Would You Like to Live in The 1800's ??

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

Just thought that this might be a fun subject for us busy homesteaders to think on when we begin our busy spring chores. What would you like and dislike about living in the 1800's ?? Would you miss the medical advances of today, the e-mail systems, travel ?? Let me know, might make some interesting reading. Happy Spring !!

-- Helena , (windyacs/@ptdprolog.net), May 07, 2000

Answers

Helena, I've thought about this some. I think it would be fun to live back in another era if you were really strong and healthy. If you had asthma, for example and couldn't get medicine, it would really be bad. If you had really bad tooth aches,, it would be horrible. There wouldn't be any good pain pills. Perfet health and perfect teeth, 1800 , OK, otherwise, I'll take the medical advances of today. Eagle.

-- eagle (eagle@alpha1.net), May 08, 2000.

I agree with eagle; it would possibly be fun, if you were in really good health. The only thing is, it would be a whole lot more fun if you 'time-traveled' and knew what the twenty-first century was like. If you were raised in the eighteenth century, there wouldn't be anything special about living in it!!

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), May 08, 2000.

It's a moot point because without 20th century medical knowledge my mother would have died of appendicitis as a teenager. Had she survived that, neither of us would have survived my birth. Had I survived that, I would have died of infection at age 9. I'm alive now because of Alexander Fleming.

The time travel idea would work for me so I could pop back to my own time. It's great to do living history talks for elementary schools because the younger kids really do think you are from another time. After one, a third grader asked if I were a Pilgrim. Answer that with a straight face! Otherwise, I'll stay where I am--as if I had a choice. Fun to conjecture about though, isn't it?

-- marilyn (rainbow@ktis.net), May 08, 2000.


Fun to consider, but I think I will stay in this time period, and surround myself with lovely old things from the past, when craftsmanship was something to be proud of. I love the old furniture, the feel of weathered wood, non synthetic fabrics, etc. You can still live that way, but have the advantages of modern day transportation, communication and medical care. Wouldn't want to give those up! Jan

-- Jan B (Janice12@aol.com), May 08, 2000.

Me again. Just thought about trying to do chores in those big bulky hoop skirts! No thanks. Maybe more lady-like than my jeans, but not for me! Jan

-- Jan B (Janice12@aol.com), May 08, 2000.


Jan, working women didn't wear big hoop skirts to do their chores. Probably most of them never owned such a thing, but if they did, they only wore them on special occasions. I have a reasonably authentic outfit that would have been worn any time from the early 1700's to the mid-1800's by a working farm woman, and it is really pretty practical, though I will agree that jeans are easier to do outside work in. In the winter, when it is hard to heat our drafty old farmhouse, and would have been even harder with nothing but a fireplace, I can really appreciate all the layers of wool petticoats our ancestresses wore -- much warmer than jeans!! And wool is fairly fire-resistant -- a leading cause of death used to be from women's skirts catching fire as they were working around open flames.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), May 08, 2000.

Helena, Medical science aside, and who could feel as well without it. I love my hot and cold running water and flush toilet. I lived many years with hauling water by the buckets and an outhouse. I still have an outhouse, stragely enough, every place I have lived has had one. I also like my refrigerator and in my old age the air conditioner for those hot hot Kansas summers. So I guess while the 1800's sound so romantic they were a lot of work for most everyone. I could live without the cars, planes,etc. No-one ever went 60 miles round trip everyday to get to their jobs! karen

-- Karen Mauk (dairygoatmama@hotmail.com), May 08, 2000.

I have often thought about this too. I absolutely respect and admire those people who lived then. I am grateful for the things that living in the 20th century has provided, but I am not sure that the exchange was all that great. I also would have more than likely died from bleeding after a miscarraige. Yes it is true that we have longer lives as the result of technology. Some would argue we have better quality too. I am not sure. Yes, living in the eighteen hundreds was hard work, but hard work builds character and hard bodies. Great things were accomplished because of those people who willingly put their lives on the line to achieve their dreams. Now just like us, when they were going through it, sometimes it must have been hard to see the forest for the trees. The truth is though, people back then had as many things to be joyful about as we do. Maybe more. some of the things I feel they had was: 1) They were closer to the Creation of God, and they recognized hi presence more. 2) Although medical science has saved lives it has come at a price. if you don't believe me, go down to a hospital or elder care home and visit with some cancer patients or some elderly people having their lives prolonged. There is something to be said for trusting your life into the Creator's hands and dying when it's time. The eighteen hundreds man or woman didn't have to choose. They just lived until the Lord took them home. The simplicity of that touches me. 3) People back then were so busy trying to carve out a life for themselves that the number of criminals per capita was smaller. They had them, but the criminals sure had to work hard to get to you if you lived in the middle of nowhere. 4) And then there "is the middle of nowhere". They actually had one big enough so that there could be miles and miles between neighbors. 5) The homestead act. How I miss this little piece of the eighteen hundreds. Imagine being given 160 acres to build your homestead on and all you had to do was build it. I don't know about you guy but that's the stuff dreams are made of. 6) I also appreciate the overall sociatal morality that has been lost.

