Thoughts on Sharecropping

Crevecoeur and Jefferson's beliefs of the American farming presented the perspective that everyone was a farmer. This new perspective was probably integral in deciding on making sharecropping an established facet of farming. While it has many noticeable differences, it allows for all of the people do be a part of the farm, however, this does not mean all were included equally in pay or work. I think it is both interesting and very important to look at Sharecropping in the context of its time period. Basically, it was similar to having slaves work the land for the white man, which, as unfair as it might be, they were trying to make progress. It doesn't make it right or equal, but it was better that land owners acknowledged that these people were their workers, not their property. 

Every situation must be looked at on a case-by-case basis because I'm sure there were instances of misuse of the system, but for the most part, it is interesting to look at Sharecropping from a different perspective than what we might be told in history books. Regardless of the effects, were we making progress as society? And how were the crops doing. Again, not the Sharecropping wasn't unfair and bias, but what if we looked at positive outcomes of Sharecropping? What would've happened to the country if we hadn't monitored a new generation of newly freed slaves with land--a bunch of people who had never owned farms before? Sure, they'd worked on them, but is it different to manage a farm? And if so, what are those differences? What would have happened to the land? What would have happened to the economy? Would farms have started and failed in the same season? I'm interested in thinking about the opposite side of things. Thinking critically, how would that affected our nation?