancient Rome Arab Agricultural Revolution British Agricultural Revolution Green Revolution Chinampa Monoculture On land Agroelectronic Livestock Livestock Cattle Cattle Pig Poultry Sheep Dry Slash-and-Burn Terrace Steam Sterilization Hydroculture Aquaponics Aquaponics Hydroponics Aeroponics Associated Agroindustrial Agricultural Engineering Agricultural Science Agricultural Technology Agroproduction Agroforestry Agroforestry Without Animal Variety Variety Ecology The Cattle Mechanization of Permaculture Sustainable Urban Funding government ministries of universities and colleges category Agriculture by the country biotechnology livestock company , in Georgia, USA (1941) Sharecropping is a legitimate agreement for agricultural land in which the landowner allows the tenant to use the land in exchange for a share of crops produced on this land. Sharecropping has a long history and there are a wide variety of different situations and types of agreements that have used the form of the system. Some are governed by tradition and others by law. Examples of legal systems, always, are the Italian mezzadria, the French mutayag, the Spanish media, the Slavic Pokhovs and the Islamic muzaraa system. Sharecropping's review has benefits and costs for both owners and tenants. In it, the landowner urges farmers to stay on the land, solving the problem of harvesting. Because a farmer pays in stocks or parts of their crop, owners and farmers share the risks and benefits of large or small yields, and prices are high or low. As both parties benefit from larger yields, tenants have an incentive to work harder and invest in better methods than, for example, the slave plantation system. However, by dividing the workforce into many individual workers, don't benefit from economies of scale. In general, it has been shown that the proportion is not as cost-effective as the gangland agricultural industry on slave plantations, although less effective than modern farming methods. In the U.S., tenant farmers owned their own mules and equipment, and shareholders did not, so the shareholders were poorer and have a lower status. Sharecropping occurred extensively in Scotland, Ireland and colonial Africa, and came into widespread use in the southern United States during the Reconstruction Era (1865-1877). In the south were devastated by the war - planters had enough land, but little money for wages or taxes. At the same time, most former slaves could provide labor, but had neither money nor land - they rejected the kind of gang labor that characterized slavery. The solution was a cotton-focused shareholder system, which was the only culture that could generate cash for farmers, landowners, traders and tax collectors. Poor white farmers who previously did little cotton farming needed cash as well and became sharecroppers. Jeffrey Page made a distinction between centralized shareholders found on cotton plantations and decentralized equity production with other crops. The first is characterized by political conservatism and long tenure. Tenants are tied to the landlord through a plantation shop. This form of ownership is usually replaced by payroll as markets enter. Decentralized share production has little role for the landowner: the plots are scattered, the peasants manage their own labor, and the landowners do not produce the harvest. This form of ownership becomes more common when markets penetrate. The use of the sharecropper system has also been defined in England (as the practice of farming in half). It is still used in many rural poor areas of the world today, especially in Pakistan and India. While it is believed that shareholder use was exploitative, evidence from around the world suggests that shareholder use is often a way for various endowed enterprises to pool resources for mutual benefit, overcoming credit constraints and helping to manage risk. According to Dr. Hunter, a few acres of the cottage will make workers too independent. It can have more than a fleeting resemblance to serfdom or indentation, especially where it involves large debts in a plantation shop that effectively connects workers and their family to the land. It is therefore seen as a matter of land reform in contexts such as the Mexican Revolution. However, Nyambara argues that the Eurocentric devices such as feudalism or slavery, often qualified by weak prefixes such as semi- or quasi-, do not help in understanding the preceding and shareholder nudity functions in Africa. However, trade agreements can be concluded as a form of tenants of agriculture or a stock farm that has variable rents paid in the form of debt. There are three different types of contracts. Workers can rent land from the owner for a certain amount and save the entire crop. Workers work on the land and receive a fixed salary from the landowner, but keep part of the crop. No money changes hands, but the worker and land owner each save a share of the crop. However, many external factors make it effective. One factor is slave-owning emancipation: sharecropping provided freed slaves of the U.S., Brazil and the late Roman Empire with access to land. It is also effective as a way to avoid inflation, hence its growth in the 16th century in France and Italy. He also gave sharecroppers a vested interest in the land, stimulating hard work and care. American plantations, however, were wary of this interest because they believed it would lead african-Americans to claim the right to partnership. Many black workers denied the unilateral authority that landowners hoped would achieve, further complicating the relationship between landowners and shareholders. Landlords choose sharecropping to avoid administrative costs and evasions that occur on plantations and hacienda. Preferably cash rentals because cash tenants take all the risks and any crop failure will hurt them rather than the landlord. Thus, they tend to require lower rents than sharecroppers. The benefits of sharing access in other situations include giving women access to arable land that only belongs to men. The disadvantages of this practice have been harmful to tenants with many cases of high interest rates, unpredictable yields, and unscrupulous landlords and traders often keeping tenants of farming families in serious debt. Debt is often compounded year after year, leaving the farmer vulnerable to intimidation and short-term change. However, this seemed inevitable, without a serious alternative, if the farmers had not left the agriculture.