Thursday, February 19, 2015

The Pimping of Laura Ingalls Wilder

Laura Ingalls Wilder


Laura Ingalls Wilder began working for a living at age 11 as a live in babysitter for a family who lived near her home in Walnut Grove, and she was paid .50 cents a week for her effort.

And so began the pimping of Laura Ingalls Wilder to help make up for Charles Ingalls' mistakes.

Yes, I'm going there.


Laura Ingalls: A Product of Her Environment


If Laura Ingalls minded going to work at any early age, she never mentioned it, at least not when she was 11. By her own admission Laura found being a live in babysitter to be an easy job and when she wasn't playing with the child, she was able to read and relax. However, let's not pretend it was a good life. She was in the company of unsavory people thoughout her life and this particular job ended after a local drunk came to her bed at night and told her to "lie down and be still."

 I think we all know where that would have gone if Laura didn't threaten to scream.

To her credit Laura's mom, Caroline Ingalls, who is named as the person in "Pioneer Girl: The Annotated Autobiography" who gave permission for Laura to begin working at such an early age, said she didn't have to go back to work after that.

Now, I want to make it clear that Laura doesn't appear to be under any duress, here. She rarely complains about having to work. She is a trooper for the cause. Her family is poor, her sister is blind (well that comes a little later), and Laura being the oldest seeing child in the family has to step up.
However, I'm very interested in learning as to why Mary - as the eldest seeing child during Laura Ingalls Wilder: The Live In Babysitter Years- wasn't selected to babysit this child.

It's no secret that Ingalls Family of Pepin, Wisconsin, Independence Kansas, back to Pepin, Wisconsin, Walnut Grove, MN, Burr Oak, IA, back to Walnut Grove, MN, and, finally, DeSmet, South Dakota were poor. At times, they were destitute.

The Ingalls were so poor they lived in a hole in the ground, up against a raging creek until they could afford to put a house up. They were so poor they took a partnership on a hotel in Iowa. A partnership where Charles Ingalls ended up receiving no pay for his share and fled his rent in the middle of the night. They were so poor they followed any promise of an opportunity, even if no opportunity existed.

They were so poor, they had to send their daughter to work at a very early age.

Working for Mary Ingalls

Mary Ingalls

I get a little ranty when it comes to the subject of Mary Ingalls. I get it. She was blind and her family wanted her to function more or less as a normal person. I don't have a problem with that part. However, I  can't talk about Laura sewing buttonholes and teaching in order to send Mary to college without getting a bit miffed.

I don't deny education is an important thing. I don't deny everyone deserves a chance at a career and education. I don't want to begrudge Mary that. However, I also wonder why Laura, as the Ingalls sister showing the most promise at the time, wasn't considered for more than a teaching career before becoming a housewife. Laura accepted her fate without question. Mary couldn't teach, so she had to. Why?

 Why was Mary the one to receive the benefit of a higher education, when the reality is her college education didn't amount to much more than reading Braille, playing the organ, and tying fishnets for a living? Why didn't anyone suggest Laura use her earnings to go to college instead? Why didn't anyone see promise in Laura as the eldest seeing child? She was in the top of the class in school, she obviously had a good work ethic, so why, when putting money in Pa's "pocketbook" to save for college, did no one put aside money for Laura?

Sewing and teaching...but for what end result?


When Charles Ingalls heard that a local merchant needed someone to help his wife sew shirts, he was more than happy to pimp out 13 year old Laura for the job. Ma Ingalls was unsure at first, this being a town job and all (Which struck me as odd since she sent Laura off to babsit and stay in another family's home when she was 11) but she relented. Why? So that Mary could go to college, of course.

So Laura sat in the shop window, laughing at town drunks coming out of a saloon, so she could sew buttonholes (which she hated) so Mary could learn how to tie fishing nets and play the organ. Two extremely important skills for a young lady to have. I mean, for all their complaining about the saloons in town, Ma and Pa certainly had no issue with Laura sitting across from one all day so she can earn money.

