Pulling from the discussion thread on looking forward to 2008, here's what I sent Linda to help with the Mom of Large Family portrayal:

Children in a working class family seem to start helping with the family work at very young ages--toddlerhood is not too small. The tasks seem to be assigned according to ability--the butter-fingered boy wouldn't be gathering eggs often, but might be hauling stove wood a lot--as well as by basic age.  You didn't specify the family occupation, so I'm going to assume working class semi-rural family, with some domestic production, even if farming is not the main family business.

So, some ideas, gleaned from the mass of reading, without a lot of specific references just due to the shortness of the time frame:

William (22) and John (17) could be expected to handle any household or work task Father would, with similar or even better results.

Elizabeth (20) should be fully competent to run the household with or without you, including child care and all related tasks of any homemaker.  Angeline (15) should be at a point that she's nearly capable of the same things, making a transition from her "education" years to her "administration" years.  So, you could reasonably expect these two girls to stand in for you with cooking, laundry, garden & stock management, child care, clothing production, even shopping.  You might decide on a specialty for each--Elizabeth excells at gardening and child care, for instance, while Angeline is getting very good at managing the family flocks and getting good prices in market transactions, or has taken over most of the bread baking because she's a natural hand at it, etc.

Mary (12) is in her transition from girlhood to womanhood--she'd be an apprentice to the you and the older girls, working along side them.  Perhaps she is in charge of daily care of the family poultry, and also taking a larger role in tending the younger children when she is home from school.  She'd be capable (if not terribly happy about it) doing plain sewing and some mending, possibly knitting.  She may be a bit bossy toward her younger siblings, which Richard will likely resent a lot--it's a common dynamic of children that close in age, at those stages.  She'll see herself as "nearly equal to the grown girls", and her brother as "a baby", while he'll see himself as "nearly equal to John and William and Father", and his sister as "an annoying girl who ought to appreciate him."  Expect some pranks and teasing.

Richard (11) Junior apprentice to his older brother; he should be fairly competent at the family endeavors, though still at school.  He might be in charge of things like keeping the stove fuel stocked fully (including splitting wood), carrying water, taking care of larger stock and gear, learning to care for the family team and harnesses.  Still very much a boy--brings out the boy in his older brother during romps, too.

Margaret (9) and Alva (7) will also be in school part of the year, and could handle many tasks indoors as well, including washing dishes and cutlery, setting and wiping tables, helping to sort or fold laundry, emptying chamber pots in the morning, making their own beds and helping younger siblings to make theirs, collecting eggs, picking garden produce, weeding, and minding the younger ones while older family members are busy.  Margaret will be learning plain sewing, and likely dresses her dollies with the help of her sisters.  She will likely be quite competant with diaper changes, bathing and dressing the youngers.

Laura (5) and Cassie (2) will be under a lot of parental or sibling supervision, but can also be learning to do things like hunting and gathering eggs, picking garden produce, setting meal tables, drying dishes (Laura) picking up their own toys and things.  Laura may be making her first attempts at sewing for dolls, with the help of Mother or sisters, and may be helping with some sewing or knitting tasks (threading needles, fetching things, living Niddy-Noddy/yarn ball winder!).  These two, plus Baby James Fremont, are likely to be the pets of the family... with so many larger hands to help, they may not be learning things quite so early as the oldest children had, and likely spend a larger portion of their time being amused and petted by the others.  Expect Mini-Mother behavior from Laura toward Cassie and James F.

Depending on the family, everyone 7 and up likely reads (though at various skill levels) and Laura is likely getting quite competent with her ABC; Cassie may play at learning, but her main tasks are to learn to use the toilet and manage her own buttons (this is also a fun pastime--playing with or making button strings!)  If music is part of family life, all but James F are big enough to participate.  

While you still have a large lot of children at home, your two older girls take a lot of the burden of everyday chores, freeing you to have more of a supervisory role in some tasks, and allowing you a bit more time to train and direct the smaller siblings (or just jolly well SIT DOWN and nurse the baby!)

