| |
SHARECROPPERS
by Archie P. McDonald |
|
Prior
to the Civil War, 70 percent of Southern farmers tilled soil they owned. A legacy
of the destruction and social and economic reorganization that war produced was
the reversal of that statistic: afterwards, 70 percent farmed land owned by others.
They
did so as either sharecroppers or share tenants. In the sharecrop system, the
landowner provided the land, of course, plus shelter, and equipment from seeds
to plows to the mules that pulled them. Most importantly, the owner was also involved
in the credit that allowed the cropper to charge food, clothing, and other necessities
pending the harvest of the crop. Sometimes the owner guaranteed the cropper’s
credit; often, they owned the store itself. The sharecropper contributed only
his labor toward making the crop.
According to their agreement, when the
crop came in they shared it according to the contribution of each. Considering
the greater contribution made by the landowners, they obviously thought they deserved
the majority of the crop, or of its value. But then the farmer had to pay his
charge account, and when he did so he usually discovered that nothing was left
of his share of the yield. Likely, he learned that he was in debt to the storekeeper/landowner,
who allowed the cropper to start the process anew. Prices at the stores could
be manipulated by the unscrupulous to insure this outcome, even in years of high
yielding crops, and thus bind the cropper to perpetual poverty on his part and
ever-present labor to landowners.
In 1914, a banker from Temple named
James E. Ferguson announced his candidacy for governor
of Texas. Though a successful banker and businessman, Ferguson so identified himself
with rural Texans that soon he was called “Farmer Jim.” One of the ways he earned
that nickname was by advocacy of a Farm Tenant Rent Law.
Ferguson proposed
legislation that would limit the landowners’ share of the crop to one quarter
of cotton and one third of grains. This would insure that the majority of the
crops would have gone to the men who raised them by the sweat of his brow. No
one knows if this would have worked. The Texas legislature passed the law in response
to Ferguson’s advocacy, but it was challenged instantly and ruled unconstitutional
in 1921. Perhaps the proposal represented only political opportunism, but it did
endear Ferguson to rural folk.
© Archie P. McDonald
All
Things Historical
April 24, 2005 column
A syndicated column in over 40 East Texas newspapers
This column is provided as a public service by the East Texas Historical
Association. Archie P. McDonald is director of the Association and author of more
than 20 books on Texas | | |
