Recently there have been questions asked on the Laura Ingalls Wilder Literary Society as to why it makes Nancy (me) so upset for the museum formerly known as the Wilder Farm to change its name to the Wilder Homestead.
Let me assure you that it makes me every bit as upset for the “Little House” site near Malone, New York, to call itself the Wilder Homestead as it does for the site near Walnut Grove, Minnesota, to call itself the Ingalls Homestead.
The men and women who work for or are in charge of the various “Little House” historical homesites and museums are guardians of history. They should, of course, strive for accuracy in all aspects of their operation, which in the case of the Ingalls / Wilder museums and the “Little House” books is multi-fold. There will always be visitors who come to the “Little House” legacy with varied knowledge. This includes not only those who travel there in person but who visit the museum websites and discussion forums, or who read publications which mention or showcase these sites and book characters. People may be familiar with the “Little House” books themselves, have watched the “Little House on the Prairie” television series or made-for-television miniseries, have read one or more biographies of Laura Ingalls Wilder, or have done actual historical research on pioneering or homesteading. They may have little interest in or knowledge about Laura Ingalls Wilder herself.
It wouldn’t be that big of a deal if we were talking about what one tourist attraction decided to call itself, and why. But because there are multiple “Little House” books and multiple “Little House” sites, what one site does affects the others, whether they are working together under one mission statement or see themselves as separate entities.
There is an Ingalls Homestead in Minnesota and an Ingalls Homestead in South Dakota; there’s a Wilder Homestead in New York and a Wilder Homestead in South Dakota. One Ingalls Homestead was a homestead. One Wilder Homestead was a homestead. There’s a “Little House on the Prairie” site in Kansas, but any television show fan will tell you that “Little House on the Prairie” was set in Minnesota. Where was the Blind School again? Did Mary marry? Who was Albert? Is it Al-MAN-zo or Al-MON-zo?
There are truths to uphold and honor in all areas of the Laura Ingalls Wilder legacy — including the “Little House” books, the television show, and in the Ingalls and Wilder events in history. All are important. All deserve to be respected and reported accurately in context. Sometimes “what happened” is the same in all three cases. Sometimes it is vastly different. It is these differences that must be addressed and not confused. It would be one thing if each site presented one fictional version of “Little House” only, but they don’t. People in Walnut Grove, for example, tell you about the historical Bedal and Owens families as well as the fictional Beadles and Olesons. Some fictional things are easy to clarify in a historical context. Some take study and effort to get right.
Homesteading is a difficult concept to understand, therefore it should be more thoroughly studied and carefully explained, not glossed over or ignored.
An underlying theme of most of the “Little House” books is, in fact, HOMESTEADING. In Little House on the Prairie, Pa believes that land in Indian Territory will be made available to settlers soon. To many, this implies homesteading. History tells us that this land would have been available for preemption, not homesteading. On the Banks of Plum Creek is the story of trying to get ahead after the disappointments in Indian Territory. History tells us that the men and women who settled the area obtained their land in a number of ways: trade, purchase, preemption, homesteading, or timber culture. While fictional Charles Ingalls traded goods for land, history tells us that the real Charles Ingalls proved up on a preemption claim and filed on both a homestead and tree claim while in Redwood County, Minnesota. By the Shores of Silver Lake is the story of homesteading in Kingsbury County, Dakota Territory, on “free” land which is supposed to make up for the fact that the government denied the Ingallses land in Indian Territory years earlier. The other De Smet “Little House” books: The Long Winter, Little Town on the Prairie, These Happy Golden Years, and The First Four Years (published after Wilder’s death) continue the pioneer story of homesteading and final proof of claims in Dakota Territory, not only by Charles Ingalls, but by children of James Wilder as well as many other fictional characters with historical counterparts. History tells us that Charles Ingalls not only homesteaded but held a tree claim in Kingsbury County for a while, and that Royal, Eliza Jane, and Almanzo Wilder held both homestead and tree claims, and that Almanzo Wilder made final proof on a homestead, yet converted his tree claim to a preemption.
There is no question that the “Little House” books are historical fiction. But they are fictionalized accounts of extremely important events in history, and they are set during the time when the historical significance of three events not only was paramount, but dictated the course of events by both the historical and fictional Ingalls family. The Preemption Act of 1841, the Homestead Act of 1862, and the Timber Culture Act of 1873 are of great importance to the “Little House” story – both fictional and historical – even if Laura Ingalls Wilder chose not to label and define these Acts specifically in her books. It is highly likely that Wilder assumed that homesteading, preemption, and timber culture needed no further explanation by virtue of importance in history.
During the years the Ingalls and Wilder families were buying, selling, mortgaging, farming, settling, homesteading, traveling over, or claiming land, the differences in what they were doing would NOT have been misused or mislabeled. They should not be misused today, if for no other reason that it was during this important period in history that the Ingallses and Wilders lived, one which Laura Ingalls Wilder chose to immortalize in the “Little House” books, the popularity of which is the main reason the heritage homesites were founded.
The Preemption Act, the Homestead Act, and the Timber Culture Act are what led the Ingallses (and some of the Wilders) on their pioneer journeys and found them settled in the same place at the end of their travels.
The word homestead no doubt existed long before the Homestead Act. But from its passage well into the 20th century, a homestead was a legal term which meant one very specific thing to most people. Yes, the word has come to mean other things than its use in connection to the Homestead Act. But don’t the “Little House” books concern the Homestead Act, not present-day life?
James Wilder did NOT homestead in New York. He lived on a farm he had purchased outright from a previous owner. Although a preemption was also land purchased with cash, James Wilder also didn’t live on a claim. James Wilder NEVER homesteaded, he never lived on a homestead, his land was never a homestead, and it shouldn’t be called a homestead today. James Wilder never filed on a claim, he never lived on a claim, his land never was a claim (either in New York or in Minnesota), and it shouldn’t be called a claim today, either. There are Wilder homesteads in “Little House” history, however; they were the homestead claims filed on with final proof made by Royal Wilder, Eliza Jane Wilder, and Almanzo Wilder.
Charles Ingalls proved up on a homestead in Kingsbury County. It is rightfully called the Ingalls Homestead. The Gordon farm north of Walnut Grove was never Charles Ingalls’ homestead, and it should not be called the Ingalls Homestead. It was Charles Ingalls’ preemption claim; if it must be called something, call it what it was, not what it wasn’t. Charles Ingalls’ homestead claim (which he relinquished prior to final proof) is several miles from the preemption (dugout) site. It is privately owned and not advertised or shown as a tourist attraction, so it has yet to become part of this debate. Suppose the owners decided to put up an “Ingalls Homestead” sign and allow you to visit for a fee. Would that cause confusion, or would it be okay?
The only analogy I can come up with is to pretend, if you will, that the “Little House” museums are Civil War related. Today, they exist in what were formerly Union or Confederate states and perhaps they are located where important battles were fought. So what if the curators and workers in those museums mislabel the Union and Confederate artifacts and confuse Union and Confederate soldiers on occasion? They’re all soldiers, right? What does it matter if you confuse who was whom?
It’s all just land, right? What does it matter what you call it?