Ok. I know I'm getting sarcastic here and that Mary did learn to use Braille, but that's pretty much the extent of it, isn't it? It's not like she used this educational opportunity for anything truly great. An education is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong, but it's how you use it that's important. And I see Mary's years at college as a waste of money, when that money could have been used for a more promising career.

Now, to be fair, no one technically  pimped Laura out to teach. But it was put in her head at an early age that if Mary wasn't to be a teacher, Laura had to do it even though she didn't want to. So when a 15 year old Laura was offered a whole $40 to teach in a school 12 miles away and live in an extremely unpleasant household, it was the last thing she wanted to do - but what choice did she have? Mary needed to go to college and that whole $40 was going to her. Laura traveled through snow and cold weather, and endured unpleasant conditions for $40 that she would never see.

You bought a what????

And what happened after several years of working and Laura's money wasn't needed for Mary's education or travel anymore?  Charles used it to buy Mary an organ.

An organ!!!

Mind you, this was a family, who, just a couple of winters ago was twisting hay and grinding wheat in a coffee grinder. This is a family who never had a successful crop their whole time in DeSmet. This is a family who had to move from town to town so they can earn scraps. Yet, at the first moment of prosperity not only does Charles use Laura's hard earned money to buy an organ for Mary, but he spends even more money to build a room on to their house for it. What the heck? Why not put it away. Why not save for a rainy day? Why not have Laura put away HER money to start her new life with Almanzo?

Yes, Laura insisted Charles take that money and use it for something, but he should have insisted she keep it for her future. Instead they used it for something they absolutely didn't need, for sweet, blind Mary - who wouldn't even be home to use the organ for another couple of years.

Never once, in any of the books, did anyone suggest Laura save money to continue her education. Instead, they sent her to work to pay for an education for a sister who wouldn't use it beyond playing an instrument, stringing some beads, and making fishing nets to sell for a pittance.

Never once did Laura complain about working hard for Mary. I respect her so much for that. She might have disliked the job, but she never complained about the cause. (I would have pitched a major fit, I can tell you that.)

Updated to Add: I forgot to mention Mary did receive assistance from the state to pay for school. However, my point is the same. No one encouraged Laura to put away for her future or explore opportunities of her own. One would think a family who lived in extreme poverty thus far would encourage Laura to save up money she earned so she didn't fall on similar hard times. 

I know Mary is this sacred subject no one is supposed to talk about, but for a family this poor, there were better options. 

Mary already knew how to move around the house, knit, and she already helped with chores. Certainly she could have sold her crafts, even without the benefit of college. So with or without government assistance my point is still the same. Mary didn't have to go to college and it didn't benefit her to the extent where she brought much money into the home or used the education beyond getting around the house and bringing in some spare change. This was an unnecessary expense her family shouldn't have spared or should have used where it would have done the most good. 

A Hand to Mouth Existence

Laura and Almanzo Wilder


Laura Ingalls Wilder learned how to live a hand to mouth existence from her father. It's the only way she knew.

In The First Four Years " it seems as if Laura is obsessed with money and debt, and it makes me wonder if this was something her family talked about often. Remember, this book didn't have Rose Wilder Lane's (we'll get to her in a minute) editorial guidance, so if Laura did worry more about money in the other books in the "Little House " series, Rose might have edited it out. That's just speculation, however.

One thing that is for sure is that the Ingalls didn't have two dimes to rub together until they were well established in DeSmet, and after Laura began working hard and eventually married. They were a poor family for as long as Laura lived with them.

One crop away...

One thing that wasn't touched on very much in the books before "The First Four Years" is that Almanzo was in debt. He had his mortgage, and his horses, and other purchases. He was always trading one debt for another. Like the Ingalls, he was always just one crop away from being rich and out of debt. Like the Ingalls, that never happened.

I wonder how much different things would have been for the Wilders if Laura was allowed to keep at least some of the money she earned though the years - and not just a little at the end just before she was married.