It is true that the 1800's weren't perfect, but they had some good points that we can never get back. I am for bringing back good things of the 1800's and getting rid of the bad things of our century. after all, society is always molding and changing shape. I want to changes things for the better and still keep running water and electricity and antibiotics. I'ts funny that some of you were talking about wearing dresses and working, because that is exactly what I do. I wear mostly full length dresses for everything I do. Once In a great while I throw on a pair of pants but most of the time I do it all in a dress. As far as the cold goes, I wear knit pants under neath my dress. This is often warmer than pants by themselves because of the layers. I work in the garden and the only thing is that you have to realize that those hems are gonna get dirty. I make most of my own clothes and I actually find that our great grandmothers were pretty smart in what they wore. With a dress and apron I can carry quite a few vegetables during picking excursions. I like it when my two year old come and grabs hold of my skirt to keep safe. Not to mention in a nice wide skirt a snake is likely to only get a mouth full of material. The only bad thing that every happened was that last year in summer a yellow jacket flew up my skirt and stung me on the thigh. I hate those things.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), May 08, 2000.


I really like this question. If any of you are ever in central Indiana, you might want to check out Conner Prairie. It's a living history museum in Fisher's-I was told it's the first of it's kind. It's a good place to see what everyday life was like in 1836. In Dec. they have a Christmas candlelight walk. You really get the idea of how they dealt with the cold. We were there when it was below 0, we felt sorry for the interpreters. But back in those days they didn't know what they were missing. I think that's the hardest part of dreaming of how it would be. We have these modern conveniences and medicines and communications. We know what we would be missing. I think the hardest part of the medical care would be dental. (I've had a tooth pulled without it being numbed). Many of the pioneer/mountain people of that day used home remedies and got by quite well. Babies were born at home. The city people would deal more with the doctors and modern medicine of that time, which would have been terrible. No sterilization, not even hand washing. The use of white flour really hurt their health, but it kept longer, whereas whole wheat flour would turn rancid. (It's taken people many years to get used to eating so badly). A really terrible problem for the pioneer woman was loneliness, many woman went mad being out on the plains with no one to talk to and only the sound of the wind to listen to. The men went to town without their wives often. Think about all the fears they had to deal with, prairie fires, locust, not knowing if the Indians were friendly, hail storms ruining their crops, accidents with no one to help, outlaws, epidemics, just to name a few. Pioneer women had to be strong emotionally and physically, some homestead women of today could compare very well, but the city-hearted women wouldn't stand a chance. And as it is today, there were good and bad, hard working and lazy, those that really cared about life and those out for only their own selfish gain. It's hard to tink about life without phones, t.v., radio and now a computer, but how much simpler life would be. The work was hard but hard work is good for you. How much clearer the air would have been and the water (there are exceptions). This is how people lived up until a little over a hundred years ago. There were no great advances in transportation, communcations or much of anything else til the late 1800's. As modern-day homesteader, we have the privilege to have the best of both worlds and keep alive the pioneering spirit. Guess I'll keep dreaming.

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.

Little Bit, I agree with you on all points!! As far as there being less criminal activity, it is much harder to get away with things in a close-knit community where there are few strangers, and everyone keeps an eye on all the children and on their neighbor's place. The moral standards were a lot higher then, too -- most people still went to church and at least had some respect for the Bible. Homesteading on government land didn't disappear entirely until the late 1960's. My parents -- and a good many other people -- homesteaded for a 160- acre place in Alaska in the 1950's. If their marriage hadn't broken up, we would probably still have it. Even as a child, I knew that was what I wanted to do -- I was so upset when it got sold, because the homesteading had already been stopped, and I knew I wasn't going to be able to get another one.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), May 08, 2000.


