Sharecropper Contract Questions

In 1882 in the Southern United States. More specifically, North Carolina.

They had to pay half or 3/5ths of their crops, haul 1000 logs of wood, do any work given, only do work for the respectful (related) plantation owner when possible, not break any farming gear, and not sell any crop without the landowner's permission.

I think that, if the majority of people felt this way, then any plantation owner willing to give more generous conditions would be destroyed by competition. For that reason only, I think that the contract makes sense. Otherwise, I think that many of the people who would have agreed to these conditions would have essentially still been a slave, race aside. To answer the question, no, I think that a society like this cannot survive without better education. However, I'm very grateful for the scientific improvements and work ethic and willingness to excel shown during this period, and it shows the power of the human spirit in the face of adversity.

1000 logs of wood is a very high ask, it's 3 a day, and that's not counting all of the other demands. I think that most farmers would not be able to do all of these things without children or partners (in business, though I don't discriminate), but I also don't think that all sharecroppers would be in debt. Once the farmers weren't able to fulfill their contract, they would have to give an extra 10% of their crops to the owner, and I assume that the debt collector would make harder demands as the conditions got worse, so that they could get the most out of their customers.

This contract doesn't go into detail at all about the way that landowners would deflate assets to get what they wanted. The whole system was broken, and it would take decades for it to be fixed. The government would come to do a lot of legal good, but life was clearly very difficult for African Americans, with the Klan, vicious debt, and widespread racism.