When I first read about Almanzo as a bachelor, I had this idea that he was doing fairly well for himself - but it looks like he was mortgaged to the hilt. Laura began working hard on the family household from the second she entered her new home as Mrs. Wilder. She cooked, cleaned, fed Almanzo's co-workers, and was a dutiful wife. That's not a rant. I just feel like Laura never had a break. All she knew was hard work. There was never a honeymoon. There was never a "let's just relax and enjoy each others' company" period. Laura put on her apron as soon as she entered into matrimony, and never took it off.

Both Laura and Alamanzo had a strong work ethic. They both knew the value of hard work both inside and outside the home, and neither complained. This is what they had to do to survive. However, a bout with Diphtheria put them both behind in their work, and it rendered Almanzo Wilder unable to use his legs in the same capacity again, which hindered his ability to work hard and earn money. They also lost everything in a fire. They could never get ahead and spent most of their lives working hard for very little money - a cause of resentment for their daughter Rose.

Rose Wilder Lane and the Pimping of Laura Ingalls Wilder

In addition to working on their farm, and selling the fruits of that labor, Laura eventually began writing for farm journals and local newspapers. She wasn't the strongest writer, but she had a pleasant, conversational tone that appealed to her generation. While this money did help to pay for their necessities, it's no secret Rose supported her family.

It's also no secret that  Rose Wilder Lane encouraged Laura with her writing, and influenced her to not only write her autobiography, but her "juveniles" as well. In "A Wilder Rose: A Novel," it's indicated that Rose wasn't all that happy to support her parents. She didn't appreciate her poverty, and didn't respect her parents work ethic. Though the book is considered a novel, much of it was taken from Rose's papers and diaries so I'm sure there's more than an element of truth, there.

Rose wanted her mother to write books as a means of support for all of them. While Rose did prosper, and made a good living as a writer, the truth is, she lost all her money during the depression. No one comes out and says this, but I will - I think Rose was also hoping for a bit of a meal ticket in her mom. I mean, she had no qualms about using her Mom's story without permission when she wrote "Young Pioneers " (something Laura was a bit miffed about), but she couldn't do that forever and those pioneer stories weren't going to write themselves.

 While I'm thankful for the Laura Ingalls Wilder the author and all her wonderful stories, they are the result of someone else pimping her out - her daughter.

Rose not only convinced her Mother to write the books, but she shaped them and typed them and negotiated for them. I contend that Laura wouldn't have been an author -beyond the farm journals - if not for Rose pushing her mother to write and earn more than she would at farming so Rose wouldn't have to support her.

You may not agree with any of the above. All the opinions here are my own. But Laura Ingalls Wilder worked hard her entire life. She worked hard for her parents, she worked hard for her sister(s), she worked hard for her husband, and she worked hard for her daughter.  She worked hard for her mortgage and her farm. She didn't complain that we know of, she did all because she had to be done. She did it all because she was expected to. She was a true role model who upheld the pioneer spirit her entire life.

Would she have done all of the above if she didn't feel she had to? I'm not so sure about that. Laura Ingalls Wilder liked to have fun, and I like to think if not for having to work hard for others, she would have been a bit more of a free-spirit. (Not that she wasn't, but I hope you get what I mean here).

 I'll let you draw your own conclusions about the pimping of Laura Ingalls Wilder. At least she got to see some success before she passed away and I hope she enjoyed her post-author life to its fullest.



Note: All images are via Wikimedia Commons as part of the Creative Commons or Public Domain. All links to books on this page are affiliate links.

34 comments:

  1. I think it's important to remember that this is a much different time than what we are used to now. I don't think children had 'childhoods' as we know them. Families, including my own, none of whom are famous, were all about work. They did have fun of course, but everything was not all about fun like it is nowadays. And I think it was great the way they all pulled together to get Mary an education. Again, it was a much different time and I don't suppose a blind woman would have been very 'useful' to society. I'm glad she did have somewhat of a trade to help out the family. It's important that she felt useful. Maybe the reason Laura didn't complain was because she didn't mind. And perhaps she knew that ws the way it was in those times so it never dawned on her to pitch a fit. It's just the way it was. And Laura, well, she did all right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ok...I understand what you are saying. In fact, I've also questioned the need to work so hard for Mary's tuition at the Iowa School for the Blind. I can't cite the source right now but it appears that tuition was provided in full for the blind in Iowa and surrounding states/territories. So the Ingalls would have only been responsible (possibly) for her room and board, her clothes, and (possibly) books and supplies.