Five years ago I moved to a mini-farm in Amish country in Northeastern Ohio. I just have to look out any window and realize I'm in a time machine. The blacksmith is across the street, the buggy maker up the hill, a dairy farmer on one side and a cabinet maker on the other. So, what did I rediscover by turning back the clock?

Well, to paraphrase a popular credit card commercial:

"Front porches; ice cream and lemonade socials; good aged manure; how to judge hay by smell and touch; neighbors just being neighbors; when somebody yells "help", everyone comes running; barn raisings (you've got to see it to believe it). PRICELESS For everything else, there's Mastercard."

There are intangibles from that era that just can't be replaced or duplicated. It's called "community". It seems the further along we get, the more we leave behind. Nothing can substitute for the ancient art of sizing up a person's character with a firm handshake and a gaze into their eyes.

(:raig

-- (:raig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), May 08, 2000.


From reading the diaries of women who moved and settle the west, and from my family history of courageous women who pioneered many things personally in their day and age, I would have to say that I can hardly imagine why women would want to return to those days...nonstop, usually non-creative work!! Now mind you, I like to work really hard these days, too, like many women on this forum, and I will spare you the details of what my work/school/church/family/homesteading life looks like now! But I love it because it's voluntary. (mostly). If I felt trapped, I would hate it!!!!I have no problem with getting rid of stupid teevee and all the other current worthless nonsense...how about advertising especially!! And all the consumer crap that should embarrass the people who buy and sell it, not make them rich. But I count my blessings nearly every day that we have it so lucky. I would be a survivor if the economy headed south in a big way, because I'm ready, but it sure wouldn't be my first choice.

We can *chose* to get closer to God; *chose* to have big families; *chose* to bake bread; *chose* to wash/mend/make clothes, etc. Women didn't have too many choices back then. I guess you could be a spinster, join a convent, work in a brothel, or commit suicide if the wife/mother role didn't suit you!

(And BTW, I have GREAT respect for wife/mothers...they transmit the culture, folks. So don't think I am slamming women who chose that role today).

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), May 08, 2000.


1800's? Umm, no thanks - I like my electricity and running water. Now, if you were to offer me the late 1930's and 1940's - why, I might just take you up on the offer!

As far as being female, these are good times and bad times. My Mom was a wife and mother AND comptroller for a manufacturing firm - with a 2+ hour commute daily. She took college classes in her "spare" time. She was run ragged trying to "do it all". I also do the wife, mother, employed professional bit - but you can bet your buttons that I DON'T do all the housework, laundry and cooking around this place. I demand time for my kid, time to garden, time to bury my brain in a trashy novel, etc... I do feel like I am expected to work outside the home, though - like I haven't a choice whether to stay home or be employed - and that's kind of a bummer. I know that I could make do with a lot less than I have, but, at the same time, I make more $$$ than my spouse - so who ought to work and who ought to get to stay home? Ah well, I'm happy and I'm comfortable and I've got enough to eat and I can take care of my family - what more could I ask for!? A quote I've always liked: "We ain't here for a long time, we better be here for a good time" don't remember who said that 1st.

-- Polly (tigger@moultrie.com), May 08, 2000.


Here's an odd question that I bet other mothers have considered before...back in the old days, when it was common for families to have a dozen kids and also common for children to die really young, did parents (moms in particular) take those losses in stride, or do you think they were devastated, like we would be today? I mean, I think of something happening to one of my two boys, and there's jsut no way I could function if I lost one. But back then, losing your child was a real, daily possibility, what with disease & accidents, etc. Sometimes, in a real old cemetary, you can find a group of tombstones that show how 5 or 6 kids were lost in the space of a year! Or, the stones of moms who died in childbirth...those always freak me out. The era of the 1800's is very interesting and appealing in many ways, but I just couldn't handle losing a child to whooping cough or pneumonia or whatever!

-- Shannon (Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary) (gratacres@aol.com), May 08, 2000.

I think if you had yourself air dropped into the Amazon you could live a 19th century life pretty dam quick & have your jeans too. clear all the land you could work and build your house, not worry about noisey neighbors either.

-- Hendo (OR) (redgate@echoweb.net), May 08, 2000.


