Question

Sherman gave newly freed African-Americans abandoned or confiscated land and mules as part of his march to the sea. However, President Johnson vetoed this when he became president.

How would the lack of land for formerly enslaved people impact their future?


1 They cannot grow crops


2 They cannot vote


3 They have nowhere to live

Answer 1

Short answer: 1 and 3 are direct consequences; 2 is not a direct legal effect of lacking land but was made much more likely because of it.

Why:
- 1 (They cannot grow crops) — Largely true as an independent option. Without land, formerly enslaved people couldn’t farm for their own subsistence or sell crops for cash. That forced many into wage labor, sharecropping, or tenant farming, where they had to give up large portions of any crop and were often trapped in debt peonage.

- 3 (They have nowhere to live) — Partly true. Land ownership provided secure housing; without it many freedpeople had to rent, live in makeshift or company/planter-provided quarters, or move frequently. Lack of secure land meant precarious shelter and little ability to improve living conditions.

- 2 (They cannot vote) — Not directly true. The 15th Amendment and federal law did not require land ownership for voting, so lack of land did not by itself legally bar voting. However, economic dependence, poverty, intimidation, literacy tests, poll taxes, and laws (Black Codes/Jim Crow) made it much harder in practice for landless Black people to register and vote. Landlessness therefore reinforced political disenfranchisement indirectly.

Longer-term impact: Loss of land meant loss of economic independence and capital, which stalled wealth accumulation, entrenched poverty across generations, made freedpeople vulnerable to exploitation, and helped cement the social and political power of white elites in the postwar South.