    I do however take issue with the use of "pimping". In today's vernacular this MAY considered to be acceptable terminology but I dispute the use of this ugly word.

    #1 While Laura felt like she should work OR she was coerced to work...she was NEVER expected to sell her body for money.

    #2 I am 63 year old great grandma, very liberal, not a church goer, and also NOT a prude. With that said, I was gifted and talented and when it came time to select a college, my parents told me they could not afford anything but my tuition. That I could live at home but I would have to pay for my bus fare and my textbooks. And this was because they were never in a position where they could save for college tuition for myself and my siblings. I started working when I was 16 and was able to see my clothes. AT NO TIME DID I EVER FEEL THEY WERE PIMPING ME OUT!!!

    I'm through now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rereading the books as an adult, I must admit that I was shocked they would spend Laura's wages of three months on a stupid organ for Mary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know! If that was my money I would be livid.

      Delete
    2. JUst keep in mind that Mary couldn't see and her life was boring. Laura was able to see and she felt the anguish of don't be able to see the sky, the birds...the endless prairie before her eyes. She made a little sacrifice for the sake of her sister...She helped to buy that "stupid organ" for Mary. The blind woman would have the happyness to play it. Laura had her eyesight.She knew she must be more than grateful for it.

      Delete
    3. im very very late to the party, but i fully believe she was guilted into this nonsense, and it made me mad too. her dad was an absolute bum, and the only time they had money was when SHE provided. and browbeating her into a stupid organ is beyond the pale, and then when she finally agreed, pulling that "are you suuure??" ugh.

      Delete
    4. I don’t think he was so much a bum as he wasn’t afraid of hard work - I just think he was a dreamer who couldn’t help but take a gamble on futures seen through rose colored glasses. If those grasshoppers hadn’t eaten the wheat they would have been doing extremely well. Had they not been forced to move from Indian territory they would have had quite a head start as farming. I think it was a combination of him being a restless dreamer and really, really horrible circumstances.

      Delete
  4. I don't see it like this. Laura loved her family and was happy to sacrifice her wants because of LOVE. Also working provided her with a real purpose. She was important to the whole of the family. Her spiritual moorings in her Christian Faith helped her through all of this. Something not really talked about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Charles Ingalls was a no good bum, who leached of his innocent child, so he didn't have to do the hard work himself. He was never successful at anything in his life, so his children suffered. The t.v. show was a terrible work of fiction that wasn't close to real life for these poor kids.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So Charles Ingalls was, let's face it, rather hapless even if he did love his family. But you're being pretty prejudicial to say that, in essence, Mary shouldn't have had the education and Laura should have. You have it backwards. Mary needed the education and Laura did not. Because? Mary needed it to be a fully functioning human being, to be able to read and make sense of her surroundings so that she wasn't just stuck in a corner. It was damned progressive of her parents to think that that was important instead of sticking her in a back room out of sight. But no, Laura didn't *need* the education. She was already teaching school as one of the few professions open to women (no education needed beyond the age of 16, unlike today), and she was going to marry, as women usually did then. Her life was already set. You're looking at this from a supposedly "modern" perspective, one that nonetheless and disturbingly paints Mary as a very second class citizen when thankfully, her parents (and hopefully her sister) didn't see it that way. In that respect, they were much more progressive and thankfully much less closed minded than you appear to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking the same. I heard of a family whose son was blinded in an accident as late as the 1980s. They told him they were sending him to a residential place to learn how to cope with everyday life as a blind person. He later found out they'd lied to him. They'd dumped him in an asylum for insane people, not intending him to ever come out.The Ingalls had their faults, but they were enlightened on this subject.