Hendo -- the Amazon!?! If somehow all the people were removed from, say, Indiana, and a homesteading family was marooned there, I expect they could survive on their own pretty well, barring accidents or serious illness. But if I got dropped off in the Amazon, I'd be looking for the local equivalent of Squanto or Samoset to teach me how to find food!! We wouldn't be much better off in that situation than the Pilgrims were when they first arrived!

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), May 08, 2000.

When I was younger (and dumber) I used to romanticize about how life would have been in the "good old days".I wanted to live in a hand built log cabin and live without electricity,wash clothes by hand,do everything by hand, travel by buggy,etc.Well,I didn't have to travel back in time to do that, and after having had to haul buckets of water in the winter from an open well,use only oil lamps,and all that,I have to say there are a few benefits to living with some of today's conveniences.One thing I really like, and would like to always have,is hot running water.It is a real pain to everything on hold until the water heats up on the woodstove, but first, you have to light the fire,after, of course, getting the wood cut,split, and brought in.The oil lamps give off a very gentle,soothing light, but it's hard to work in that light, or to do much reading, unless you get the book right under the lamp.I still like the outhouse, though. It seems really strange and embarassing to have to use an indoor toilet,and then they have to be cleaned all the time,I am glad we have an outhouse.I do kind of wonder sometimes, whether women have really gotten the equal rights that they wanted.Now we still do most of the housework but are expected to work outside the home,too! Now, is that fair? At the same time, those of us who work at home(I mean cleaning, gardening etc, not money work) can expect to get the attitude that we are lazy, or just didn't aspire to anything greater than to churn out babies and keep house.My husband will sometimes come home and want to know what I did all day,when just keeping up with things can be an effort! I think that to some extent, the womens work and role was honored more then than it is now,and if women were catered to, maybe it was in deference to that, and not condescension as their being the weaker sex. I would kind of like to see things return to where women who sew, and cook good meals, and stay at home are given their due. Yes, I have worked right alongside men in the woods, getting firewood, and kept pace with them and can split wood with the best of them,and I can clean barns and do all kinds of heavy work, but although it is nice to know that I can do those things if I want to,I don't want to have to do them in addition to all the other work in the house, along with being pregnant and raising children,etc. The men are physically stronger,and they don't have to bear children or do anything in the house after the days work is done,so let them do it, and give them some appreciation for the fact that we didn't have to! As far as how women coped with the death of their children, I think that today we are very sheltered from the realities of life and death,except for those of us who work in hospitals or funeral homes.Even dogs that have attacked people are "put to sleep" gently, and many people today have no idea what it's like to have to kill the meat every time they eat it. Back then,death was a reality,sometimes a necessary reality, that people dealt with every day. Their parents didn't go to nursing homes to die, the kids took care of the folks and had to prepare them for burial,and bury them.I think in a way it was healthier, that death was a reality, rather than an abstraction, and that these young people who get mad and kill a bunch of other kids haven't seen the reality, or they'd be a lot less likely to do it. The only place they see death is in the movies, where you just kill anybody you don't like and the problem is the solved.I'm sure those women loved their children, and that they greived for them,but we are so shelterd from death today, that when it does come,it is a real shock to us.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@transport.com), May 08, 2000.

Rebekah, very thoughtful post. Thank you. And I would always like to see women respected, no matter what paths they chose (unless bad, harmful, etc!). If we are going to do the work, we deserve the credit, no matter what the work is. I appreciate honest appraisal, so would rather skip the delusion of the pedestal! But if you bust your you-know-what all day taking care of kids, running a household, keeping livestock healthy, putting up food, etc., you are nothing less than a saint in my opinion, and deserve a great deal of praise! Similarly, if you run a business successfully, kudos to you as well. And if you do both,and do them well, I am incredibly humbled, but not at all surprized, as women have been doing this for years...

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), May 08, 2000.

