What was Charles Ingalls' Deal

[Corraleno]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/08/09/little-libertarians-prairie-little-libertarians-prairie/DrtramwsrcrdTTIFvdzkOO/story.html

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/04/21/rose_wilder_lane_laura_ingalls_wilder_a_letter_from_their_editorial_collaboration.html

 

Thanks for linking those articles, they certainly clarify the "spin" that Rose was trying to impose on the books, in throwing out and/or fictionalizing a lot of the details in Laura's actual memoirs that didn't fit the agenda. Rose's admonition to her mother that facts and truth are two different things, and that you basically create the "truth" you want to tell by "selecting the facts that best illustrate it" really sums it up.

[FaithManor]

Caroline did indeed teach two terms of school before marrying pa, again, a pursuit that was not normal given her roots from a family with money and well regarded in well to do society. But her mother had remarried a man who was, reading between the lines, not kind and not too inclined to take care of his step daughter. So it was likely a necessity for her to have some self-sufficiency. It also would likely have gotten her a place to live if he had wanted her out of the house. In rural districts, single women who taught school were often housed with a respectable school board member's family, and in the city, a room was usually paid for on the single woman's behalf as part of her salary.

 

She took the "delaine" dress with her when she got married, a very expensive gown and a sign of her former lifestyle. School teacher was not consistent with that, so it would seem she had already met some unpleasant circumstance prior to marrying him.

[Kim in Appalachia]

Oh I agree. I mean, really??? If you want to move to unsettled territory, it might behoove one to learn something about living out there! LOL

 

I couldn't believe that even as a child that it didn't occur to him that a land not "settled" in the white man tradition that had a very clearly used trail running through it might be signs that somebody was using it, if not the people living there FIRST, then the military or the pony express or something. Good grief!

 

Actually, many of his decisions were weird and not particularly rooted in known "street smarts" of the day. Laura's quote about what Pa said when they found the couple who had been robbed stranded by the road as they left the territory was particularly the "pot calling the kettle black". He was angry that they were out there without a watch dog. Really??? He himself sold Jack before they left for Kansas. The part about Jack going with them was completely made up, so my guess is that the whole encounter with the "greenfeet" was total fiction and created by Laura to make Pa sound more savvy than he actually was.

 

While much about Pa is sanitized, you can see some of Laura's criticisms in the.  The largest one is the Farmer boy book, which stresses how that family stayed in one place, never borrowed money, and had plenty of food.  Clearly, this was an indictment of her father.  There were other, quick lines, in the other books, which showed she thought is decisions foolish, even though she clearly loved him.  She tries to portray who the child viewed the father without full understanding of what was going on.  

 

I can think of examples but I have to go out right now. :)  But I do think while she tries to paint a rather rosy picture to serve to children, there are hints that she knew it was not all right.  

[FaithManor]

Here is an interesting story from their time in Kansas which included living not all that far from a serial murdering family that later disappeared. Possibly Pa had a hand in the fact that the Benders were never seen again.

 

http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2008/07/selective-omissions-or-what-laura.html

 

This is of course speculation, however, that would not shock me either. Ancestors of ours that took homesteads a few years later in Kansas were actively involved in vigilante justice in the Wild West as the nearby town was without sheriff or magistrate and well, the townsfolk simply took matters into their own hands.

[FaithManor]

I also think that the Ingalls children suffered more than one near starving experience, and were many times quite malnourished even if eating a reasonable number of calories or at least having "meals".

 

The Kansas trip comes to mind. Salt pork really doesn't hold out all that long, and particularly in the summer so it is likely they were on only flour and cornmeal for several months until some kind of vegetables could be harvested in the fall, or hunting commenced again in autumn. Pelagra, rickets, scurvy....

 

The summer of breaking and planting the land in Minnesota after leaving Kansas with pretty much nothing again. They had cornmeal, flour, obviously some kind of fat - probably lard - and pa built the fish trap. Fish, good for omega oils, but again, not a source of so many vitamins and minerals, potassium, iron...their blood probably didn't clot at all. She was obsessed with food as was clear in Farmer Boy, but noticeably absent is any description of much wild fruit, wild greens, nuts, and such from Plum Creek except for some actual plums, so it makes me think they either didn't know how to forage, or there wasn't good forage available. Even dandelion greens would have been a source vitamin C, a known fact amongst herbalists and many frontiersman, of the day but no record of eating them or making tea with them either. I suspect that since Caroline was raised in "polite" well to do society with ample food sources and variety, she probably didn't know about this, and Pa doesn't seem to have had stellar live off the land knowledge either.

 

Since the crops were wiped out, he had to buy groceries on credit which probably meant again mostly grains, maybe a little dried fruit, a tiny amount of meat, but not much given that they had virtually no money and interest rates were rather stout...some of those debts he was paying 12% on so OUCH. The Surveyor's house sounds like it had a bit more, and they ate a little better, but then you have the starving winter which so badly damaged Carrie's health.

