Poor, illiterate and intimidated by widespread violence
after the Civil War, many former slaves agreed to sharecropping contracts, such
as this one, that were designed to keep them poor.
Agreement between Landlord and Sharecropper
This agreement, made and entered into this 18th day of
January, 1879, between Solid South, of the first part, and John Dawson, of the
second part.
Witnesseth: that said party of the
first part for and in consideration of eighty-eight pounds of lint cotton to be
paid to the said Solid South, as hereinafter expressed, hereby leases to said
Dawson, for the year A. D. 1879, a certain tract of land, the boundaries of
which are well understood by the parties hereto, and the area of which the said
parties hereby agree to be fifteen acres, being a portion of the Waterford
Plantation, in Madison Parish, Louisiana.
The said Dawson is to cultivate
said land in a proper manner, under the general superintendence of the said
Solid South, or his agent or manager, and is to surrender to said lessor
peaceable possession of said leased premises at the expiration of this lease
without notice to quit. All ditches, turn-rows, bridges, fences, etc. on said
land shall be kept in proper condition by said Dawson, or at his expense. All
cotton-seed raised on said land shall be held for the exclusive use of said
plantation, and no goods of any kind shall be kept for sale on any said land
unless by consent of said lessor.
If said Solid South shall furnish
to said lessee money or necessary supplies, or stock, or material, or either or
all of them during this lease, to enable him to make a crop, the amount of said
advances, not to exceed $475 (of which $315 has been furnished in two mules,
plows, etc.), the said Dawson agrees to pay for the supplies and advances so
furnished, out of the first cotton picked and saved on said land from the crop
of said year, and to deliver said cotton of the first picking to the said Solid
South, in the gin on said plantation, to be by him bought or shipped at his
option, the proceeds to be applied to payment of said supply bill, which is to
be fully paid on or before the 1st day of January, 1880.
After payment of said supply bill,
the said lessee is to pay to said lessor, in the gin of said plantation, the
rent cotton herein before stipulated, said rent to be fully paid on or before
the 1st day of January, 1880. All cotton raised on said land is to be ginned on
the gin of said lessor, on said plantation, and said lessee is to pay $4 per
bale for ginning same.
To secure payment of said rent and
supply bill, the said Dawson grants unto said Solid South a special privilege
and right of pledge on all the products raised on said land, and on all his
stock, farming implements, and personal property, and hereby waives in favor of
said Solid South the benefit of any and all homestead laws and exemption laws
now in force, or which may be in force, in Louisiana, and agrees that all his
property shall be seized and sold to pay said rent and supply bill in default
of payment thereof as herein agreed. Any violation of this contract shall
render the lease void.
[signed]
Solid South
John Dawson
X (his mark)
Excerpt from Nell Irvin Painter, Exodusters: Black
Migration to Kansas after Reconstruction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977.
23 comments:
The contract is completely unfair to John Dawson, the man who wants farm the land. He basically can’t take any profit for himself, and he has no right to quit. Dawson is at the contractors’ mercy; this sounds a lot like slavery to me.
“The said Dawson is to cultivate said land in a proper manner, under the general superintendence of the said Solid South, or his agent or manager…” This reminds me of slavery, because slaves had to work under the “supervision” of white overseers.
“…[Dawson] is to surrender to said lessor peaceable possession of said leased premises at the expiration of this lease without notice to quit.” This quote made me stop; it’s so apathetic it’s disgusting. Dawson’s just supposed to give up all that he has when they say so and leave peacefully…and sharecroppers usually lived and worked with their families, so he has to not only find a new place for himself, but he has to find a place for them, too. That’s really messed up, and the contractors don’t even care.
“All cotton-seed raised on said land shall be held for the exclusive use of said plantation, and no goods of any kind shall be kept for sale…unless by consent of said lessor.” Just like the previous slaves, Dawson can’t make any profit off of the crops that he’ll have to grow himself.
Lets start from the top. This seems to me like slavery just worded differently in order to disguise it. "The said Dawson is to cultivate said land in a proper manner, under the general superintendence of the said Solid South,". This is a bunch of big words that when put together look and feel very intimidating. In all reality it states that Dawson has to pick the cotton from the land under the supervision of a white man with more authority than he. Does that not sound a tad bit familiar? Yes, like i said before it seems to be slavery in disguise.
Dawson "agrees that all his property shall be seized and sold to pay said rent and supply bill in default of payment thereof as herein agreed. Any violation of this contract shall render the lease void." I feel like this part of the contact seems very unfair to Dawson because if the "White man" get tired of him and how he does his work he can just be fired on the spot. Everything he owns on the land owned by Solid South will be taken from him and must sell the land he lives on in order to pay the rent. However you chose to state this, it will not change the fact that the white man has more power over the black man and he is able to hold it against him whenever he wishes.
After everything is all said and done there is no choice but to see how unfair this contract is to a man that is just trying to make an honest living. In some aspects it seems to be very much like slavery but in many others it seems like the white man just does not want to lose that power and control he once had; even if that means paying a black man a little bit of money for his labor.