      Delete
  7. Late to the party, but replying to "Anonymous" above. It's a given that the Ingalls family had limited - very limited - resources. Sending the blind child to college instead of paying off debts or, I don't know, ensuring they had regular, nourishing meals to eat (not just the endless potatoes and bread) did not serve them well. Mary was not shoved into a closed room, as you contend; even before college, she knitted, babysat, and performed household chores. She went for daily walks. Why is it okay for Laura's life to consist of these things, but not Mary's? Today's leftism has whitewashed disability (and before you start, I AM disabled), but Mary's disability meant that she could not do many things. Even with an education, she still could not do many things. You need to be able to see in order to do many things. I agree with the blogger; Laura is consistently used for labour in the books (how often does a parent say, "Laura, as soon as you've swept, we'll eat," when Carrie is standing right there? Do you recall Laura crying at night from pain after helping Pa with the haying, yet saying nothing to anyone - because, let's face it, they wouldn't have cared?), and Mary is clearly the favoured child. Ma & Pa don't even seem to give a shart about Carrie, who seems to have suffered from malnutrition, either in utero or during early childhood. And I've long suspected that Laura was so short (some sources say she was 4'8", others 4'11") due to malnutrition, though I could be wrong. It's just odd that Ma looks to be taller than all of her children, when children are usually an average of their parents' heights, and Charles looks to be in the 5'8" - 6'00" range.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Though I am reading this many years after your commenting, I wanted to thank you for your views. I am a history major and have spent the 2020 Pandemic rereading the entire Little House books and supporting books written by Laura's daughter and other authors. As you know, much of what is written in the Little House Books used Laura's memories and fictionalized them and turned them into stories "suitable" for families to read. There is much important history contained in them. I was particularly disturbed by the headline use of the word Pimping. That told me that the writer of this original diatribe was not particularly educated or knowledgeable about how the series was constructed. That isn't to say that I wasn't disturbed by many supposed experiences that Laura had but with such little accurate evidence, I can't condemn this family for their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In the 19th century, a blind woman wouldn't have had much of a career, and in many homes, they would have been written off as ineducable and treated like half wits as Caroline Fraser said. I think the Ingalls were ahead of their time in giving Mary a decent education. Whatever her earning capacity, she had a mind and personality to develop. She didn't just learn to make baskets but higher mathematics and political economy as I remember. In those days, she wouldn't have been allowed to attend the local school. This must have been frustrating for her. If she hadn't become serene and saintly as opposed to putting on a 'good little girl' act to annoy Laura as previously, she might have become embittered.

    I don't know what the above comment means by whitewashing disability. Should disability be regarded as a crime? Mary didn't go blind to upset Laura.

    While she had her sight, they were both 'pimped out', working in hotels and so on from the age of about eight. Rose didn't initially want to admit to the readers that she had a blind aunt, as if it was a taint in the family.But later the ploy of supporting Mary became a good way to show Laura in the light of a libertarian who accepted nothing from the state. In fact, the local government financed Mary's education.

    Marianne

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting comments. I hadn't really thought of things this way, but also am currently reading "Laura Ingalls Wilder- A Writer's Life", by Pamela Smith Hill. (Also- can't find the author of this piece's name.) Anyway, it does seem Laura was always in a rough way. I just figured that she and Almanzo suddenly "became OK", money-wise. I don't know, I figured maybe when she was 30 or 40. But you, the unnamed author, have some valid points here, even if people thought of things differently 140 years ago. (Children were basically considered as owned by their parents, as far as their income, especially.) But why Mary? Why was she the sacred ornament, all the time? And Laura did have more than one horrible experience, living in someone else's house. Interesting thoughts, here!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This was the way things were. I'm 37 and worked to put my little brother and myself through college bc my parents were dirt poor farmers from Kansas as well. Did I complain? No, I love my brother and it was my duty to my family. I'm sad for you that you see things the way you do. Family and love are all about sacrifice. My brother and I are not in the position our parents were in bc we went to college and were able to obtain excellent careers. I have two boys and would expect them to sacrifice for each other as well. Life isn't all about money, it's about working hard and living with Christian Values and sacrificing for those you love.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I should add...I also had a job at 12 as a full time nanny and had two jobs at 14. A nanny in the daytime and worked in the hospital kitchen evenings after school. I still graduated high school with a 4.0 and even working two jobs during college, I graduated with a 3.8 GPA. Us dirt poor country folk have an inborn work ethic that most people cannot understand. Our generations long struggles and our homesteaders heart run deep. We are the families who built this country to what it is today, just like Laura's family. Blood, sweat, tears, and faith in God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How could you be a nanny and attend school and then work evenings?

