Compare And Contrast Sharecropping And Slavery

Sharecropping: A Similarity to Slavery The Civil War marked a monumental period in United States History. President Lincoln found himself attempting to preserve the union, while the Confederalists from the south were fighting to create their own separate country. This war was primarily caused by one issue: slavery. The northerners did not expect the power of the South; it was not the quick war that they had expected. Both sides had their fair share of victories and losses. From the beginning of the war the Confederacy had a strong advantage of military leadership. After turning points in the war such as the battles of Gettysburg and Antietam the power shifted to the Union, eventually leading to the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox

Blacks were once again almost completely economically dependent on whites. Originally, southerners had wanted to restore they system of gang labor (Digital History 1). In gang labor, the slaves were divided into groups who had different roles, and worked all day. It was a very brutal form of slavery. The freed blacks did not want to return to a system such as this; they were free and therefore wanted more freedom. When sharecropping became popular, many blacks stayed on the plantations on which they had been slaves. In a way, they remained “chained to the soil” where they had spent their lives as slaves (Zinn 197). They lived in small cabins around the edge of plantations. Some were even still treated as slaves would have been (Horton 215). The sharecropping contract was signed for one year, but families were forced to stay for longer if they had any sort of debt (Berlin 324). Because of this, the sharecropping system became a trap for many families. Their debt became similar to the chains of slavery (Horton 214). They were almost always in debt to the farmer, as they were forced to pay for seeds, tools, food, and rent but only received a very small portion of the profit from their crop. The white landowners put high interest rates on these items, and the crop yield was unpredictable (PBS 1). This insured that the sharecroppers always owed more than they could pay (History 1). The landowners had almost complete

They were not permanently trapped in this system. While the majority found themselves in debt, some were able to escape and start their own free lives with some money (History 1). Sharecroppers had much more freedom than they did as slaves. Many were able to choose their own work hours, and could relax if they happened to become injured. Families could decide who worked in the fields and how the work was divided. Because of this, many women were able to become more involved in domestic family matters: cooking, cleaning, and caring for children (Digital History 1). They were able to spend as much time in the field as they wanted and work as hard as they felt necessary without fearing punishment (McPherson 104). Their only punishment in this situation would be crops not succeeding as much as possible. This would lead to the family not receiving as much money from the landowner. This system was also beneficial to blacks because it did allow them to make money, even if it was not really enough (Macy 32). Having some money was a start for these freed slaves, who had never been able to own anything prior to being freed.This system was able to bring southern blacks more independence than they had ever had