https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5 Analyze and evaluate an actual contract between a sharecropper and a landowner. en-us 2017-09-28 13:55:04 UTC 2023-07-04 08:31:48 UTC hello@padlet.com ryanrobertsonma https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/192074617 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 13:55:27 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/192074617 ryanrobertsonma https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/192074669 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 13:55:33 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/192074669 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289680205 1. The cost of supplies the sharecropper had to spend was more then the amount of money they could make for selling cotton. They had a minimum number of dollars they had to spend on their supplies at the beginning of the yea.r And when that year was over and they sold their cotton, most likely they still owed money. But not only does the landowner get the money that the sharecropper owes, they get a promised amount of cotton that they can sell too.
2. Share croppers should not have to give up some of the cotton that they farmed. If it is harvested on their set of land then they should be able to keep it all. Also they should be able to choose what they plant. This would allow them to grow a crop that maybe will sell for more money.
3. They both force an African American to work and make none to little money. If a sharecropper does not make enough money to make a profit, then he or she will have to sign up for another year of sharecropping. Slaves were forced to work without pay, also by putting sharecroppers in debt they were basically forced to work even after they didn't make a profit.]]> 2018-10-05 15:31:22 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289680205 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289680340 The contract has some things about it that definitely aren't fair towards sharecroppers.  Basically Dawson is having the sharecroppers do all of the work and then he is just taking their crops and cotton and selling it himself, and letting the landowners sell too. This relates to slavery because the slaves had top do all of the work for their owners, and the sharecroppers almost have to do that same but all for Dawson. Their could be some changes between the sharecroppers and land owners. Instead of the land owners getting all the credit and all the crops, they could have given a decent mount of the crops to the sharecroppers so that they dint do everything in return for nothing. This would definitely make it more fair between the two different positions, and it the sharecroppers wouldn't act as slaves.]]> 2018-10-05 15:31:38 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289680340 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289680598         The contract is unfair because the person on the other end of the contract would end up losing money in the long run. The most practical way to fix this is to split the work between the two individuals and make it so the both come out with the same amount of money]]> 2018-10-05 15:32:08 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289680598 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289680669 1) The sharecroppers contract was unfair for them. The contract was unfair in ways of money. The sharecropper had to pay a minimum of 335 dollars for his mule and tractor etc. Also he makes on average around 250 dollars from his cotton and selling it.  Then he owes 85 to the solid south for his equipment. There could be changes made to even out the price.  You could make the land less to rent for the sharecropper, or you could give the solid south less money because the sharecropped doesn't make profit unless he has a incredible year. Another, option was to make the supplies such as the mule and tractor less expensive. Finally, you can see that slavery was a huge part in sharecropping to work the machines and to harvest all cotton from the acres of land. In conclusion, sharecropping had a very unfair contract and it deepened on slavery a lot.]]> 2018-10-05 15:32:16 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289680669 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289681681 This contract is unfair to sharecroppers because they are losing money and will be in debt, even though they do the hard work. They also have to pay for all the supplies leaving them to make not much profit if they even do make a profit. Also it was unfair that some people agreeing to these contracts could not read and did not understand them. Changes such as providing tutors or a translators for these sharecroppers could ensure equality. The sharecropper would then be able to understand the whole contract that they are agreeing to. Sharecropping is similar to slavery. This is because it has the African Americans doing all the work and having to pay for supplies and the land. This is similar to slavery because most people will end up not even making money, and ending in debt. The contracts were highly unfair to sharecroppers and were similar to slavery]]> 2018-10-05 15:34:14 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289681681 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289681924       The contract for sharecroppers was unfair because many of the landowners would make more income than the person actually using the field.  Also the African Americans could barely read and write so they had a hard time understanding what the contract really meant. Some changes that could be made for this is the landowners could charge less for their land while getting more of the cotton that they were promised from the sharecroppers. They can also give someone to interpret the contract to the sharecropper. Slavery is doing work with no pay and having to not pay anything. Sharecropping gives pay to the African American for doing their own work but more times than not the Sharecropper goes into debt and loses money rather than gaining. They are also allowed to plant what they want and can do what the want with the amount of achers they are assigned.]]> 2018-10-05 15:34:44 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289681924 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682020 The Sharecroppers contract was very unfair. It was unfair because they landowners would make money and the sharecroppers were losing money even though they were doing all the work. Most of them couldnt read or write so they didnt know what they were agreeing to. There are some changes that could have been made to prevent this. I think that Freedmnas bureau could have provided education for the sharecoppers. This would have helped them understand what was in the contract and what they were agreeing to. The federal goverment could have also stepped in and tell the landowners that they cant charge as much money. But the sharecroppers were pretty much just slaves. Both slaves and sharecroppers do work and get little money for doing it.]]> 2018-10-05 15:34:55 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682020 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682409 The contact was unfair for the sharecroppers because even though the workers were working hard, they still had to pay the landowners money.  Some changes that could be made are that the federal government could have stepped in to help these workers because they are the ones doing the work and so the landowners should be paying the workers. Not the workers paying the landowners because these workers are working because they need the money and the landowners do not. The comparisons that can be made are that they both hardly make any money and are also forcing African-Americans to work for them. ]]> 2018-10-05 15:35:44 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682409 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682427 The contract was unfair for the share croppers because the share cropper worker so hard for the landowners but, still had to pay them money. They lose around 85 dollars every year.  A change that could be made would be to ensure equality between the landowners and share croppers. The Freedman's bureau could provide education for the children of the share croppers. The similarities between slavery and share cropping are that both of the jobs are very underated and not taken seriously. they are also both treated very unfairly and poorly. They both do not make much money at all and are not taken care of by the law.]]> 2018-10-05 15:35:46 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682427 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682436  The contracts where unfair for Sharecroppers because even though they were doing all the hard work, they still had to pay the landowners. 