 

For the life of me it is so incredibly difficult for me to understand why when Pa took the railroad job, Ma didn't say "part of the two hundred you are getting for the farm is for me and the girls to go back to Boston to live with X until you get on your feet." The only thing I can think of is that either pa held something over her - some juicy secret -  or her family had disowned her. Really. She'd had a baby virtually alone on the prarie, the kids had nearly starved more than once, Mary was blind, everyone was sickly and weak, the farm had failed, success in the west was entirely unknown and the railroad camp was not going to be civilized, near schools, medical assistance, nothing, one child was permanently disabled, there was a toddler to care for and she herself had recently been terribly ill, .....I would really love to know why she didn't go back.

 

So strange...

[umsami]

Wow, FaithManor, I'm really impressed with all of your knowledge!  :)   :hurray:I know so little about the "real" story regarding the Ingalls family. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by umsami

[Tsuga]

The constant changing of locations bothered me as a child. Enough so that I stopped reading the series very early on. I can't imagine having to grow up actually making all those moves. 

 

And yet corporate America (corporate global, really) seems to think this is how we'd all love to live. "Another adventure, kids!"

 

We were moved around a lot due to poverty, and I moved with my kids quite a bit up until school age, mainly due to the recession, so in a sense poverty, though not as extreme as we faced. To me the whole point of money is being able to have stability, safety, security. It baffles me. I mean I get why people move around--they don't have a choice. I just think that having to live that nomadic life to ensure kids can go to college is terrible.

 

 

 

For the life of me it is so incredibly difficult for me to understand why when Pa took the railroad job, Ma didn't say "part of the two hundred you are getting for the farm is for me and the girls to go back to Boston to live with X until you get on your feet."

 

Oh I totally understand that. Don't you leave your husband on the frontier with a cash job. No. Ask any woman worldwide right now how sending a man off to work far away worked out for her. Take it from someone who's lived it, who's researched it. Hopefully this won't happen to the US in this generation, but if it does, ladies, go with your man if you can. There is something about trying to survive with a bunch of other men that makes many men forget where they came from and where they meant to go. Maybe the same for women, but women have their children in their arms.

[Barb_]

Maybe she was just in his thrall.  Maybe it was sex. Maybe they were so remote there was just no way to get out, and she was mildly depressed and couldn't get up the gumption. I don't know.  In my mind, Caroline was this uptight, judgemental, proper, possibly mistreated young woman, and Charles was her bad boy who rescued her.  He's fun, dangerous, unpredictable, moody, and barely tamed. Maybe as bad as her life was, going back to her proper life back East was the worst of two evils?

Edited March 10, 2016 by Barb_

[Amira]

I can think of lots of reasons why Caroline might not have gone back. Maybe she believed in Charles and thought he would make it. Maybe she loved him and wanted to stay with him. Maybe she didn't have any family in the East she wanted to return to. Maybe she didn't want to go back and tacitly admit failure. Maybe she didn't feel as if she had the freedom (either the choice or the ability) to do so. Maybe she had discovered she loved the Midwest didn't want to go back east even though she did want to stay in one place. Maybe she hoped that the moving was coming to an end and it would be easier to stay than to leave. It's entirely possible it was a much darker reason, but I don't think there's any reason to assume it was even though it might look to some as if she was wrong to stay.

[Guest]

For the life of me it is so incredibly difficult for me to understand why when Pa took the railroad job, Ma didn't say "part of the two hundred you are getting for the farm is for me and the girls to go back to Boston to live with X until you get on your feet." The only thing I can think of is that either pa held something over her - some juicy secret -  or her family had disowned her. Really. She'd had a baby virtually alone on the prarie, the kids had nearly starved more than once, Mary was blind, everyone was sickly and weak, the farm had failed, success in the west was entirely unknown and the railroad camp was not going to be civilized, near schools, medical assistance, nothing, one child was permanently disabled, there was a toddler to care for and she herself had recently been terribly ill, .....I would really love to know why she didn't go back.

 

So strange...

 

Inertia, I'd say. Though it's less salacious than your theories :-D

 

I know first hand a wee bit about the child that leaves a well-off family. There ain't no going back, shoog.

 

You make your bed with dogs, etc....

[FaithManor]

Barb, LOL, I never thought about Pa as her bad boy but having seen that syndrome when I was in high school, yup that could be it! :lol:

[Guest]

I have a book of diary excerpts, letters, etc,  from people headed west in wagon trains. 

 

. 

 

What is it?

[MinivanMom]

I'm surprised by how many people consider it irresponsible for the Ingalls family to move away from Charles' extended family. And with the circumstances surrounding Caroline's family-of-origin (stepfather, teaching school, then marrying down socially), I would not assume that she had anyone to go back to if she even desired such a thing. Even in the 19th century, extended family was a difficult, complex thing. I don't think it's as simple as: living near extended family is good, moving away is bad.

 

My great-grandmother's first husband (who came from a well-to-do family) was tragically killed only a few years after they married. Instead of staying on the east coast (near both her family and her late husband's family), my great-grandmother migrated to California with a toddler and baby. On the surface that sounds completely insane. Why would a widow in her early 20's leave all her family behind to start over out West with her two baby girls? The story my grandmother told was that the well-to-do in-laws offered to help my widowed great-grandmother by taking the girls off her hands. She truly believed that her wealthy, politically-connected in-laws (my great-great grandparents) could take the little babies away from her, and she would never see them again. Maybe they could have. So she quickly and secretly sold everything she had, used the money to buy train tickets, and rode to the end of the line. She landed in California where she found a job, remarried, and lived happily with her new husband for 50+ years. 

