free labor
The slaves mad them rich, and they also had made them feel powerful.
Sharecropping involved tenant farmers working a portion of a landowner's land in exchange for a share of the crops produced, while tenant farming involved renting land from a landowner and being able to keep all the produce grown. Sharecroppers often had fewer rights and faced more debt than tenant farmers.
Sometimes. As long as it doesn't become a problem. A problem might be that you may not like one of your neighbors and you may have a pet toucan who you've now trained to attack anyone who you tell it to attack. That might make your neighbor tell a lawgiver (judge, mayor, the head of an area, or head of an association.
for example: 'i will have to detain you for further questioning' it means to stop someone..to keep someone from their future activities. a policeman might say this to the person he has arrested.
Slaves typically did not own possessions. They were considered property themselves and had no legal rights to own property. Any items they might have been allowed to keep, such as clothing or tools, were usually provided by their owners.
Landowners may want to keep sharecroppers in debt to maintain control over their labor and prevent them from gaining financial independence. By perpetuating a cycle of debt, they ensure that sharecroppers remain reliant on them for credit and supplies, effectively binding them to the land and limiting their ability to seek better opportunities elsewhere. This arrangement can also maximize the landowners' profits, as they can take advantage of the sharecroppers' labor while minimizing their own financial risks.
well workers got a place to live on and crops to plant for food, they were paid too but not as much as the landowners
The sharecropping contract was often unfair because it typically imposed exploitative terms that favored landowners. Sharecroppers, who were mostly poor and lacked resources, were required to give a significant portion of their harvest to the landowner as rent, leaving them with little profit. Additionally, the contracts were often written in complex legal language that sharecroppers could not understand, making it easy for landowners to manipulate the terms and keep the laborers in a cycle of debt and dependency. This system perpetuated economic inequality and limited opportunities for upward mobility.
Farmers owned the land they farmed, and could keep what they earned. Sharecroppers farmed land owned by someone else, and kept part of the profits from the crop.
In some circumstances, yes. But the landowners of the South were impoverished by the Civil War, and many slaves simply became sharecroppers on land rented from the owners.
they did not have enough money to keep thefarm growing because the economy was based on the factories
The slaves made them feel rich, and powerful!
The slaves mad them rich, and they also had made them feel powerful.
The slaves mad them rich, and they also had made them feel powerful.
The goals of sharecroppers and plantation owners conflicted primarily over economic interests and power dynamics. Sharecroppers aimed for fair compensation and better living conditions as they worked the land, seeking stability and self-sufficiency. In contrast, plantation owners sought to maximize profits and maintain control over the labor force, often enforcing exploitative practices to keep sharecroppers in debt and dependent. This fundamental clash over labor rights and economic equity fueled tensions between the two groups.
own plows
Because they had no means of defense so they were an easy target and a huge source of man power.