John Dawson,the man making the agreement, was probably illiterate and poor. He agrees to "cultivate said land in a proper manner, under the general superintendence of the said Solid South, or his agent or manager, and is to surrender to said lessor peaceable possession of said leased premises at the expiration of this lease without notice to quit." This quote reminds me of slavery because Dawson has to cultivate the land while he is being "supervised".
"To secure payment of said rent and supply bill, the said Dawson grants unto said Solid South a special privilege and right of pledge on all the products raised on said land, and on all his stock, farming implements, and personal property...." Dawson would have to pay the 'Solid South'
This agreement is basically slavery because he wont make much of a profit from it, is being "watched", and basically works for someone else.
the sharecropping contract is unfair to john dawson because he has to work in the field under supervision of white people. this is totally like slavery. it states “The said Dawson is to cultivate said land in a proper manner, under the general superintendence of the said Solid South" this would have to be part 2 of slavery but not in a noticeable way to some people. my next comment is when the contractors want john dawson to pack up and leave when ev er they tell him to and no think about their families in which they worked with, so he would have to find a home where his family and self could stay at. another example is “All cotton-seed raised on said land shall be held for the exclusive use of said plantation, and no goods of any kind shall be kept for sale…unless by consent of said lessor.” this means that he couldnt make any money off of his work growning things by his self.
I think this contract is certainly unfair.It seems to me that their giving Dawson a hard time just because he wants to supply for his own land.But, sharecropping is an unfair practice bin general yet because African Americans were sharecroppers at one point in history.Sharecropping is very similar to slavery.In slavery, a person does not receive fair wages for his or her labor, which allows the owner to reap the monetary benefit.In, sharecropping, the owner, "John Dawson", reaps profit from sharecropper's labor.The only difference is that John Dawson does not own the person, but the land he is trying to work on.
I felt like this contract is similar to slavery because in the text it say " The said Dawson is to cultivate said land in a proper manner, under the general superintendence of the said Solid South, or his agent or manager, and is to surrender to said lessor peaceable possession of said leased premises at the expiration of this lease without notice to quit." In this quote is says that Dawson has to use the land in a proper way and he have to be watch under the white overseers. this reminded me a lot about slavery because the slaves were being watched my their masters. The text also say " All cotton-seed raised on said land shall be held for the exclusive use of said plantation, and no goods of any kind shall be kept for sale on any said land unless by consent of said lessor." This quote show that Dawson cannot make any profits on the crops that he is planting. This is absolutely unfair to Dawson.
The contract is definitely is unfair to John Dawson. He had to work in the field under supervision which is like slavery. They just reworded this around to make it not sound as of this is what's going on. I honestly believe Dawson had no idea what he was agreeing to. He was illiterate and did not understand the terms of sharecropping. This is slavery part 2. Not only is Dawson not making a profit and if he does it is very little, but he under supervision by white person. As I stated before they just reworded this to not sound as harsh. This is completely unfair to Dawson as well as many others who agreed to this contract.
The contract is extremely unfair it is basically slavery in disguise. John Dawson will basically put all his time and energy into something he could not profit from. While he worked it would be required that someone with a higher position would watch over him. It was like if he didn't even own the land. That sounds a lot like slavery to me. The only difference was that it was worded differently to make him think otherwise. I believe Dawson had no clue about what he was getting himself Into. If he did why would he be doing it?
I believe that this contract is unfair. John Dawson is an illiterate African American, who is being taken advantage of. in the text it says, “ is to cultivate said land in a proper manner, under the general superintendence of the said Solid South". This is saying that he can own the land but is undersupervision of a white man. Since he was illiterate he did not know what he was agreeing too. He didn't know the true meaning of sharecropping. As Izzy and Alea said this is like slavery in disguise just worded differently. Dawson also agrees too having all his crops should be seized and sold. This is unfair to him because whatever crops he grows he can not make a profit off of it. Like i said before I think this is just like slavery because he is under supervision and he could get fired if the white man doesn't like the way he does work, even though its his land. All in All i feel as though they took Advantage of Dawson and this is one of the many ways too keep him poor.
A sharecropping contract is unfair to John Dawson because he doesn't know what he is getting into. Alea stated he illiterate and unable to understand was going on. The people who conducted the contract probably told Dawson that it was a great idea that could support him and his love ones. What former slave would deny the chance to make their own living for a chance? To know that your hard work contribute to you and not to someone else. Almost everyone said or quoted "Dawson is to cultivate said land in a proper manner, under the general superintendence of the said Solid South" It seems like we all agree that this is another form of slavery which meant to keep African Americans enslaved under whites' will.