 

Charles made some poor life decisions, but I suspect that he and Caroline were on their own. They may not have had anyone else to fall back on. I'd be willing to bet there are many stories and circumstances in their history that Laura didn't share or that Laura didn't know.

 

[kubiac]

The Little House on the Prairie Cookbook from the 1970s is really illuminating. The author did a great job reconstructing recipes and then converting them to modern cooking methods and measurements, but what was striking was that several recipes were introduced with something like, "This recipe will pretty much ONLY taste edible if you are starving to death on the prairie in the middle of a blizzard." 

 

My take on Charles is that he lacked stick-to-itive-ness. A man with a different character could have probably settled his family long before they got to DeSmet but he seems like faced with struggle he ran for it to the next available setting. He was satisfied to live in the most marginal of conditions (under a wagon next to a malarial swamp, sod house, etc.) but it just seems selfish to expose your very small children to that. He may have been a hard worker, but he seems to have lacked the capacity for the settling part of settling down. He didn't want to compromise his dreams, so everybody had to come with him.

 

I've read a handful of other prairie memoirs (some novelized) and rarely do they depict such itinerant migrants. Sure they left the known and traveled out to the some unknown quarter of the frontier, but then they filed for their homestead, built the house and worked the land for next 50+ years with an eye to long-term prosperity. 

 

Honestly, the tree-stump-dotted wilds of Wisconsin seemed plenty wild.

 

Related Q: What was Caroline Ingalls' deal? Why was she so harsh to Laura?

[umsami]

OK, did some Googling (y'all inspired me), and I have to say, Caroline had simply lovely handwriting. 

[Guest]

LOL @Amira.

 

You're HARDLY taking your kids out into the boonies of the world with no grasp of the larger situation and no resources, support, or fallback options (or food!!) !!

[MotherGoose]

I've always thought that Laura identified a lot with her father, and if she was a man, she would've been the same way. He wanted adventure, and I think men in that time looked for the "new land " in ways we cannot imagine today. Maybe we see it today in people who change jobs frequently and engage in cross country or international moves for work, even though their current job is perfectly fine. Ma Ingalls was more of the "30 years at the same company and a pension " sort. He did always take care of his family, though, even though it was a struggle and not ideal. I always see him as striving to take care of them, not ignoring their needs.

Edited March 10, 2016 by MotherGoose

[Barb_]

Barb, LOL, I never thought about Pa as her bad boy but having seen that syndrome when I was in high school, yup that could be it! :lol:

 

They're just such an odd couple!! And with all the giggling and the "Oh Charles!" stuff  :drool:

[FaithManor]

Oh, I have a deep, deep darker theory...

 

She married him in February 1860, and Mary didn't arrive until 1865. Unusual. Oh, there could have been some infertility for sure, but he wasn't in the war or anything - his younger brothers, much to their father's consternation ran away to join the army - still......

 

I wondered about "fooling around", having a baby on the sly and getting rid of it, and then starting their life together a long way from the proper relatives and without the stigma. :D

 

Such are my thoughts because that exact scenario occurred in our family history during the same time period and ended with a baby being abandoned along the road near a neighboring farm knowing that likely the family would find it, meanwhile the young couple ran for the west like they were being pursued by the cavalry, claiming to be married the whole time but actually in need of a magistrate or preacher right quick in order to get the deed done!

 

I know...not nice of me! :biggrinjester:

[MotherGoose]

I can think of lots of reasons why Caroline might not have gone back. Maybe she believed in Charles and thought he would make it. Maybe she loved him and wanted to stay with him. Maybe she didn't have any family in the East she wanted to return to. Maybe she didn't want to go back and tacitly admit failure. Maybe she didn't feel as if she had the freedom (either the choice or the ability) to do so. Maybe she had discovered she loved the Midwest didn't want to go back east even though she did want to stay in one place. Maybe she hoped that the moving was coming to an end and it would be easier to stay than to leave. It's entirely possible it was a much darker reason, but I don't think there's any reason to assume it was even though it might look to some as if she was wrong to stay.

And in that time women didn't always have a voice about what the family's plans were. The husband made the decisions, or could make the decisions, without consulting the wife. The strongest thing I recall Ma ever saying to Pa was "Charles," in a sort of stern tone. Leaving him might have been absolutely unthinkable to her.

[Tsuga]

This thread has three stars which has convinced me that those who say they butt-star threads, and that it's random, are telling the truth. This is actually a fascinating thread. Not at ALL three stars. :D

[Barb_]

I've always thought that Laura identified a lot with her father, and if she was a man, she would've been the same way. He wanted adventure, and I think men in that time looked for the "new land " in ways we cannot imagine today. Maybe we see it today in people who change jobs frequently and engage in cross country or international moves for work, even though their current job is perfectly fine. Ma Ingalls was more of the "30 years at the same company and a pension " sort. He did always take care of his family, though. Good man.

 

Well and Pa always got a kick out of Laura, even when she was naughty.  She seemed to earn little but disapproval from her ma (often unwarranted and passive-agressive), but her pa respected her and identified with her in a way that was really unusual for her time I would imagine. They had a bond.

