Question

document 2: henry blake, little rock, arkansas federal writers project, united states work projects administration; manuscript division, library of congress (1938)
henry blake, a sharecropper from arkansas, describes how sharecropping limited his freedom in these words:
after freedom, we worked on shares a while - when we worked on shares, we couldnt make nothing. just overalls and something to eat. half went to the other man and you would destroy your half if you werent careful. a man that didnt know how to count would always lose. he might lose anyhow. they didnt give no itemized statement. no, you just had to take their word. they never give you no details. no matter how good account you had to go by their account and now brother, im tellin you the truth about this. its been that way for a long time. you had to take the white mans word on note, and everything. anything you wanted, you could get if you were a good hand. you could get anything you wanted as long as you worked. if you didnt make no money, thats all right, they would advance you more. but you better not leave him, you better not try to leave and get caught. theyd keep you in debt. they were a sharp. christmas come, you could take up twenty dollar, in somethin to eat and as much as you wanted in whiskey. you could buy a gallon of whiskey. anything that kept you a slave because he was always right and you were always wrong if there was a difference. if there was an argument, he would get mad and there would be a shooting take place. but if you werent a good hand hed just let you have enough to keep you alive.
document 2 - document analysis questions:

1. sourcing: what is the perspective of the speaker in this source?
2. close reading and analysis: based on this source, what claims can you make about the work of sharecropping on african americans? write down at least two claims and evidence from the text above that supports your claims.
3. close reading and analysis: according to the speaker, was sharecropping a system provided healing and/or justice to all during reconstruction? why or why not?

Explanation:

1. To determine the speaker's perspective, analyze the language and content of the text. The text seems to be from a sharecropper's account, likely reflecting the difficult and often - unfair circumstances of sharecropping for African - Americans.
2. Claims about African - Americans in sharecropping can be made based on the details of work, lack of financial control, and potential for conflict. Evidence would be direct quotes or paraphrased statements from the text.
3. For the question on healing or justice in Reconstruction, consider the sharecropper's situation in the context of post - Civil War policies and social changes.

Answer:

1. The speaker appears to be a sharecropper, likely an African - American, expressing the hardships and lack of freedom in the sharecropping system. There is a sense of powerlessness and the constant threat of conflict or violence.
2. Claims: African - Americans in sharecropping had little financial independence (e.g., "If you didn't make no money, that's all right they would advance you more" shows dependence on the landowner for basic needs). Evidence: "They didn't give no itemized statement. No, you just had to take their word." Another claim is that they faced potential violence in disputes (e.g., "If there was an argument, he would get mad and there would be a shooting"). Evidence: "But if you weren't a good hand he'd just let you have enough to keep you alive."
3. Sharecropping was not a form of healing or justice during Reconstruction. The sharecropper's account shows continued exploitation, lack of economic stability, and the potential for violence, which are not signs of a just or healing society.