      Delete
  13. Laura's earnings would have amounted really to very little. She taught from 16 (she was not 15 as she claimed in the book)till she married at 18 just a few semesters. Sewing buttonholes did not pay much. Though the books stress she she was sending Mary to college as mentioned the state paid for Mary's education. Laura contributed to fabrics purchased for sewing for Mary. Laura made enough to make herself her first decent clothes (they also got charity clothes)and contribute to the organ for the family home.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have long felt the same way as the writer of this blog. Mary was clearly the "Golden Child" and treated far better than Laura. Even before losing her sight, it was Laura that did the hard work while Mary stayed home and did the sewing. She was clearly the favorite of Ma.

    A commenter above wrote that she had to pay her own way through college and never felt her parents were pimping her out. No, of course not. Because she was able to KEEP THE MONEY SHE EARNED. Laura did not. Laura sewed buttonholes.....gave the money to Ma. Laura taught school.....gave the money to Pa. Laura stayed with the McKees.......gave the money to her parents. If she wanted new clothes she worked extra for the local dressmaker. Mary got new clothes......that Laura paid for. Laura paid for her own. In fact, the more you read about the life that Laura lived with her parents, the more you realize that beyond food and letting her live in their house, Ma and Pa didn't provide Laura with much of anything past the age of 12.

    LAURA was expected to sacrifice and give to her family but nothing shows that anyone in the family ever sacrificed for her. She couldn't even get a compliment from her mother......because we must guard against vanity......unless we are talking about how lovely Mary looks in her new best dress that she is taking to college! Laura worked all day at home......all day for others.....and the only thing she ever had to show for it was if she worked EXTRA to earn clothes for herself.

    Laura married and things were difficult.....but probably also, for the most part, far less complicated. After all, she was helping her husband build something for themselves and she only had one child to care for. At least in her marriage she felt loved and appreciated. I doubt she got much of that from her parents. It was expected of her so she did it. What was it that was said so frequently in their house, "What must be done is best done cheerfully?" She was conditioned to obey her parents, to work hard, and act happy about it.

    There is a scene in the TV movie, "Beyond the Prairie" where Laura balks at taking the job at the Bouchie school and Pa forces the issue. Laura takes the job. While, as far as we know, it's fiction, we also know that Laura had been raised to feel obligated to take any job offered to her......and that she owed her parents for all that it had cost them to raise her since she was a baby (THGY.)

    Laura went back to De Smet to see her father before he died. She stayed a bit afterwards. There is nothing to show that she ever saw her mother or Mary ever again.

    I love her books. Always have and always will. But I can't help but feel that the REAL Laura had a crappy childhood and was never really appreciated by her mother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the real Laura had a crappy adulthood, if hardship and poverty are the measures of "crappy." I imagine that Almanzo's poor health kept her from visiting De Smet very much as an adult. I think we have enough textual evidence to show a good relationship between Laura and her mother, and certainly between Laura and Mary. She wrote a poem of admiration titled, "My Sister Mary."

      If Mary was their mother's favorite (which I'm not sure she was), then Laura was certainly their father's favorite. Just who inherited that fiddle?