[FaithManor]

They're just such an odd couple!! And with all the giggling and the "Oh Charles!" stuff  :drool:

Snort!!! Girl, don't go down that road! Ole Ma wanted to be perceived as prim and proper, not the kind of woman who enjoyed a good romp in the hay! She was always after those girls about being ladylike.

 

:biggrinjester:

 

You make a good case!

[Barb_]

And in that time women didn't always have a voice about what the family's plans were. The husband made the decisions, or could make the decisions, without consulting the wife. The strongest thing I recall Ma ever saying to Pa was "Charles," in a sort of stern tone. Leaving him might have been absolutely unthinkable to her.

 

There were ways though! As mentioned upthread, she could have faked a  widowhood.  I have a great grandma who did that.  My grandmother didn't know her father was alive until she was in her 40s and her mother was dead.  

[FaithManor]

I love that "this recipe is only edible if your starving", LOL! Unfortunately when we were first married my cooking was at times about that bad as in if DH had not had access to other food options, then my dinner literally was only palatable as insurance against agonizing death!

[Barb_]

I'm surprised by how many people consider it irresponsible for the Ingalls family to move away from Charles' extended family. And with the circumstances surrounding Caroline's family-of-origin (stepfather, teaching school, then marrying down socially), I would not assume that she had anyone to go back to if she even desired such a thing. Even in the 19th century, extended family was a difficult, complex thing. I don't think it's as simple as: living near extended family is good, moving away is bad.

 

My great-grandmother's first husband (who came from a well-to-do family) was tragically killed only a few years after they married. Instead of staying on the east coast (near both her family and her late husband's family), my great-grandmother migrated to California with a toddler and baby. On the surface that sounds completely insane. Why would a widow in her early 20's leave all her family behind to start over out West with her two baby girls? The story my grandmother told was that the well-to-do in-laws offered to help my widowed great-grandmother by taking the girls off her hands. She truly believed that her wealthy, politically-connected in-laws (my great-great grandparents) could take the little babies away from her, and she would never see them again. Maybe they could have. So she quickly and secretly sold everything she had, used the money to buy train tickets, and rode to the end of the line. She landed in California where she found a job, remarried, and lived happily with her new husband for 50+ years. 

 

Charles made some poor life decisions, but I suspect that he and Caroline were on their own. They may not have had anyone else to fall back on. I'd be willing to bet there are many stories and circumstances in their history that Laura didn't share or that Laura didn't know.

 

That story gave me the chills. 

[FaithManor]

There were ways though! As mentioned upthread, she could have faked a  widowhood.  I have a great grandma who did that.  My grandmother didn't know her father was alive until she was in her 40s and her mother was dead.  

YA, I've got some loony ancestor stories and unfortunately the nuttiest stuff is corroborated with ample evidence of truth. GOOD GRAVY!

 

Pretend widowhood...btdt got the genealogical tee shirt for that one too.

 

Crazy! Of course they didn't have facebook back then. If they'd had facebook, well then, there'd be no hidin' nothin'!

[Tsuga]

I love that "this recipe is only edible if your starving", LOL! Unfortunately when we were first married my cooking was at times about that bad as in if DH had not had access to other food options, then my dinner literally was only palatable as insurance against agonizing death!

 

Oh, the cookbooks that could be written of brides' first attempts.

 

I'd been raised in a health-food home, but my mom secretly salted things. However, I didn't realize, in spite of a college education, that you really, really, really need salt. At least SOME salt. It took me a while and some Googling to realize that salt is pretty key.

 

He just kept salt on the table before that and I was so worried about him. "All that salt!" He was really nice about it, actually. One of his good qualities was that he appreciated healthy food and attempts to make it, at least in theory.

[Guest]

I am reading the Little House books with my middle kid again. Every time I read this series, I regard Charles Ingalls with a complete lack of comprehension. What was wrong with this man? Their lives in Wisconsin sound idyllic compared to everywhere else they live. Especially after the debacle in Kansas and then miraculously regaining his farm in Wisconsin, why move to Plum Creek? Any Pa Ingalls apologists want to shed some light?

 

No light to shed.  I have always wondered the same thing.  :0)  

 

My son was done with the books when the dog died.  Nope.  Not reading one more page.  I was already kinda done with Pa.  

[Valley Girl]

Oh, I have a deep, deep darker theory...

 

She married him in February 1860, and Mary didn't arrive until 1865. Unusual. Oh, there could have been some infertility for sure, but he wasn't in the war or anything - his younger brothers, much to their father's consternation ran away to join the army - still......

 

I wondered about "fooling around", having a baby on the sly and getting rid of it, and then starting their life together a long way from the proper relatives and without the stigma. :D

 

Such are my thoughts because that exact scenario occurred in our family history during the same time period and ended with a baby being abandoned along the road near a neighboring farm knowing that likely the family would find it, meanwhile the young couple ran for the west like they were being pursued by the cavalry, claiming to be married the whole time but actually in need of a magistrate or preacher right quick in order to get the deed done!