 Changes that could ensure equality between the sharecroppers and landowners is for the sharecroppers not to be forced into working, and for the freedmen's bureau to educate the sharecroppers so they could better understand the contracts so they weren't forced into to unfair labor. in share cropping and slavery they were forced to do manual labor, and just like in slavery they didn't make any money; they actually lost money now. ]]> 2018-10-05 15:35:47 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682436 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682496 The contract is unfair for sharecroppers because they won't make a profit with all the expenses they have to pay. They lose about $85 every year, which means they will always be in debt. Changes that could be made to ensure equality between sharecroppers and landowners is that the Freedman's Bureau could provide education or a translator to tell the sharecropper what the contract is saying, or the government could step in and make contract signings that end in a loss of money to be deemed illegal. The comparisons that can be made between slavery and sharecropping is that in both they don't make any money. Also they were almost forced to work since they couldn't know what they were signing when they signed.]]> 2018-10-05 15:35:55 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682496 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682520 1.The contract was not fair for the share cropper because in the end he didn't make a profit. He will always loose money.
2. A change could be that the share cropper doesn't have to give up any crops. I also think share croppers should be able to choose what they plant.
3. Share croppers got paid very little. If they don't make enough to pay them back they have to work again. Slaves were forced to work and didn't get payed.]]> 2018-10-05 15:35:58 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682520 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682535 1. The contract was unfair for sharecroppers in some ways with money.  After all the hard work that they had to do, they would still have to give up money to the landowners. They had a minimum amount of money needed to be spent on supplies, and they would always end up being in debt. The African Americans had trouble understanding the contract because they could barely read and understand it.
2. There should be some major changes to the contract to make it a lot more equal. They could get more money for the suppl]]> 2018-10-05 15:36:00 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682535 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682597 1.  The contract was unfair to the sharecroppers because in the end they did eventually lose money after working an entire year. They don't make that money and they have to give the land owners 88 pounds of cotton to them and 85 dollars. 
2. Some changes that they could make to the contract are that the sharecroppers don';t have to give as much cotton to the landowners and they should be allowed to plant what they want. If they have to plant the cotton like they are supposed to then they should have to pay anybody because in the end it wasn't their decision to plant it.
3. The sharecropper and the land owner can compromise but allowing the sharecropper to plant what they want and then make them pay but if the sharecropper plants what the land owner wants then to then they should not have to pay the land owner.]]> 2018-10-05 15:36:08 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289682597 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289683522 1. The contract was unfair because the landowners made the sharecroppers pay for all of the stuff and by the time the year was up, most of the sharcroppers would be in debt because the didnt have enough money to pay for all of the needed stuff. 
2. Changes that could be made are to change the price for what the sharecroppers are paying so that they aren't in so much debt at the end of a years work. 
3. Some similarities are that African Americans are forced to work hard jobs for very little money. Also, you still have to work long hours and it is hard for you to get out of working that job. ]]> 2018-10-05 15:38:03 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289683522 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289684403  The contract written by the farmers was unfair to the sharecroppers because of the money lost for a whole years work. The sharecropper was put in an unfair situation designed to make the farmer make money while he lost money. The contract could make the sharecropper go into serious debt. Some changes that could be made to ensure equality between the landowner and the sharecropper is that the sharecropper wouldn't have to gin the cotton and the landowner would do it for him. This would eliminate some money from debt. The sharecropper should also not have to pay the landowner back with cotton since he paid money for the supplies. Some comparisons that can be made between slavery and sharecropping is that they are both unfair and it is hard to get out of. Another similarity is that you did not profit money from working as a slave, and you very rarely profitted from sharecropping.]]> 2018-10-05 15:39:44 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289684403 https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289684457 The contract was unfair to sharecroppers because many people accepting the contract could not read or understand it. The federal government or Freeman's Bureau could have stepped in and done something about this unfair treatment to the people being almost forced into sharecropping. Sharecropping was almost similar to slavery. Slavery was people being forced to work without making money. In this case sharecroppers would be almost forced to work, since the law stated that it was illegal to be without a job, and get no money for what they had done. 


]]> 2018-10-05 15:39:50 UTC https://padlet.com/ryanrobertsonma/wgevjriwvak5/wish/289684457