      Delete
  15. I appreciate this perspective and have had similar thoughts myself. Another perspective into Mary’s college situation is that they were trying to provide her with a lifetime of memories. They knew she would never be married, have children, a career, and she would always live with a relative. That’s a sad situation. College gave her chance to have a life for a little while at least. I do believe the books hint at that as a reason for the importance of sending her.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That brings up an interesting point. If they wanted to give Mary the opportunity of having a better life because she was blind well then why didn't the h*** they work themselves and do that and not expect their daughter too. That was not Laura's responsibility! Mary was not her child! The more I'm reading these books to my kids the more I'm starting to realize I really do not like the Ingalls. Almanzo's family seem to be very put together, and personally I think were better people. Sounds like Charles and ma Ingles both had serious mental and emotional problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were poor. They were already working as hard as they could, so they turned to Laura for help. Almanzo's family had been prosperous farmers in New York State which is probably why they seemed more together--they just had more resources. I agree with those who say that the Ingalls family lavished a little more on Mary because they knew she would never have as full a life as her sisters probably would. Caroline Fraser's book, Prairie Fires, really lays bare how precarious the Ingalls's situation often was. It seems to me that Laura kept much of that out of the books because they were children's books. However, it also seems to me that Laura's parents (I think especially the calm and steady Caroline) may have protected her from the full import of their situation and gave her a sense of a secure childhood.

      Delete
  17. I agree wholeheartedly with the author of this article. As for the organ that was purchased, I was flabbergasted. An organ, something that was completely unnecessary for Mary or for the household in general when Laura worked so hard to make that money is weird. Sure, some of the money could have gone to the household for food and necessities, but most should have been put away for Laura and her future. Maybe some clothing goods for Laura as Mary seemed to have quite a bit when sent off to college. Yes, this was in the 1800’s, but doting on one of your children while the other works her but off is still definitely favoritism. Yes, she couldn’t see, but the whole family rallied around Mary like she was terminally ill her entire life.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Great article. I always thought Laura was cheated out of the wedding she should have had. In the book, it's portrayed as if Almanzo and Laura are the ones alarmed to discover Eliza Jane Wilder is planning a "big" celebration for them; so to thwart these plans Almanzo finishes their new house as soon as possible, and it's off to the minister. This shouldn't have been their concern, as traditionally the cost of a wedding celebration is the responsibility of... oh wait: the father of the bride.
    Laura should have had that celebration. She loved pretty things and would have cherished the memories of a proper commencement to her married life. She knew all too well what came after, with Ma's example before her. The Wilders should have had the joy of seeing their son and brother well married.
    Laura WAS "a good girl" (the only compliment Caroline seems to have given her), and deserved better than a five-minute ceremony in a minister's office, probably giving the town gossips something to natter about. As for her parents, they knew she was to be married (and should've known for some time that a good-looking, intelligent and hard working girl such as Laura would definitely receive a proposal long before her twentieth year, especially as men far outnumbered marriageable women in pioneer towns); but did they prepare for it? Nah. Let's buy an organ for Mary, and let the others get on the best they can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edit: I'm not bashing Charles or Caroline for being poor; they were after all extremely hard-working folks, did eventually make a comfortable home, and took great care to raise their daughters "right". It's just very hard for me to understand why they couldn't have given the newlyweds even a frugal reception, or have attended the ceremony. I know they didn't care much for Reverend Brown; but to not attend (if that was the reason) seems petty. In Gene Stratton-Porter's (b. 1863) semi-autobiographical book "Laddie", we see that weddings were a very big deal indeed, the central point in a girl's life. True, the "Stanton" family had a well-established (though not rich) farm; but the contrast between the amount of work the whole family lovingly contributed to make the bride's day special and celebrated, and Laura having basically to do everything for herself, seems unnecessarily harsh. (The Strattons were Methodists btw, I don't know if that may account for some of it.) It does appear that the dynamics of the Ingalls family were skewed in Mary's favor, and she- even before her blindness or Grace's birth- was given a place the other girls could never hope to occupy. We can only wonder how - if at all- this dynamic might have been affected if Charles Frederick had survived.