 

I know...not nice of me! :biggrinjester:

 

There are lots reasons why they might not have had their first child until five years after being married. Infertility as you mentioned. Multiple miscarriages. Stillbirth. Illness. Those aren't necessarily things that would be shared with future offspring, especially if the memories are painful. It doesn't have to be anything unsavory. Now I need to go check out Pioneer Girl and the links posters generously provided.

[FaithManor]

Tsuga, that reminds of when Laura tried to cook for the threshers and didn't put sugar in the pie. The one thresher, being very kind, said he liked it that way so that each man could sugar it to taste, and then grabbed the sugar bowl on the table and poured it all over his pie.

 

Snicker, snicker...it is just not fair to be a new married woman AND new to cooking. Not fair! LOL

 

I did wonder though because she described the whole meal as pretty bad, and well, culinary skills were definitely things that mothers tended to pass on to their daughters. Then I remembered several stories of her not only working in the garden, milking, haying, etc., things that brothers would have done for Ma and Pa, and it struck me that she may not have spent quite so much time cooking with Ma as Carrie and Grace probably did.

[katilac]

What is it?

 

Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey. I have the 1982 edition, but I'll link to the newer one that is in print and Kindle: 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Diaries-Westward-Journey-Lillian-Schlissel/dp/0805211764/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457572692&sr=1-1&keywords=women%27s+diaries+of+the+westward+journey

 

 

Maybe she was just in his thrall.  Maybe it was sex.  

 

Pa Ingalls, sex god! I like it. To tell the truth, that's what we often say when we can't figure out why a couple stays together: I guess he or she has a solid gold _______________. 

 

 

I'm surprised by how many people consider it irresponsible for the Ingalls family to move away from Charles' extended family.

 

I don't consider that irresponsible in and of itself, it's more the continual moving on and what I view as often one bad decision after another. 

[bolt.]

I think these ideas of "pretending" widowhood and contemplating not following the direct instructions of one's husband, and considering 'separating' of her own will -- really need a good dose of the religious climate of the times. Women of any Christian persuasion would most likely not even contemplate such sins (and would consider it a sin to contemplate them). I have recollections of some (sanitized) indications that the family was religiously observant.

 

This amounts to widespread 'spiritual abuse' (as we would term it now) -- the intentional cultivation of the belief in supernatural punishment for resistance to a husband's wishes. Someone indocrinated that way would no more imagine that lies and marital separation were ethical choices than you or I would consider picking up a slave or two to make our lives easier.

 

I know that "some did" -- but they'd have to either reject the Christianity of their day, or *literally* prepare for hell later, and consider it worth it. These aren't the kinds of decisions we imagine them to be.

[mamaofgirls]

I am reading the Little House books with my middle kid again. Every time I read this series, I regard Charles Ingalls with a complete lack of comprehension. What was wrong with this man? Their lives in Wisconsin sound idyllic compared to everywhere else they live. Especially after the debacle in Kansas and then miraculously regaining his farm in Wisconsin, why move to Plum Creek? Any Pa Ingalls apologists want to shed some light?

 

The story was written from Laura's view - and if she was like me at the age of 8, everything was perfect.

[katilac]

I think these ideas of "pretending" widowhood and contemplating not following the direct instructions of one's husband, and considering 'separating' of her own will -- really need a good dose of the religious climate of the times. Women of any Christian persuasion would most likely not even contemplate such sins (and would consider it a sin to contemplate them). I have recollections of some (sanitized) indications that the family was religiously observant.

 

This amounts to widespread 'spiritual abuse' (as we would term it now) -- the intentional cultivation of the belief in supernatural punishment for resistance to a husband's wishes. Someone indocrinated that way would no more imagine that lies and marital separation were ethical choices than you or I would consider picking up a slave or two to make our lives easier.

 

I know that "some did" -- but they'd have to either reject the Christianity of their day, or *literally* prepare for hell later, and consider it worth it. These aren't the kinds of decisions we imagine them to be.

 

I don't know - the official divorce rate of the time ranged from 3% to 7%. A small minority, yes, but add in pretend widowhoods, other unofficial separations, and an overall lack of paperwork, and you have something out of the norm but not extraordinarily rare. Official and unofficial together were probably more like 7% to 10%, which would mean most people would know someone who did it (although they may not have been aware of it). 

 

Also, I think people are very good at thinking that a certain action is wrong in almost every case, but not in their case. One's self is always the exception. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by katilac

[FaithManor]

Another indication of the extreme malnutrition of the girls was the diabetes. All of them but Mary got it and fairly young. While it may have been a genetic predisposition, current theory is that it also occurs as a fetal adaptation to maternal malnutrition during pregnancy. Carrie had it very, very badly and her mother was pregnant during the barely - having - enough - saltpork - to - survive - eating - cornmeal - and - flour - Kansas - territory episode. Grace was diabetic as well and again, Ma was pregnant with her during another time of malnutrition after the crop failures in Minnesota. Laura had it as well, and while there isn't a specific record that leads one to necessarily believe another period of malnutrition occurred for Ma, we know that they didn't settle on the Big Woods farm until 1863, wooded property that afforded hunting, but had to be cleared and cultivated in order to produce crops and gardens. It is not likely that in 1864 they would have had much variety of food at that point, and Ma became pregnant with Mary that year. There was approximately 25 months between Mary and Laura, and against a back drop of possibly not enough variety of fruits and vegetables in addition to Pa's hunting, conceivably two pregnancies close together could have been an issue. Laura became diabetic in her 20's but of course that would have been exacerbated by her own malnutrition several times during her childhood.