I know this will not be a popular post, but I feel compelled to voice my opinion here. To me the world was a better place before women got liberated. Children need their mothers. They belong with their mothers. Now I can hear the feminists scream in distress, but the simple truth is that since women have gone back into the workforce children have lost out. You can easily see this in the rising teen pregnancy rate, insane children shooting one another and a variety of other issues. Kids have done nothing but lose with this deal. Oh yes, women got their freedom, but at what price. I can hear the working mothers out there saying I worked all my kids lives and they turned out ok and my reply is your children are some of the lucky few. The simple truth is that children have suffered at the hands of working Moms and ultimately that combined with the divorce rate is tearing kids up. Society is beginning to feel the effects. The only people who don't see this are the people who don't want to. They sit at their desks everyday while their children are who knows where, and they choose not to notice. Children need their parents and yes I know it is much easier to believe the you can do it all speech, but that speech sure isn't borne out by statistics. I sit back everyday and say to myself, as I hear people complain about the state of the world, why don't people see this is because they chose to leave the kind of life that makes a healthy society? The answer so obviously is that they don't want to. I understand the need to justify, but this to me is unjustifiable. As women we have dropped the ball. It is a sad state of affairs. I know feminists just hate women like me. They think I look down my nose at them. It is so popular today not to stand for what you believe and just say what makes everyone feel good. Unfortunately that is not me. I believe that in order for the world to start being a better place people have to be willing to stand up and look the truth in the face and say what is not popular. I will not bow and scrape to popular opinion, nor will I ignore the truth in order to make people feel good. I am absolutely sure that one of the things that made the eighteen hundreds the kind of era it was, was that women day after day toiled to be mothers and wives to the best of their ability. They took responsiblity rather than giving it away. They stood their ground even when it meant losing their lives. I thank God for women like those. If it weren't for them America wouldn't be here. I love my children. I am with them 24/7 and I homeschool. I wouldn't trade one minute with them for a job. They are far to priceless. Someday when they leave me I will miss them terribly, but I will pick myself up and find something rewarding to do with my life.Until them I belong to them and my husband whom I love dearly. I will be a grandmother. I will be a wife, something I love even more than motherhood. So now you can all say what an insensitive so and so I am. For this I will gladly accept your anger. If only one child gets to have his mommy it is worth it.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), May 09, 2000.


You are right, Little Bit and Rebekah both. When my husband and I got married, I told him that if we had children, I was not going to pay a stranger to raise my children, I was going to raise them myself. So I stayed home with them, and we homeschooled. When they got older, I did work a little bit, but at jobs where I could take them with me most of the time (helped to live in a village in the bush!). I do not think, however, that mothers working outside the home is the root cause of the problems we are having. The root cause is the abandonment of Biblical standards, of leaving God's way and going our own wicked way, and just as was prophecied in the Bible, the wicked is now called good, and the good is now called wicked. Mothers working outside the home is a symptom, as is divorce, abortion, our willingness to park our children in the public schools (free babysitters whose primary goal is to do social experiments with your children, NOT to educate them), and so on.

I do agree with Rebekah that it is a blessing to have running water, and hope not to ever be permanently without it. But what I have noticed is that most people are always in such a hurry -- we have a whole generation who have trouble waiting for anything. The trick is to plan ahead -- you know how long it is going to take to heat the stove up for breakfast, so you get the fire going first thing, then organize your time around it. And so on. It's harder to live like that if you have to be out the door to work at a certain time, of course. One blessing our ancestors used to have was not having to live on such a tight schedule most of the time (other than milking twice a day at the same time, and haying or lambing times are always busy). But if you've grown up having to build a fire and wait for things to get hot, you are used to it, and it doesn't bother you.

People did live much closer to death then, and we may again in the near future, as diseases outrun the 'scientists' ability to come up with new remedies. I doubt, though, that there was less grief at the loss of a child then than there is now. We are still the same inside -- our ancestors had hearts, too, and loved their children as much as we do -- perhaps more, because they taught their children right from wrong, and disciplined them when they did wrong. And they gave them productive work to do, made their children a useful part of the family unit. That's where we 'homesteaders' have a big advantage over people who just 'live' in a house or apartment, whose children must be entertained, instead of having some real work with a real meaning.

You know, there didn't use to be so much trash. I'm thinking of that because we were burning trash in the burn barrel last night (after a good soaking downpour) and I am still getting whiffs of the nasty smoke from it. Much of the trash generated by a household is from food packaging, which our ancestors didn't have. And most of the other products we buy, which they didn't have access to at all, or made themselves, generate more trash. Plus, of course, junk mail, and so on. That's an 'advance' I sure wouldn't miss!!

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), May 09, 2000.


