Live 1880, the best time in American history. (cost, building, pump)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of my favorite characters of the era was Lizzie Borden, well-known to me because my wife was born and brought up in Fall River, MA. We've seen the house (now a B&B), but I never had the nerve to stay at it, or even walk inside!
That's an interesting case. If you read actual quoted documentation from the time or authors/researchers who truly want to "get to the bottom" of the case, it's really a big question mark because there are several plausible theories. Of course, the sensationalized stories and movies over the years have dramatized it and sort of cemented our view of Lizzie... and her axe.
Beyond the crimes, it's really quite interesting reading of the Borden family dynamics/lifestyle. By today's standards, they would be considered really odd. Yet, at that time, for the rather affluent, it was not out of the ordinary at all. Lizzie and her sister were in their thirties at the time of the murders--still living in the family estate (even though, by most accounts, it was a very strained relationship). I think the social aspect of their lives are actually more interesting than the murders. It's interesting to see how different segments of society lived and what was considered normal at the time.
From 2004-2012 my wife had a site dedicated to American lifestyle texts dating from 1865 to 1908. Her only agenda was to preserve and share them. Most magazines targeted women/home life and provide insight into everyday American life. She discovered that Americans are not very interested in those details. They are more interested in Victorian Britain, its social customs and class distinctions than what American culture was like during that period.
Looking at writing of the time by those who lived it is perhaps the best way to learn of the times. I never completely trust the writings of historians (not saying I don't read it, but I read it critically) because it seems to be extremely difficult for most authors to write in a transparent manner (meaning the author himself/herself does not influence the content) or without an agenda of some sort in mind. I call this Thesismania. Can't anyone simply write of the times, telling the truth best as they can determine, without attempting to make some sort of point? I swear there are "historians" these days who could follow me around for a day, going about my mundane routine, and turn me into some sort of anti-Christ.
Of course, in reading authors from the time, it is necessary to filter for sour grapes or idealization. It's generally quite obvious when a disaffected writer is describing his/her times by simply engaging in a political or social rant. There is a difference between decribing legitimate problems and demonization. Same goes for pie-in-the-sky writers. I'm not going to mention several good overviews of the times written by authors who lived those times, because we are all familiar with them and I don't want to debate their merit. Suffice it to say that I am far more comfortable reading their description of the world and society around them than I am reading an angry, socialistic, agenda-driven "historian" from a hundred fifty years after the fact, whose only motivation is to smear North American culture of the time.
It might be a good exercise on this thread to make one list of true historians from our day who write of the times in an honest, scholarly manner, and another list of social reformers whose only wish is to rewrite history and demonize society at the time.
Leaving politics aside, there are a variety of viewpoints on any historical topic.
There is no perfect solution; in the end it comes down to the individual reader to make the decision based upon facts, biases, and anything else you'd care to name. Additionally, a work that treats a limited topic is far more likely to be accurate than one that has a seeming all-encompassing topic that must be described in sweeping statements.
The safest course that I've found is to pick a historian who is writing at a time when there are many people still alive who are personally familiar with the events. Let me use the example of one work that treats the history of Denver.
The first prospectors who can be reliably identified reached the banks of Cherry Creek near its confluence with the South Platte River in 1858. While they found no bonanza there was gold enough to interest them in further prospecting. The prospecting paid off as three major gold discoveries occurred in the following year. They were all some distance from Denver, but Denver became the supply center for the mines. Growth was rapid and it wasn't long before there was a city on the formerly near empty plains. There were all sorts of events that the people had to endure fom the division among Northern and Southern residents to the lack of transportation.
Forty-three years later Jerome Constant Smiley's History of Denver was published. Smiley was a Denver newspaperman with a keen interest in history. He later headed the Colorady Historical Society from 1910 to 1920. Since 1901 other authors have constantly quoted it as authoratative in dealing with a host of Colorado topics. Smiley believed that a real history of Denver required plenty of information on events in other parts of the state. He provides the answer to the question of why it was Denver that became the big city.
Smiley was writing when there were many residents alive who could have contradicted inaccuracies, Apart from early sections of the book on paleontology and the early history of Indian tribes in the area before the coming of Whites his descriptions were readily accepted. Like so many historical works, it became difficult to obtain and even to consult. There was a reprint in 1971. Libraries and individuals quickly snapped up the reprint.
I wish that I could link to a copy for sales, but that's not possible at this time. Libraries that have it seldom let it out of their premises because of thefts. I highly recommend this work for those who like facts rather than opinions. It is a most enjoyable work to read. i'm appending a link to a website where the viewer may read parts of it.
