https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21 Analyze and evaluate an actual contract between a sharecropper and a landowner. en-us 2017-09-28 13:50:26 UTC 2024-11-04 05:11:33 UTC hello@padlet.com ryanrobertsonma https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/192072736 After the Civil War Freedmen were given opportunities as sharecroppers. Even though many thought sharecropping was a better way of life, often contracts were written to take advantage of the illiterate. Read the following contract that was signed in 1879.]]> 2017-09-28 13:52:13 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/192072736 ryanrobertsonma https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/192072800 After reading the contract, post one paragraph answering the following questions. 
1. In what ways is the contract unfair for sharecroppers?
2. What changes could be made to ensure equality between sharecroppers and landowners. 
3. What comparisons can be made between slavery and sharecropping?]]> 2017-09-28 13:52:19 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/192072800 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/192097689 2017-09-28 14:32:38 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/192097689 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630275 1. The contract between the share cropper and the land lord was unfair to the sharecropper because the share cropper lost more money working on the farm than actually earning money.
2. To make the contract ensure equality, the prices for equipment, such as mules and baskets could be cheaper and more affordable.
3. The difference between sharecropping and slavery was that the sharecropper was paid for his work however he also had to pay for the equipment he was using.]]> 2018-10-05 14:16:47 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630275 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630320 1. The contract is unfair to sharecroppers because the crontract seemed to have ripped off some of the sharecroppers in which they ended up losing money rather than gaining money.
2. The changes that could be made are  that it could make everything more fair and equal between the sharecroppers and land owner's by making it so that the sharecroppers were able to understand what exactly they are signing before signing it by having someone they can trust read it to them if they are not able to read it by them self.
3. Comparisons that can be made between slavery and sharecropping is that slavery was more of hard labor that blacks had zero rights and would get beaten for anything they do and sharecropping is hard labor still but the blacks have more rights and arnt beaten as often. ]]> 2018-10-05 14:16:52 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630320 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630429 1. Parts of the contract were unfair to the African American men. They have to pay on average of 325 dollars to the land owner. If they are given 15 acres then they can only make  250 dollars so they are already in debt. The land owners could charge a little less so that the renter could at least make some money. Also they could give them the materials to farm with instead of making them pay for it. Being a slave you make no money and in sharecropping you make none either you actually lose money. They are not free either if they do not complete their contract then they get no money back. ]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:03 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630429 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630466 The contract was unfair for the sharecroppers because they did all the work, bought the supplies, and still owed debt to the landowner. The sharecropper didn't make any money. To ensure equality between sharecroppers and landowners, the landowners should provide the supplies to the sharecropper. In return to landowner would earn more crops. Slavery and sharecropping can be compared because the sharecropper was almost always in debt. The sharecropper would have to work for the same landowner every year to try to pay the debt back. The landowner would make money from the sharecropper. The sharecropper was almost like a slave to the landowner. The sharecropper would never make any money. ]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:08 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630466 jonahkozora https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630501 The contract was unfair because not only would Dawson not make a profit but would be put in debt for working. Also Dawson was illiterate so he had no idea what the contract even was saying. The changes that could be made is the sharecroppers must be able to read and understand the contract before signing it so if they could not read it someone would have to read it to them and fully explain and if they would lie about it they would be punished. Also the contract would have to be fair so the sharecropper would not be forced into debt even if he or she did nothing wrong. The difference between sharecropping and slavery was that with sharecropping there was a pay even if sometimes the pay or contract put them in debt. ]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:11 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630501 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630525 It was unfair for sharecroppers because the money they paid to rent the land exceeded the money they earned and they didn't know this would happen before they signed the contract. Changes made to the contract to make it better would be to make sure both sides understand what they're signing and to make sure they knew how much money was on each end. Slavery and sharecropping can be compared because they're different in the sense that sharecroppers get a percentage of the cost, they could also be compared because they're the same in a sense that families have to work and pick cotton.]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:13 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630525 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630598 The contract is unfair because in most cases the contracts ripped of the sharecroppers. The share croppers often left with less than they came with or didn't leave at all.(Always in Debt) Each deal or contract maid is put into a local bank or building to be saved or stored so that at the end of the term the sharecropper would get his/her payment. Since the sharecroppers often could read communities could have someone discuss and talk to the sharecroppers so they new what they were getting in payment. Sharecropping and slavery could be compared because most of the time they were being treated unfairly and had unequal rights.]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:21 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630598 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630650 The contract was unfair because the sharecropper didn't know how to read, so they didn't know what they were signing. Also they made very little money if any and . To made it equal the landowner could read them the contract or give them more money since they make so much more. Slavery and sharecropping are very similar, for example they both have to work long hard hours. Also they both get treated very poorly and get little to no pay. ]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:29 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630650 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630718  1.The contract for the sharecroppers is very unfair. Most of the sharecroppers couldn't read the contract. They were in debt about $90 after every year so what they were earning wasn't making up for the initial dues to get started. The landowners were making high profits and the sharecroppers ended up in debt and they were putting forth all of the work. 
2. To ensure equality between the sharecroppers and the landowners there are some changes that would help. One change that could be made is that the landowners could pay half of the payment to get started so that the sharecroppers would profit from their work instead of being in dept. Another change that could be made is making sure the sharecroppers know what the contract says before they sign it.