Women working outside the home, paying a babysitter is definitely a big part of our country's problems. I am, however, grateful that women now have the opportunities to work outside the home and earn a living and not be a burden to others. The women's lib movement has to be one of the biggest blessings to merchandisers that has ever been. Women usually end up working outside the home to pay for more cars, more expensive cars, fancier appliances, more expensive manufactured clothes, food prepared somewhere other than the home, etc. A man usually earns enough to keep his family in a modest home with a modest automobile and have enough left over for food and utilities. It is basically greed that is running this country. I am not saying that women are greedy. I am saying that most of society is greedy, and the greed is fueled constantly by advertisements telling us we need such and such to be happier, more efficient, sexier, better parents, etc.

As for the loss of children, it is true that people used to be far more involved with both birth and death, and dealt with both regularly. I think mostly women and men both were far too busy trying to keep the homeplace going for the sake of the other children to have the luxury of time for self-pity. Normally, neighbors would come into the home and tend to the animals, crops and household chores for a few days while the family had time to themselves to grieve. They also helped build the coffins and wash and dress the body of the deceased, and family and neighbors were all intimately involved with the death and burial process. This in itself is a form of therapy and release to those who have lost someone they loved. I know from personal experience that when I was more closely involved with making the arrangements for burial, I recovered from the loss more quickly. By making sure the dead are cared for, you are providing for them one last time, and you are able to work through the grief more easily.

As for the original question about living in the 1800's, yes I think that I would have been happier then than now. Perhaps not. Some people did have running water then. It could be accomplished either through a gravity feed cistern system or by building downhill from a spring. I would really, really miss air conditioning, but aside from that, I believe that the "conveniences" of today would not be so important.

As for the medical treatments that we have now, but not then, many of the health problems we have now are caused by our diet and the general pollution of air and water. They had a different set of health issues in the 1800's, and as my elderly aunt said, people used to not have chronic diseases much back in the 1910' and 1920's. People were generally healthy until they got old and died rather suddenly or they were healthy until some epidemic went around and killed some of them off. The epidemics really were not as common as we assume. People were not together in large groups as frequently then as now, they were outside more, which is generally healthier, and they didn't eat foods that were heavily laced with antibiotics, pesticides and herbicides, nor were they genetically altered or irradiated and didn't have chemicals added to keep foods "fresh".

-- Ava Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), May 09, 2000.


Some of us can't/don't have children, so isn't it nice that we aren't all pegged into being mothers?????? Let's not look down our noses at *anyone*, please. And any feminist worth her/his salt, would support a choice of being a stay at home mother so there shouldn't be any put downs there either. Are we talking real life experiences of being put down by feminists, or are we extrapolating what we read or infer from talking to other like minded folks?

What about poor mothers who have to work just to feed their kids? It seems to me that these moms are the ones likely to raise the at risk kids, and are certainly not doing it by choice. We need to stop blaming women!! It's not like these women said to themselves, "oh, I think I would rather fulfill myself at this job at Burger King", so I can have a rich, selfish life!"

Let's look at the fundamental economic reasons of why we are busting up the family units to drive the economy, and not put women down. Even those upper income women who are working for big bucks, and do so as a choice are being victimized by our culture which is dictating this lame 2 parent working non stop concept. They need to be educated, not hated.

If people would stop supporting this insane consumer feeding frenzy, we could slow down enough to think. AND feminists didn't create this economy. Let's put it in perspective. I think it's great that women on this forum are staying home and raising their kids. I said to that effect above, and have said it elsewhere. I wish every mom in the world could stay home with their kids. If I had them, I couldn't bear to leave them every day with strangers. I totally agree. But let's not divide ourselves against other women. We all do what we can, and we should reach out and help these disenfranchised women.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), May 09, 2000.


Would I want to live in the 1800's? In a word, no.

There were some desirable aspect of life at that time in certain places and at certain times but by and large I'd gladly leave most of it behind.

Yes, the Western Frontier was still be open and homesteading for real was a way of life for many, many people. We were also still fighting the Indian wars from East of the Mississippi to the Pacific Coast. Both the indians and the settlers/army that fought them had some quaint habits in the way they treated each other - it was, after all, a war of extermination. We fought the War Between the States then too and to this day it is still the costliest, bloodiest war this nation ever fought in and it wrecked our constitutional form of government.