Smiley also wrote the Semicentennial History of Colorado. It's a collection of short biographies of Coloradoans, many of whom I suspect paid the Denver Times for inclusion.
Household guides from the 1880s have practical advice for what we call homesteading today. The 1881 Household Cyclopedia is one such guide. A new one on me was the section on silkworms. According to this source, a massive number of worms died in Connecticut in 1825 due to a heat wave. It's said to be the world's most profitable insect today after honeybees. Other sections include farriery, medicine, brewing, distillation, tanning, pottery, metallurgy, engraving, angling, horticulture, agriculture and many more.
This is more than a cookbook which might explain why this 1887 edition has never been out of print. It reveals a surprisingly common lifestyle in the White House. The daily meal menus mirror dishes that were served in most American family homes at the time including pigeon, squirrel, pig feet, corn meal mush and the like. Apparently soap and other toiletries were made on the WH premises too.
No, this doesn't refer to the book of the same title. It refers to a decline in social order, an absence of almost universal dress code, a lack of manners and common curtesy, a breakdown in the homogeneity of our society, and a lack of abilty or desire to communicate and to take part in public discourse. It also refers to a lack of basic wealth, a loss reflected in our move from gold and silver money to paper from a central bank. Prior to 1913, even the poor had silver, which is real money (wealth).
Americans have been impoverished in all the above ways. In 1880, a man was given respect regardless of his station in life. He knew how to behave. He had a standard suit of clothes, which always included a white shirt, tie, and a hat. Everyone had a place to call home, and it was owned outright. Everyone worked, and was paid in real money. There are those who say, "what difference does make, if the money is silver or paper?". My reply is that it makes a big difference. Silver will hold its purchasing power; paper will not. Every family had some real wealth. Today, they don't.
When you impoverish a nation of its monetary wealth, you deprive it of all other forms of well-being. Today's citizen is called a "consumer". That's all we have become to the elites - worthless mouths to feed, and our "feed" is cheap GMOs and processed non-food that prior generations would have laughed at. No wonder we need govt "health care" (medical insurance), as our food lacks nutrients. The EBT cards buy stuff that is filling, but does not nourish. No wonder our kids can't think, or learn.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency [the US Treasury should do this] they will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered" - Thomas Jefferson.
This is what had not yet happened in 1880. This is why we no longer have prosperity in the US.
No, this doesn't refer to the book of the same title. It refers to a decline in social order, an absence of almost universal dress code, a lack of manners and common curtesy, a breakdown in the homogeneity of our society, and a lack of abilty or desire to communicate and to take part in public discourse.
I relate to this but I am somewhat old-fashioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah
Americans have been impoverished in all the above ways. In 1880, a man was given respect regardless of his station in life. He knew how to behave. He had a standard suit of clothes, which always included a white shirt, tie, and a hat. Everyone had a place to call home, and it was owned outright. Everyone worked, and was paid in real money. There are those who say, "what difference does make, if the money is silver or paper?". My reply is that it makes a big difference. Silver will hold its purchasing power; paper will not. Every family had some real wealth. Today, they don't.
The whole thing is built in air. Loans are only good so long as they are all not called in at the same time. If that were to happen, you will see a place go from riches to rags in 5 minutes.
The whole concept of a loan has an exploitative meaning to it. It invariably divides people into two classes - the one that borrows and the one that lends. I will remind you at this point that most people on this forum have a healthy disdain for communism and socialism but back when I lived in the latter, loans were very rare (you had to put up real property as collateral), credit cards did not exist, my parents got paid in cash (like everyone else) and they did not even have a bank account. They managed to own an apartment and build a summer home in the process, they owned a car and raised two children, all without a bank account. This was not 1945 but lasted up to 2000 or so, so not so distant history, only 15 years ago. Today (in a matter of 15 years) you go "back there" for a visit - everyone has a credit card, even multiple credit cards, iPhones and other cell phones, people are in debt up to their eyeballs, the banks are raping them, things getting repossessed left and right. They also have McDonald's and Burger King and have ballooned in size on average. They also have much higher incidences of cancer and heart disease, dropping like flies. You talk to an older doctor (in his 60s or 70s, let's say) and they will tell you that 30 or 40 years ago most of their heart patients were in their 60s or 70s, now they are getting 18 year olds with coronary heart disease and bloodwork that would make grandma look like an NFL pro. Such is the good life of abundant credit and "opportunity" - children are left to be raised by someone else, parents are in a race to make the money, Coca-Cola is in everyone's hand, everything has gotten to be twice as expensive, food is garbage, whatever company comes in with money gets their way. You want to study the effects of the system/age you are "dissing" - go there for a visit, it was "assimilated" in less than 20 years time after the wars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah
When you impoverish a nation of its monetary wealth, you deprive it of all other forms of well-being. Today's citizen is called a "consumer". That's all we have become to the elites - worthless mouths to feed, and our "feed" is cheap GMOs and processed non-food that prior generations would have laughed at. No wonder we need govt "health care" (medical insurance), as our food lacks nutrients. The EBT cards buy stuff that is filling, but does not nourish. No wonder our kids can't think, or learn.