 

Definitely food deprivation during the pregnancies with Carrie and Grace, and most assuredly during the pregnancy with Charles Frederick as that was during the time that they lived above the saloon that pa managed but the saloon owner never paid his wages so they hired out Laura and Mary as domestics and nanny's (nothing like being a live in nanny at 10) It is doubtful that Ma was getting any kind of adequate nutrition during that time as the family subsisted literally on the paltry wages of a ten and twelve year old girl. NOT GOOD!

 

So it does make one wonder if the diabetes was genetic, a result of pregnancy malnutrition, childhood starvation periods, some combo, or even all three.

Indications are that Rose may have also suffered malnutrition on more than one occasion during the crop failures and debt woes of her parents in De Smet.

 

It is interesting to speculate about.

[Tsuga]

Tsuga, that reminds of when Laura tried to cook for the threshers and didn't put sugar in the pie. The one thresher, being very kind, said he liked it that way so that each man could sugar it to taste, and then grabbed the sugar bowl on the table and poured it all over his pie.

 

Snicker, snicker...it is just not fair to be a new married woman AND new to cooking. Not fair! LOL

 

I did wonder though because she described the whole meal as pretty bad, and well, culinary skills were definitely things that mothers tended to pass on to their daughters. Then I remembered several stories of her not only working in the garden, milking, haying, etc., things that brothers would have done for Ma and Pa, and it struck me that she may not have spent quite so much time cooking with Ma as Carrie and Grace probably did.

 

My ex-husband's family had one girl for each chore. Nobody wanted to marry the ones who weren't the cooks. The smartest guys got the girls who cooked!

 

As for the sugar, that is hilarious. Precisely like that.

[Zuzu822]

Here is an interesting story from their time in Kansas which included living not all that far from a serial murdering family that later disappeared. Possibly Pa had a hand in the fact that the Benders were never seen again.

 

http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2008/07/selective-omissions-or-what-laura.html

 

This is of course speculation, however, that would not shock me either. Ancestors of ours that took homesteads a few years later in Kansas were actively involved in vigilante justice in the Wild West as the nearby town was without sheriff or magistrate and well, the townsfolk simply took matters into their own hands.

 

Although I believe the Ingalls family had neighbors that were (or possibly were?) victims of the Benders, they had returned to Wisconsin several years before the Benders were discovered to be serial killers.

[FaithManor]

I think these ideas of "pretending" widowhood and contemplating not following the direct instructions of one's husband, and considering 'separating' of her own will -- really need a good dose of the religious climate of the times. Women of any Christian persuasion would most likely not even contemplate such sins (and would consider it a sin to contemplate them). I have recollections of some (sanitized) indications that the family was religiously observant.

 

This amounts to widespread 'spiritual abuse' (as we would term it now) -- the intentional cultivation of the belief in supernatural punishment for resistance to a husband's wishes. Someone indocrinated that way would no more imagine that lies and marital separation were ethical choices than you or I would consider picking up a slave or two to make our lives easier.

 

I know that "some did" -- but they'd have to either reject the Christianity of their day, or *literally* prepare for hell later, and consider it worth it. These aren't the kinds of decisions we imagine them to be.

I agree for the most part, however I know from my own genealogy that due to the fact that women found themselves in circumstances that today would be remedied by public assistance and such, the pretend widowhood thing and what not really did occur and with more frequency than some would like to think.

 

It was especially prevalent where there was an out of wedlock pregnancy. Sending the young woman to relatives in a different location  under the guise of "dead husband" was a rather common solution to the problem of social stigma and especially amongst the devout.

 

Interestingly, the Ingall's family was not very strict protestant. They were heavily involved in the Freemasonry organization, and while active in the Congregational church in De Smet, that church was far less strict - ie, more liberal - than the standard Methodist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran church of the day. Ma was raised loosely Scottish Presbyterian, but again, when one really gets into the heart of the "wild west" as the saying goes, far from the organization and pressure of the churches of the East, things were a lot less strict religiously speaking. For most of their marriage, they didn't live near a church to even attend. Kansas, Wisconsin (Pepin was too far away to attend), the period when Pa managed the saloon (not exactly a job for a proper Christian of the day), and again heading west to De Smet and then being unhappy that an evangelist was given the parish instead of Reverend Alden who was a bit of a character himself...an "indian agent" who defrauded the government with funny accounting, and was considered such a big liar that the local tribe eventually put out a "hit" on him and he was forced to give up the post and go back to being a "missionary".  It is noted that even Laura, as sanitized as she represented the family in the books, stated that they attended Reverend Brown's revival meetings out of essentially obligation and not wanting to be seen as "unchristian" - Ida Brown, Laura's friend and daughter of the preacher, as aghast that Laura first indicated she didn't think they would be attending, and then left during the altar calls which would have been a pretty progressive and noticeable thing to do. Another story that indicates possible rejection of some of the stricter tenets of the faith was when Pa related to Laura the story of being whipped on the Sabbath for playing. Pa's family had been crazy strict. When Laura indicated as a five year old that she was not happy about the Sabbath being boring, Pa chose not to beat her - the very typical response in that time period to the situation - he instead related to her what happened to him, and he did not take action against her. Also the Congregational Church - the church they attended in Walnut Grove whenever they could manage it - was a loose knit organization of rather independent churches without much hierarchy and a standard of spiritual journey being up to the individual without much accountability. Very, very different from the Presbyterian and Methodist traditions or the Scandinavian Lutheran influence throughout the area.

