Little-House-on-the-Prairie-Book-and-Charm-With-Locket-9780060000462Was Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House on the Prairie series of children’s books written as an anti-New Deal fable? The Wilder family papers suggest they were:

From the publication of the first book in 1932, the series was immediately popular. And, at a time when President Franklin D. Roosevelt was introducing the major federal initiatives of the New Deal and Social Security as a way out of the Depression, the Little House books lulled children to sleep with the opposite message. The books placed self-reliance at the heart of the American myth: If the pioneers wanted a farm, they found one; if they needed food, they killed it or grew it; if they needed shelter, they built it.

Although Wilder and Lane hid their partnership, preferring to keep Wilder in the spotlight as the homegrown author and heroine, scholars of children’s literature have long known that two women, not one, produced the Little House books. But less well understood has been how exactly they reshaped Wilder’s original story, and why. Throughout the 1930s and early 1940s, as the Little House fans clamored for more, Wilder and Lane transformed the unpredictable hardships of the American frontier experience into a testament to the virtues of independence and courage. In Wilder’s original drafts, the family withstood the frontier with their jaws set. After Lane revised them, the Ingallses managed the land and made it theirs, without leaning on anybody.

A close examination of the Wilder family papers suggests that Wilder’s daughter did far more than transcribe her mother’s pioneer tales: She shaped them and turned them from recollections into American fables, changing details where necessary to suit her version of the story. And if those fables sound like a perfect expression of Libertarian ideas—maximum personal freedom and limited need for the government—that’s no accident. Lane, and to an extent her mother, were affronted by taxes, the New Deal, and what they saw as Americans’ growing reliance on Washington. Eventually, as Lane became increasingly antigovernment, she would pursue her politics more openly, writing a strident political treatise and playing an important if little-known role inspiring the movement that eventually coalesced into the Libertarian Party.

Update: Libertarian wonk and amateur “Little House” hobbyist Megan McCardle doesn’t buy the theory:

To be sure, Woodside may have loads of evidence that she doesn’t present that Lane viewed her edits as a way to further her political views. In the actual magazine piece, however, she mostly manages to prove that: 1) Rose Wilder Lane was a libertarian 2) She and her mother edited out some of the most awful bits of her life on the prairies and 3) Christine Woodside would probably have preferred an account of prairie life that better validated her own ideological priorities. Only the last is really new information.

  • Mark

    Just look at how Rose Wilder Lane turned out.

  • Michael Brown

    “Libertarian wonk and amateur “Little House” hobbyist Megan McCardle.”

    Libertarians aren’t “wonks”, and McCardle is no libertarian. I don’t know of any real libertarian who thinks she is.

    • http://Culture11.com Joe Carter

      Libertarians aren’t “wonks”

      A “wonk” is a person preoccupied with arcane details or procedures in a specialized field. You don’t think libertarians can be wonks (e.g., policy wonks)?

      McCardle is no libertarian. I don’t know of any real libertarian who thinks she is.

      I know of one at least one “real libertarian” who thinks she is: Peter Suderman. My former co-worker is now an editor at Reason and the husband of McCardle.