Most women had their children at home and that's true. They had them at home because hospitals by and large did not exist but in the very largest of cities and the childbirth mortality rate was something that we only see in third world nations today. Many of the children that survived being born died in their first two years of life. Remember that most folks didn't live past their forties. Sure there were people who survived for a lot longer than that but for every one of those there were many, many more who died quite young by today's standards. Sure there weren't as many chronic diseases then and that's because most folks simply didn't live long enough to develop one. Got diabetes? Sorry, you're gonna die. Develop an infection? Chances are you'll die too unless they can save your life by amputating a limb. You might get ether as an anesthetic but it might be au natural too. Heck, we didn't even have the germ theory then. The use of chlorine to disinfect drinking water supplies largely didn't happen until after 1900. That chlorine may well be the one factor leading to the survival of more people than any other factor we've ever discovered. Water borne diseases were quite common, particularly cholera and typhoid. Malaria and yellow fever killed folks from Indiana to Florida with regularity. Tuberculosis killed folks from New England to Minnesota because no one knew any better of how to treat it or prevent its spread and a cold climate is a natural for that pathogen.

Never mind medical science let's look at the way people treated people. I've already mentioned the Indian Wars and the War Between the States. Not too many LDS folks would like to live through the intolerance they suffered through then nor too many non-LDS would like to suffer through the intolerance they suffered either in the areas the LDS did control. Plenty of folks then who were quite serious about burning somebody to death chained to a stake because some lunatic managed to convince his neighbors a person was a "witch" (of course, we've still got some of those right *now*). Your husband is a drunkard, beats you and spends the family's money so the children have to walk to school barefoot in the snow? Too bad, tweren't much in the way of laws then to protect you or the children. As a matter of fact, my grandmother *did* walk to school barefoot because her father was a drunk who spent the family's money and was violent to boot and that was in the early 1900's. Many folks thought it was sad but no one though it unusual and you can bet that damn few did much in the way of anything to help.

We have no lack of serious problems today that's a fact,but they had no lack of them back then too. Nice if you're part of the local majority religion/class/political party but boy you'd better not be one of "them" whose on the outs with the local power structure.

Come to think of it, I can't hardly think of single social/political/moral/philosophical problem that we have today that you can't find the roots of in the 1800's.

........Alan.

-- A.T. Hagan (athagan@netscape.net), May 09, 2000.


I liked the idea of the time machine. How about the Happy Days instead of 1800s? Richie Cunningham, the Fonz, B&W TV, jute boxed, 45 (or78) RPM records with only 1 speaker, the Platters, Harry Truman, drive-in movies with your girl, etc. Also, it'd be nice to try it and if you didn't like it, come on back. It'd be nice to try if you didn't have to stay there if you didn't like it. You could come back to computers, colored TV, videos, computer, Bill Cininton, painless dentists, etc. Anyone out there old enough to remember? (especially the drive in movies) , Eagle

-- eagle (eagle@alpha1.net), May 11, 2000.

Actually, Alan, people still treat people that way, just not -- for the most part, yet (again) -- in this country. But we only have to look around the world at all the places where our troops are attempting to "keep the peace" to know that human nature hasn't changed just because we're in another century. And it could happen again here, very easily. The restraints on human nature are very easily thrown off.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), May 11, 2000.

I would rather live in the 1800's. It would be fun to experience life back then. Plus you could proubly live on a farm with lots of animals.

-- Susannah (slbsmile@yahoo.com), March 07, 2001.

I wouldn't want to live back then. As much as I loathe a great deal of today's medical practices, I am grateful for livesaving medical advances. If I had lived back then I probably would have died at age 31 (postpartum hemorrhage) I my daughter also would have died from a strep infection at age three.

I would be happy just going back to the 60's, when I was a child and things were simplier!

-- amy (acook@in4web.com), March 07, 2001.


I wouldn't want to live back then, mainly because of the status of women. In fact, I can't think of another era that would necessarily be better in enough ways to outweigh the drawbacks. And one thing no one seems to have mentioned is the racism -- I wouldn't want to lose any of the progress we have made on that score. And life was very much less cosmopolitan, people's worlds were much smaller, more parochial. So many worlds of thought we would not have exposure to or be able to explore without sanction.

-- snoozy (allen@oz.net), March 09, 2001.

hit me on the head

-- hjjhhgfgrtfd:LLOlo: (jlkhnkjkjb@aol.com), April 30, 2001.