 

In this particular family, I am not sure that religion would have been a strong reason why Ma would have chosen to stay with Pa.

[Guest]

I <3 Ingalls threads so much you guys.

Edited March 10, 2016 by OKBud

[FaithManor]

Although I believe the Ingalls family had neighbors that were (or possibly were?) victims of the Benders, they had returned to Wisconsin several years before the Benders were discovered to be serial killers.

The timeline does seem to indicate this.

 

Still, there was the first time that pa went to Kansas before Ma was pregnant with Carrie, and I am not certain if there is overlap there. They went back to Wisconsin because the money they relied on - payments from tenants who were buying the Big Woods farm on land contract payments - stopped paying. So I was trying to figure out if the Benders were there during that first time he was in Kansas. They didn't go back until 1870/71 but were there in 1868.

 

I need to look at that.

 

At any rate, while he probably didn't have anything to do with that particular incident, I could so see him being involved in something similar. He was magistrate in De Smet before there was even a sheriff, and illegally posed as an officer of the court when Mr. Boast needed to recover money from a scheister.

[Barb_]

I think these ideas of "pretending" widowhood and contemplating not following the direct instructions of one's husband, and considering 'separating' of her own will -- really need a good dose of the religious climate of the times. Women of any Christian persuasion would most likely not even contemplate such sins (and would consider it a sin to contemplate them). I have recollections of some (sanitized) indications that the family was religiously observant.

 

This amounts to widespread 'spiritual abuse' (as we would term it now) -- the intentional cultivation of the belief in supernatural punishment for resistance to a husband's wishes. Someone indocrinated that way would no more imagine that lies and marital separation were ethical choices than you or I would consider picking up a slave or two to make our lives easier.

 

I know that "some did" -- but they'd have to either reject the Christianity of their day, or *literally* prepare for hell later, and consider it worth it. These aren't the kinds of decisions we imagine them to be.

 

Hmm. Possibly. My G-grandma apparently feared her mother more than the almighty. Her husband moved to California and she declined to go with him, instead preferring to remain in her mother's home and tell my grandmother her father was dead.  The backstory remains a mystery.

[Zuzu822]

The timeline does seem to indicate this.

 

Still, there was the first time that pa went to Kansas before Ma was pregnant with Carrie, and I am not certain if there is overlap there. They went back to Wisconsin because the money they relied on - payments from tenants who were buying the Big Woods farm on land contract payments - stopped paying. So I was trying to figure out if the Benders were there during that first time he was in Kansas. They didn't go back until 1870/71 but were there in 1868.

 

I need to look at that.

 

At any rate, while he probably didn't have anything to do with that particular incident, I could so see him being involved in something similar. He was magistrate in De Smet before there was even a sheriff, and illegally posed as an officer of the court when Mr. Boast needed to recover money from a scheister.

 

I think it would fit with the adjusted timeline of the books which may be part of the reason Laura told the story.

 

Let's see: they left Pepin in 1869/1870?, Carrie was born there in mid-1870, and they returned to Wisconsin in 1871. The Benders were discovered in 1873. Pioneer Girl discusses the case as well.

 

I agree about other incidents being possible! Although none probably as sensational as the Bender Family. Scary group!

[FaithManor]

I think it would fit with the adjusted timeline of the books which may be part of the reason Laura told the story.

 

Let's see: they left Pepin in 1869/1870?, Carrie was born there in mid-1870, and they returned to Wisconsin in 1871. The Benders were discovered in 1873. Pioneer Girl discusses the case as well.

 

I agree about other incidents being possible! Although none probably as sensational as the Bender Family. Scary group!

Oh, I know...so dang scary. I mean they were just sick and twisted!

[Sherry in OH]

Has anyone ever wondered how Caroline put an end to his wandering feet? Laura cites it as her demanding they stay in one spot so the girls could go to school, but I don't think that was it. Men held ALL the cards in those days, and though Mary was old enough to attend school the second time he tried to settle in Kansas, he made no attempt to settle near a town. Ma was capable of teaching them the basics, and living out on the frontier, if not trying to get work in a decent sized town or city, sad as it is, I seriously doubt education for girls would have been a survival priority to a frontier dad.

 

I suspect, though obviously it's just a hunch, that there was more of threat behind it than that. I wonder if she didn't threaten to head back east to her family in Boston, and the shame of being abandoned by his wife might have been enough to make him stay put. Opportunities for the girls would have been better in the society her family ran with back there, and she would have potentially had extended family to take in Mary if she became ill. Just speculation but honestly the culture back then amongst the not wealthy, just trying to survive populace was not that schooling was of particular importance for girls. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

If Caroline had wanted to leave to Charles where would she go?  She was born in Wisconsin.  Her mother was from Boston, but chose to remain in Wisconsin when Caroline’s father died.  Had Caroline even met any relatives on that side of her family?  Caroline’s oldest brother Joseph died in the Civil War.  Henry was married to one of Charles’ sister.  Sister Eliza married Charles’ older brother.  Thomas was even more of a wanderer than Charles.  Would Martha’s husband have agreed to take Caroline and the girls in?  Would Caroline’s pride have allowed her to ask? 