This contract is completely bogus,and no where close to be being logical, sensible, or fair. It is simply the white mans way of abiding by the law while sustaining their sense of superiority over the black race.Dawson technically doesn't own the land or have any in its existence, he is simply a care taker. The contract explicitly explains all the maintenance work that is expected from Dawson, and is very precise in stating how little ownership he has. " To secure payment of said rent and supply bill,... agrees that all his property shall be seized and sold to pay said rent and supply bill in default of payment thereof as herein agreed." This means that the land can be taken from from him at any point in time with or without his consent. This is a more "respectable" form of slavery, a form of slavery that allows the black race to be somewhat more comfortable in their servitude by giving them a sense of ownership and pride. This new form of slavery still holds the same basic concepts as the old form of slavery in that whites are still managing to make a profit from black labor.
As Chelsea said in her blog, when African Americans signed this sharecropping contract, they didn't know what they were getting themselves into. Many blacks at the time were not educated which made them illiterate. Also many blacks grew up using the words 'Yes master' more than any other words so blacks being intimidated into signing this contract was easy for the white southerners to do. Also many blacks were very poor, especially after slavery because that means they had to take care of themselves financially and slaves never had to worry about that when they were with their masters. So if making a deal with men that despise you meant you have a chance to get out of your poor state even if you don't know what half the contract meant, why not take the chance?
This contract is truly unfair, cruel and another way to say slavery. Dawson surly did not know what he was getting himself into because he probably wouldn't have signed the contract if he knew what it really meant. The contract was a way to have Dawson working non-stop, supervised by a white overseer, and not able to make any money for himself. Just as Yazmeen said, Dawson can't make any profit from the crops he is growing himself. All the hard work and struggle he put into growing those crops and he gets nothing, zilch, nada from it. That's truly unfair.
This agreement is another reason why reconstruction was a failure because it seems as though slavery never really ended in the south after the Civil War and the law did not really intervene to help. The document is completely unfair and another way to have blacks suffer for white southerners without getting paid for their efforts even after they became free men.
This contract was definately unfair because as many of my classmates have said, Dawson was taken advantage of since he was poor, probably illiterate, and certainly scared. The contract was similar to slavery because Dawson had to work on the land under supervision of the Solid South. Not only that but he didn't get to keep any of the crops. In the text, it states that all of the cotton seeds were to go to the lessor, none to Dawson. He also had to pay for supplies to work on the land. Dawson also agreed that if he couldnt pay the bill, everything he owned would be taken away to pay it.
This sharecropping contract was completely unfair. It wad unfair towards John Dawson because he was taken advantage of because of his illiteracy. Dawson had to pay for all expenses and work ON the land. This wad unfair towards him because it was meant to be a joint property owning but he did all the work.
The Share cropping contract was definitely unfair to John Dawson. Taking that he is illiterate and maybe has no choice he is taken advantage of. The whites know that no matter how ridiculous the contract is the blacks are free and will take anything for pay, as long as its not slavery. Although share cropping is not slavery it is similar to it."The said Dawson is to cultivate said land in a proper manner, under the general superintendence of the said Solid South, or his agent or manager…”. This is very similar to slavery because again the blacks are supervised by the whites as they were supervised by their masters in slavery.
The sharecropping contract between blacks then is like the Freddie Mac Scandal-a complete and total rip off but not only that it's fraud. From this excerpt I know several things 1) Loaners are bidding on sharecroppers ignorance or business 2) They are using the sharecroppers worries to provide for family and survive and offering what seems like a great deal and 3) they are trapping them in a deal. They made it same appealing but really it was not. When a person has to pay for and put their sweat and blood into something, never reaping the bennefits but instead someone else who sacrificed absolutely nothing reaps the bennefits; it's not a deal it's a trap and it morally and ethically wrong; it would seem however that southern white men had none at the time.
Sharecropping at all in these days were unfair to all blacks. I think weather you could read or not, things were not fair. But it was worst for Dawson because he was illiterate and they really did him wrong. All blacks were kind of set up for failure because they didn't really know what they were getting themselves into and even though it was sad, I dont think I feel so sorry for them getting tooken advantage of but for them being naive. I look at it as, the whites were never on your team throughout everything they were going through, so what made them think it was going to change. Because they signed a an amendment or passed a law?
As many of my classmates have said earlier sharecropping was definitely unfair to blacks. The contract made blacks do all of the work with little benifit. Blacks had to pick the cotton then give it to the lessor. In addition to the cotton they weren't able to keel the profits from the land that they tended to. On top of that the first blacks had to pay rent to the lessor. This contract makes blacks do all the work but the benifits goto whites which is how slavery worked. As Sarah said blacks were iliterate which means they couldn't read so they were intimadated into signing the contract because they have been listining to whites their whole life. I completely agree with Vera its morrally wrong to trap a person intonation contract that does not benifit them in any way.
shrek vs shaggy
battle for the last n-word pass VVI
bruh lmao just doing this for scholl no oe cares bout this flip flop bullcrap
pee pee poo poo i took a fat shat bruv
sorry daddy ive been naughty is the same thing as im sorry holy father for my sins
There are too many unknowns here to know if a sharecropper could make a living under this contract.
Mainly how much cotton could be produced on the 15 acres.
Post a Comment