Yes,yes,yes! I'd love to live during that time frame! For one thing, I could enjoy the wearing of beautiful clothing and undergarments without todays harrassment! I'd simply refuse to be breeched and continue to wear what I find attractive. Something thats pretty hard to do today! I know that I also could better appreciate women! They are next to gods greatest gift to men--- Heaven is the greatest gift! What else can I say? Those were the days! Jan

-- Thomas Janelle Rankin (thomas_j_rankin@msn.com), May 03, 2001.

I've thought a bit about this before posting. I remember my parents talking about suicides(sp) in the "old" days. I think the isolation probably caused them, along with other factors. It was also just plain hard work and a lot of illness. The romantic simplicity may draw me but I like my deodorant. As for mothers being full-time mothers,I totally agree. I see the difference in my grandchildren. My daughter-in-law works at her beloved career. I have yet to understand why they had children since they aren't bringing them up. My daughter has chosen to be a full- time mother and those children are completely different. they are mannerly, respectful and God fearing. And, by the way, being a full- time mother isn't all fun and games either. And, for the mother who has to work to feed her children, sorry, but even this old lady knew about birth control.

-- Ardie from WI (a6203@hotmail.com), May 03, 2001.

Hmmm, this is difficult.

I think there are such variables on both sides, that it is impossible to say which is better.

In the 1800's you had natural foods, with all the high mineral content God intended, so if you made it to 50 yrs old, you were likely to live to 90, in decent health.

Under that age level, you were in great danger of dying of childhood deseases or childbirth or work-related accidents.

The greatly touted "lifespan increase" of the past century actually is caused by our discovery of harmful bacteria, bmodern childbirth proceedures, and immunisations. If you take everything in balance, you will see that our health in general is far worse now as a society than it was 150 years ago. In the early 1900's heart desease and stroke were so rare that most family physicans never even saw one case int heir entire lifetime of practice. We now have a good chance of surviving to 50 years old, but when we get there we are not very healthy. Most of us have arterial plaque buildup, with the concomitant risks of death from stroke and heart desease. Most people who make it to 90 are senile and decrepit. This is probably due to our unnatural foods and lack of healthy air, water, and exercise. And also due to our lack of peace with God.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.


There are lots of places around the world where you could go and witness 1800's lifestyles especially poor, war ravaged, and generally messaround-with countries in Africa, Middle East and Asia. If this sound interesting why not put some of those much vaunted Christian values into practice and join an aid activity? There is room for all the helpers who step forward. Are you an eye surgeon or even optometrist (spelling?), Afghanistan has a population of 20 million or so and only one worker in that field. The poor people are crying, and dieing, waiting for all manner of help, not just professionals by technical experts of all kinds and of course teachers. Once you move there I might come and visit in a year or so and see just how well you have fitted in. Oh yes, there are Americans working in Afghanistan and no doubt in other unfortunate countries the people I saw were putting their beliefs into practice and in fact appeared to have devoted there entire lives to it.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), May 03, 2001.

The part of the 1800's that would appeal to me would be family and friends gathering for a relaxing afternoon sitting on someone's proch or on the lawn on a Sunday afternoon, after dinner. Instead of running to the store to catch the latest sale. The way people lived with what they really needed and not what they feel they had to have. I am guilty, I have a houseful of many things the I really don't need, but felt I had to have and now I have to dust and clean around it. There are some things like fabric from the store instead of having to weave my own and plastic pants over cloth diapers, the flip of a switch and we have lights,(one 24 hour time frame without it can let you know if you want to be without it)a turn of a dial and we have heat ( not to many of us can freeze a glass of water in an upstairs bedroom. To wake up in the middle of the night and have to run outdoors or to a can with a lid on it, to turn on a hot water faucet and have a warm bath without having to load up a wood stove and wait for the water to warm. We are fortunate to be able to call and get someone to a hospitol instead of hooking up a horse and buggy and hoping to get the doctor. I was fortunate and stayed home and raised my three children. I guess what I am saying is Wouldn't it be nice to have the best of both times put together and enjoyed by all?

-- jenn (normaj3@countrylife.net), May 03, 2001.

Good one John. Hey, this thread is a year old.

I wonder how many people get their perspective on this period in history from reading romance novels or watching made-for-teevee movies. No offense to anyone in particular...just musing...

-- sheepish (WA) (the_original_sheepish@hotmail.com), May 05, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