4 ms·

Fraser's book is pretty detailed and worth reading for those who've only gotten the version from the books or the tv show. It's clear that the economy was much

Fraser's book is pretty detailed and worth reading for those who've only gotten the version from the books or the tv show. It's clear that the economy was much more complex than we were told. It was probably impossible for any of the homesteaders like the Ingalls to ever make enough to live upon given the amount of land they were given.

floren 4y ago
Over a million families took advantage of the Homestead Acts, which granted 160 acres to settlers. That much land was certainly enough to make a living on. When I looked up my grandparents in the 1950 census, every house on the page was marked as being half a mile down the road from the previous one--because 160 acres, a quarter section, is 1/2 mile on a side. Bad luck, family tragedy, and other factors played into the failure of the Wilders to succeed, but make no mistake: many did succeed on that land.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Some succeeded. Many more failed. Maybe when gambling against nature, the odds are with the house.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Likewise, I was the fifth generation born on a farm that started with a homestead act grant.
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  The books present "Pa" as a hero, but if you look at him with a critical eye (as Fraser's book does), it's pretty clear the family's woes were largely due to him. Their original farm was by all accounts the best of the lot, and if they had stayed at the second one in Kansas they might have done OK. But he abandoned that one too based on (incorrect) rumors that the land would be confiscated, and every move they made afterwards drove them further and further into penury.
  - analog31 4y ago
    Likewise the impression I formed was that Pa was impulsive and a bad businessman. Now, we don't know if he kept on the move because of something like bad debts, which would not be shocking or even necessarily incriminating.
  - moistly 4y ago
    > it's pretty clear the family's woes were largely due to him I mean, FFS, the family ended up living in a dirt hole dug into a damn riverbank! Not a nice hobbit home, either: we’re talking a raw dirt hole. Pa was bug-fuck crazy and anyone who reads the books as an adult can see it writ large. Edit: whoa! No offense intended, fans of the myth, but again: dirt hole. That ain’t the behaviour of a fully rational adult.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  counterpoint - previously ruined land-owners in West Texas after the dust bowl, apparently turned enthusiastically to the small-rig Oil business, poisoned many a water table, and now have some of the most active fracking in the world. Lots of big trucks in that part of Texas showing the "success"
adolph 4y ago
One part of me asks "Would a similar proportion of the population today take the same risks today?" Another asks "Were homesteaders the ones being farmed? By the railroads? By a government?"
- swayvil 4y ago
  The pro-homesteader propaganda of the day might reveal a lot. Also we might look at the alternatives to homesteading. Today's crazy is yesterday's contextually-appropriate levelheadedness.
  - fmajid 4y ago
    Opportunity costs were lower back then.
  - duxup 4y ago
    Yeah hop off a boat (or not) and have nothing…. Trying your hand at a homestead might be a very good choice among other choices.
- morelisp 4y ago
  > Were homesteaders the ones being farmed? It wasn't the only political or economic goal, but a pretty explicit purpose of the Homestead Acts was to make it impossible for Native Americans to return to their historical territories.
- le-mark 4y ago
  Some of those small towns in Kansas will give you a house if you agree to live there for a few years. Homesteading is still a thing in that small way at least.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/homestead-act https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/homestead-... Presumably part of the reason was to create more states without a history of slavery, to avoid another Civil War. And also at the same time, to have more settlements to control the natives. Lincoln said the Homestead Act was to "elevate the condition of men." By which the ex-Indian warrior meant "except Indians." Not surprisingly, it also included freed slaves, because moving west would be less uncomfortable than moving north, Lincoln having a history of that racism, too. And the railroads didn't want to give away land. They were busy reclaiming it via eminent domain for their own profits. The abuses of railroads and banks who could not properly insure savings turned folks like Jesse and Frank James into folk heroes.
duxup 4y ago
> It's clear that the economy was much more complex than we were told. Isn’t it always more complex than we can detail?

floren 4y ago

Over a million families took advantage of the Homestead Acts, which granted 160 acres to settlers. That much land was certainly enough to make a living on. When I looked up my grandparents in the 1950 census, every house on the page was marked as being half a mile down the road from the previous one--because 160 acres, a quarter section, is 1/2 mile on a side. Bad luck, family tragedy, and other factors played into the failure of the Wilders to succeed, but make no mistake: many did succeed on that land.

drewcoo 4y ago
Some succeeded. Many more failed. Maybe when gambling against nature, the odds are with the house.
colechristensen 4y ago
Likewise, I was the fifth generation born on a farm that started with a homestead act grant.
thematrixturtle 4y ago
The books present "Pa" as a hero, but if you look at him with a critical eye (as Fraser's book does), it's pretty clear the family's woes were largely due to him. Their original farm was by all accounts the best of the lot, and if they had stayed at the second one in Kansas they might have done OK. But he abandoned that one too based on (incorrect) rumors that the land would be confiscated, and every move they made afterwards drove them further and further into penury.
- analog31 4y ago
  Likewise the impression I formed was that Pa was impulsive and a bad businessman. Now, we don't know if he kept on the move because of something like bad debts, which would not be shocking or even necessarily incriminating.
- moistly 4y ago
  > it's pretty clear the family's woes were largely due to him I mean, FFS, the family ended up living in a dirt hole dug into a damn riverbank! Not a nice hobbit home, either: we’re talking a raw dirt hole. Pa was bug-fuck crazy and anyone who reads the books as an adult can see it writ large. Edit: whoa! No offense intended, fans of the myth, but again: dirt hole. That ain’t the behaviour of a fully rational adult.
mistrial9 4y ago
counterpoint - previously ruined land-owners in West Texas after the dust bowl, apparently turned enthusiastically to the small-rig Oil business, poisoned many a water table, and now have some of the most active fracking in the world. Lots of big trucks in that part of Texas showing the "success"

adolph 4y ago

One part of me asks "Would a similar proportion of the population today take the same risks today?" Another asks "Were homesteaders the ones being farmed? By the railroads? By a government?"

swayvil 4y ago
The pro-homesteader propaganda of the day might reveal a lot. Also we might look at the alternatives to homesteading. Today's crazy is yesterday's contextually-appropriate levelheadedness.
- fmajid 4y ago
  Opportunity costs were lower back then.
- duxup 4y ago
  Yeah hop off a boat (or not) and have nothing…. Trying your hand at a homestead might be a very good choice among other choices.
morelisp 4y ago
> Were homesteaders the ones being farmed? It wasn't the only political or economic goal, but a pretty explicit purpose of the Homestead Acts was to make it impossible for Native Americans to return to their historical territories.
le-mark 4y ago
Some of those small towns in Kansas will give you a house if you agree to live there for a few years. Homesteading is still a thing in that small way at least.
drewcoo 4y ago
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/homestead-act https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/homestead-... Presumably part of the reason was to create more states without a history of slavery, to avoid another Civil War. And also at the same time, to have more settlements to control the natives. Lincoln said the Homestead Act was to "elevate the condition of men." By which the ex-Indian warrior meant "except Indians." Not surprisingly, it also included freed slaves, because moving west would be less uncomfortable than moving north, Lincoln having a history of that racism, too. And the railroads didn't want to give away land. They were busy reclaiming it via eminent domain for their own profits. The abuses of railroads and banks who could not properly insure savings turned folks like Jesse and Frank James into folk heroes.

duxup 4y ago

> It's clear that the economy was much more complex than we were told. Isn’t it always more complex than we can detail?