 

Caroline must have remembered how hard her childhood was after her father died.  Her family came close to starvation several times between her father’s death and her mother’s remarriage.  Perhaps she felt that as hard as life with Charles was, life for a woman and young girls without a male provider would be even worse.  

 

I think Charles stopped wandering because of age and health. Those years of inadequate nutrition must have left their mark on the adults as well as the children.  He was able to find some work for pay in DeSmet.  That plus the homestead made staying put feasible.  Also, some relatives did move into the area.  I do think that if he had had sons to take on some of the work, Charles might have pushed to continue west.

[FaithManor]

 

 

 

 

I think Charles stopped wandering because of age and health. Those years of inadequate nutrition must have left their mark on the adults as well as the children.  He was able to find some work for pay in DeSmet.  That plus the homestead made staying put feasible.  Also, some relatives did move into the area.  I do think that if he had had sons to take on some of the work, Charles might have pushed to continue west.

I think this part is definitely true. In the Long Winter, Laura notes how gaunt her father's face became, and how difficult it was for lift the grain bag onto his back when he took seed grain from the Wilder boys, and they noted how thin and weak he was.

 

I don't think any of them were in very good shape after that. Again, still can't figure out why on earth he didn't just butcher the calf and give his family a small ration of beef every few days given that it would have frozen solid, staying that way and alleviating the need to preserve it or eat it all at once. The bones would have made a very nourishing marrow broth, and I'm sure that by then, Caroline would have been aware of that.

[bolt.]

I don't mean to imply that no one ever did things that were widely considered to be significant sins. I just mean that it was a different time, and people would have been consudering different factors in their decisions. Including consudering enether or not one was willing to endure hell as a consiquence. Even people who rejected religion (or held it lightly) would have at least a sense of nagging possibility that they would 'pay for their sins'.

 

Congregationalists, while not very organized or 'strict' managed to frequently replace authority-based rules with serious cold-hearted literal-Bibke legalism among peers. I'm not sure at which times and places, but definitely at least sometimes. (It's the Chuch history of where I attend.) If they 'kept sabbath' (no matter how broad-mindedly) I don't think they were likely to take "wives obey" and "a wife shall not separate" lightly.

 

I'm sure people did yeild to temptations, cheat, steal, rebel wildly, tell lies, start over, and take their "shame" to the grave... But they did it in the belief of (or context of) presumed spiritual consequences, not just practical decision making. You can't understand the decision without taking that into account.

[Nan in Mass]

I thought the books said that Pa followed the game, that when things became built up enough that game bbecame scarcer, they moved to a new, less settled area so pa could hunt and trap? As an unsuccessful farmer, this might make sense. I'm pretty sure that was the reason given for them leaving the Big Woods. The books say they moved into town when the girls were older because Pa had promised Ma that their children would go to school. Even as a child, I suspected that the reason was really so that the girls would have some choice of husband, not just school. Even today, it is hard to leave one's husband. It might have been much harder back then, when the prevailing attitude was even more one of you-made-your-bed and women had fewer choices of jobs.

 

Nan

[knoxinsox]

This is such a fascinating thread.  I grew up in Oregon, and as a little girl, there were still old people living who came across in covered wagons as young children or babies.  I was into pioneer history and read everything I could get my hands on and went to every museum I could find.   My mom wrote to Laura when she was in junior high, and her school teacher gave us a number of books about Laura.  I still have a paperback one from the 80's and an old sewing book by Rose Wilder Lane which makes many references to her parents.  Another series of books, which are a bit more factual than the Little House books are the Sweetbriar books by Brenda Wilbee, which details the settling of Seattle. 

 

I've always thought Pa was typical of a lot of the pioneer men, there was a hunger for cheap land, gold and making money that outweighed any sense of safety and risk management.   

Edited March 10, 2016 by knoxinsox

[LucyStoner]

I think their life in Wisconsin sounded idyllic compared to their later locations in part because Laura would naturally recall less details from being 5 than being 15. Also, loving parents can make childhood magical even in very poor families. We romanticize things at that age.

 

Historically speaking it was getting fairly expensive to obtain enough land in places like Wisconsin. And if you largely make your living by hunting, human population density with less and less in the way of public land is not an especially good thing past a certain tipping point.

 

That said, I am not a Pa apologist. At all. I loved learning that Ma put her foot down when he wanted to leave DeSmet for Oregon. Essentially the proper version of "I'm not going so stick that in your pipe and smoke it."

 

Rather than shiftless though I think he comes off as a starry eyed dreamer with a large bit of wanderlust. It's clear he worked too hard to really be considered lazy or anything approaching lazy.

 

The starvation thing though is probably a large part of why Ma and Pa Ingalls only had one grandchild. Laura and her 2 married sisters all had fertility issues.

Edited March 10, 2016 by LucyStoner