      Delete
    2. Marriage was a big deal, but weddings were not. At least not when you compare them to today. When Laura attends a birthday party where each guest gets an orange, that's a big deal. Oranges. I ate two today. Oranges were coming from southern California or Florida, so the cost of getting them to Dakota Territory made them a luxury item. So if you can spend that on your kid's birthday, you're doing well. A "big wedding" that cost a lot of money at this time would just not sound very special today. And most of the money would have been spent on the guests, not the bride (just like the oranges went to the guests, not just the birthday kid). The Wilders had a wedding dinner given by Laura's family. Caroline suggests a home wedding (super common at this time), but Laura says no because it wouldn't be fair to involve her family in a wedding celebration, but not Almanzo's family. Almanzo also admits that he cannot afford the cost of a church wedding either (and yes, he would have had financial responsibility). It's just not practical. I don't think Laura, who eventually became extremely ashamed of having to buy groceries on credit, had any problems with having a simple ceremony. As far as buying an organ, that's a long-term investment. A wedding is one day. I don't think that spending money on a long-term investment for your disabled child means you love or value your other children less.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your wise comments. I will add that organs were not only popular at the time but would have allowed Mary to have the joy of music in her life, as well as being able to take pride in learning to play it. Yes, the Ingalls knew Mary would forever live at home—I believe they wanted to Mary to have the opportunity of college before she was relegated to helping at home for the rest of her days. I am sure their hearts were breaking for her when she lost her sight as an adolescent, and with that loss, every dream for her future. I think Ma and Pa probably did the best they knew how as they raised their family in many tough circumstances. I do think Pa was a dreamer, always looking over the horizon for the next possibility; however, I believe he worked hard for his family, even if some of his decisions were unwise. I think Laura was loved very much by both of her parents. She likely felt burdened by all the work required of her, and I am certain she worried a lot about her family’s prospects and finances.

      Delete
  19. I am fairly sure that Mary became the church organist at the Congregational Church where she and her parents belonged, and that was a paying position. The Iowa College, for the Blind believed in providing a sensory experience for students that did not require vision. Music was an activity that could be enjoyed individually or socially, and in some cases, could earn some money. Some students were taught piano tuning. My question is: Could Laura have actually gone to college she lied a bit about the grades she received when she earned her teaching certificate. They were good enough to teach in a county school, which honestly wasn’t saying much, but I don’t think they would have gotten her into any type of higher education. Mary’s grades in college were quite high. There was no grade inflation at the time. Laura admitted that her sister was smarter than she was, and it appears that she was quite smart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just looked up Mary's grades. Her academic grades were extremely high—high nineties in most subjects. Laura's grades ranged from a 62 to an 81 on her teaching certificate. Mary was likely one of the brightest students in her school. She met people who became her lifelong friends. She gained the confidence and ability to lead a full social life.

      Legally, Laura did not own any of the money she earned. Women did not have the rights to their own earnings as they do today. Quite honestly, all children were used for labor. That's why the death of little Freddy was so tragic and such a blow to the family. A male child would have increased the productivity of the whole family. There was a lot of field work the girls, seeing or not, just did not do.

      Delete
  20. What a sadly negative viewpoint. Laura spoke of her family with pride for her entire life. When you love someone deeply, you WANT to work if you can help ease their suffering. Mary would never marry or have a life outside DeSmet. Going to the blind school was her chance to have some memories to cherish and abilities to get her through a difficult life. Laura seemed proud to help her. Love, family, sacrifice, and hard work bring rewards if the heart and spirit that have nothing to do with money or “success”. That’s the whole point of the books and why they remain so popular. The spirit of love and working together to overcome life’s troubles.

    ReplyDelete
  21. While I do agree with some of the comments here, I have to point out that Mary’s blindness was obviously a sad blow to the whole family. They loved Mary. This certainly went a long way towards their willingness to sacrifice for her—sympathy? Pity? Call it what you want. As Laura herself said, when pumping herself up mentally for working-“ never mind—I can see.. Mary saw only darkness.” So to say Ma played favorites, and Mary was “the golden child”— I don’t know. But I do know that the Ingallses were two parents whose daughter has gone blind after a serious illness. That does something to you. And Laura was determined to be the one who took up the slack. Also, these were Laura’s own words and descriptions. Might she have embellished a bit? To make herself out to be the family’s “savior” to a degree?

    ReplyDelete

Speak your mind!

Rose Wilder Lane's Former Connecticut House is Up for Sale at $439K

Got a spare $439K lying around? Rose Wilder Lane 's former home in Danbury, CT is up for sale! The private 2 acre property locat...