You would have made a great Marxist
We need government health care because people get sick, rich or poor. I still don't understand this whole disdain of universal healthcare - it's not like the insurance companies + hospitals + pharmaceutical industry (all private) is a solution to be proud of. Do you want a crappy solution just because it satisfies the requirement that it is private?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency [the US Treasury should do this] they will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered" - Thomas Jefferson.
This is what had not yet happened in 1880. This is why we no longer have prosperity in the US.
We no longer have prosperity in the USA because the divide between the haves and have nots went to an extreme. You have an extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few corporations and their owners/managers and the remaining people are left to struggle. Due to sheer number of these remaining people, what you are describing is very obvious.
I suggest you take a trip to Germany or Netherlands or Finland. Your views will definitely change since there you will see a homogenous population that is doing well, on average. Poverty is rare, standard of living is high for the majority, they are all relaxed and enjoying life. That's why they consistently rank happier and they do live longer, that's a FACT!
The whole thing is built in air. Loans are only good so long as they are all not called in at the same time. If that were to happen, you will see a place go from riches to rags in 5 minutes.
I didn't say anything about loans. Loans have existed for millenia. I was talking about central banks (the "Fed") issuing paper money, rather than the silver and gold that were once in the hands of the American people, and still today remain our only Constitutional money. I agree that loans are exploitive, and that is why I pay cash for everything. I have never been an indebted person, and do not recommend it for anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
You would have made a great Marxist
Nothing I posted above has any relation to Marxism, whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
We no longer have prosperity in the USA because the divide between the haves and have nots went to an extreme.
NO. We no longer have prosperity because the bankers have devalued our currency to .04 cents on the dollar (as it was in 1913). This has happened world-wide, as there is no longer any specie circulating as money; the bankers have it all. I agree that there is a great disparity between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots', but there has always been throughout history. You are not addressing the issue of worthless paper scrip as printed in volume by the Fed. You need to read up about what is real money, and what is not.
And please stop attributing nonsense to me, that I never posted.
I didn't say anything about loans. Loans have existed for millenia. I was talking about central banks (the "Fed") issuing paper money, rather than the silver and gold that were once in the hands of the American people, and still today remain our only Constitutional money. I agree that loans are exploitive, and that is why I pay cash for everything. I have never been an indebted person, and do not recommend it for anyone.
You should be more concerned about the extraordinary amount of money floating in the credit markets, money that is built on a promise of economic growth. That's what I meant by "loans" - they are everywhere and our whole future hinges on them. At the same time many "American" corporations (I put "American" in quotes since they are only based here but they build their stuff and pay or not pay their taxes elsewhere) are sitting on mountains of cash for reasons of avoiding taxation. This cash is real, not paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah
Nothing I posted above has any relation to Marxism, whatsoever.
Can't take a joke? Lighten up
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah
NO. We no longer have prosperity because the bankers have devalued our currency to .04 cents on the dollar (as it was in 1913). This has happened world-wide, as there is no longer any specie circulating as money; the bankers have it all. I agree that there is a great disparity between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots', but there has always been throughout history. You are not addressing the issue of worthless paper scrip as printed in volume by the Fed. You need to read up about what is real money, and what is not.
Curious, if we always had such terrible disparity between haves and have-nots - what's the difference if most were poor in "real" money vs. "paper" money? They were/are still poor, apparently in the same proportions
I thought 1880s were great 'cause you know - there was opportunity for everyone?
Anyways, real money - what is real money? Barter is real and it is just like money. Gold is real because it is rare and finite. Copper is real but it is not rare. Paper is not rare and worthless by itself but when guaranteed by a healthy economy it is pretty real. You would be crazy to print too much of it for fear of high inflation. Your "real estate" is real but what is it worth? It is worth whatever people perceive it to be worth. Before 2008 it could have been worth $300,000, after 2008 a $100,000. It is all about the perception. I think you are stuck on something that is not very real
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah
And please stop attributing nonsense to me, that I never posted.
But this one will be good forever whether or not the country exists.
Amazing. Ordinary people used to walk around with those things...you could put them in a bank, too!
Now most people have no idea what those are. Never saw one, never held one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