3. Slavery and sharecropping are very similar. One way they are similar is that the sharecroppers work from sunup to sundown and get no money from it. They end up in debt.]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:35 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630718 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630719
The contract is unfair to many sharecroppers because, they are loosing money, but they did not know this because they are illiterate. The changes that need to be made to ensure quality are, the sharecroppers should get more money that they earned instead of loosing it. also they should be able to understand the contract before signing it so they know what they are doing.They both compared because they both share land, they didn't have their own.]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:35 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630719 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630752 The contract was unfair for the sharecroppers because they were losing money. They were in debt about $90 after every year so what they were earning wasn't making up for the initial dues to get started.  The landowners could pay due for supplies, and others. Sharecropping was alike to slavery because the sharecroppers would work long hours in the hot sun with no pay and some of them even owe money to the landowners for doing all their work for them.]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:38 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630752 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630792 The contract was unfair to the sharecroppers because they ended up losing money rather than making/ gaining money. The changes that could be made so that it would ensure equality between the sharecroppers and the land owners could be that the sharecropper didn't have to pay for the supplies that they needed to. Slavery and sharecroppers could be similar because they both had to pick the cotton and work on plantations in the hot sun for long hours each day. Also they were alike because they didn't get anything from doing the work and the sharecroppers lost money.]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:42 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630792 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630800 The contract was unfair to sharecroppers because many were illiterate, so they did not know they were basically signing up to be in debt. The sharecroppers were also required to pay the fee for supplies and also to bale the cotton, and if they could not pay it, their share of the cotton would not be given to them. To make the contract fair, the landowner could pay the due for the supplies, which would ensure that the sharecropper would earn an income instead of going into debt. Sharecropping was alike to slavery because the sharecroppers would work long hours in the hot sun with absolutely no pay and some may even owe money to the landowner for doing all their work for them.]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:43 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630800 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630855 The contract was unfair. The sharecroppers did not profit from the contract. They lost $85 dollars a year. Some things that could be done to fix this are the owner could have made the amount the sharecropper had to pay him back for supplies less and the owner could have made bailing the cotton free. Some comparisons that can be made are the sharecroppers are treated very poorly and make no money forcing the to stay with the owner to try and make a profit. ]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:48 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630855 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630858 The contract is unfair for the sharecroppers because they did all the work and bought the supplies and they did not earn money. They had the pay back expenses. they didn't make any money and were in debt. The landowners, who did no work, were getting paid. The Landowners should supply the sharecroppers with the supplies. Slavery and sharecropping can be compared because they both require work for the people. They have a landowner who takes their earned money and tells them what to do.

]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:48 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630858 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630877 The contract was unfair to sharecroppers because they lost more money than they were making. The contract also could have been changed is that the sharecropper gets more money to make it so they at least get somewhat of a profit. And lastly the comparison that can be made between this and slavery is that, there are still people working for other people, but one person gets paid ( bearly much at all though) but the other doesn't get paid a all.


]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:49 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630877 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630901 1. The Contract is unfair to the sharecroppers because they were the ones to work year round. But in return for their hard work they would be put farther into debt. And the landowners, who didn't do work, often got the money. 
2. The changes that could be made to ensure the equality between sharecroppers and landowners is that they could even out the payments so that way both sides can get a fair sum of money. They also shouldn't have to pay for the housing because they already pay for everything else. 
3. The comparison between slavery and sharecropping is that they both had unfair laws. They also didn't own their own land. Both slaves and sharecroppewrs also fell into debt]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:52 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630901 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630904 1. The contract is unfair because the sharecroppers were most likely unable to read it, but they had to get work to provide. They had to work year round and only got payed a small amount, plus they lost $85 each year.
2. Some changes, could be that they share their earnings, and the share cropper can get all the money they made, for themselves, so they can expand their land and buy their own, they also should not have to pay for housing if they are already paying for everything else.
3. Both sharecropping and slavery both didn't have their own land, and still had to get their crops to the land owner. Their housing situations barely increased, and they did not get to decide what they grew, that was up to the landowner, who made them pay for almost everything. This meant that they were in great debt, so they had to keep working year after year while their debt grew bigger and bigger. This was not very fair since the land owner was likely ]]> 2018-10-05 14:17:52 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289630904 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289631047 The contract was unfair to sharecroppers because they were losing lots of money and they could of been gaining. They would get payed small amounts and they had to follow certain rules. Some of them could not read so they did exactly know what they were getting themselves into. To make this more fair landowners should help with the supplies more for the sharecroppers and they also should not have to pay for housing because they already are paying for so much. Sharecroppers and landowners both didnt have their own land and they did not get to decide what they could grow and the landowners decided that. So the sharecroppers were in great debt.]]> 2018-10-05 14:18:06 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289631047 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289631073 The contract was unfair for the sharecroppers because they were usually illiterate and didn't necessarily know what the contract meant. They didn't realize that that would be ripped off by the landowners. To ensure the equality between the landowners and sharecroppers, the landowners should help provide certain supplies to the sharecroppers. Sharecropping and slavery were similar because slaves got nothing out of doing work for others and sharecroppers were still in debt after working one year ]]> 2018-10-05 14:18:09 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289631073 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289631280 the contract was unfair because the sharecropper was always in debt. The land owners could at least have some decency to give the share cropper a little bit more money so hes not in debt. the comparisons with share cropping and slavery is that with both jobs you have to work for someone]]> 2018-10-05 14:18:28 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289631280 jonahkozora https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289635936 2018-10-05 14:25:49 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289635936 jonahkozora https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289636218 2018-10-05 14:26:13 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289636218 jonahkozora https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289636226 2018-10-05 14:26:13 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/289636226 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/290513463 The contract was very unfair to African Americans because they never new what the contract meant. African Americans were usually illiterate, so they couldn't understand what the mean't. The landowners should've paid 85 dollars as well because their workers had to and they got paid such a little amount in the first place. 85 dollars every year out of their pay check is a lot o money and after paying that they didn't have that much money left. So, in conclusion the landowners should paid $85 dollars as well.]]> 2018-10-08 23:19:10 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/tafblfdk0y21/wish/290513463