As a modern frame of reference: I'm the oldest of seven.  When my mother broke her foot and ankle after my brother Bill (#6), I was nine year old.  In a modern working class family (dad in lumber, mom at home, huge garden and lots of home production), I had been trained to: bake bread start to finish; do laundry with a dryer or line drying; tend children, including feeding, diapering, and bathing; tend the garden, including produce harvest; clean any room in the house, though not as well as Mom; fix simple meals.

When my youngest brother Brian was born, he was very ill.  I was nearly twelve.  At that age, I could plan and execute most everyday meals, do basic food preservation (canning prep), clean as well as Mom, get everyone up and out the door on a school morning... basically, I could Mini-Mom at 12.  This freed Mom up to care for the baby's needs to a larger extent.   My sister (6 years younger) could Mini-Mom at about 16--showing the gap that may be growing between your oldest Elizabeth, and Mary at 12, as Mary's hands are not quite so vital as Elizabeth's were at that young age.  

(In fact, I had learned to Mini-Mom so well that when Brian was born, my next-younger sibling Mike and I staged a coup, "fired" the church lady who'd come in to tend us in the mornings--she smelled oddly and sucked her dentures a lot--, kept everyone home together that first day, and drew up our list of demands and morning plans for my father to approve after work.  For the rest of Brian's first hospital stay, Mike and I ran the show mornings, getting everyone up and off to school and next door for the toddlers, and collecting everyone after school and starting dinner.)

So WHEW!  Does that help some?  One really good resource, from which a lot of this summary is pulled, is "One Woman's West" by Martha Gay Masterson.  She was born in the 1840s, and their large family emigrated to Oregon in 1851.  Her father was not primarily a farmer--he was a cabinet and furniture maker--but he did own a farm at various points, and worked it with his sons in supervisory roles, and hired labor, supplementing farm income with his furniture business when possible.  The family was working class, but fluctuated between middle and upper working class.  She discusses a lot of the chores and everyday life of her siblings and family, both in settled and emigrant settings, and the general overview is that young children tend to be given a good mix of responsibility, sooner than we might consider them "able" these days.  Really, really good book.

More later, I'm sure.

You made me think of something I don't see at events often. Women's clothing that looks like they actually do laundry.

Dave, do you mean "clothing they could wear to do the laundry," or "clothing that looks like a functional wardrobe that gets laundered, rather than separate, pristine "outfits""?

Okay, some random thoughts on how I integrate what I've read about children and their work/activities, and my own kids at events.

One big factor for us is that we're a largely non-electronic family, so my kids don't have any withdrawal from modern toys as a general rule.  We have focused on a few period-appropriate amusements and toys, and we bring those to events, so there aren't any anachronisms to deal with, toy-wise.

For instance, at an 1859 event at Fort Bridger, the children amused themselves for an entire weekend with a knife, a ball of string, a few hankies, and a spare swatch of canvas, plus two cloth dolls.  This little store of goodies provided crawfish traps, ground-rat snares, several doll tipis, at least one Indian Raid on the dolls in "emigrant mode", quite a few lashed bows and arrows, and a shade fly.  They all had active chores, though there were a few activities that would have been common to a wagon train layover that we did not portray, but which they would have helped perform, such as laundry.

well.. nice to know my children could almost get through though my 11yo doesnt do much cooking, she can cook. she even prefers hand sewing

then again there are somethings i know i couldnt do that some of the youngers are doing... of course if my livelyhood depended on a garden, then i would make it work, but nowadays they are just for fun for the most part. (i dont have a garden... the bears and deer actually eat them and the city pretty much says not to have one).

ive actually considered doing laundry at events, but with the events only friday through sunday i havent had much need. i do generally wash my aprons after use and hang them up, along with socks... they can dry while the clean one is being wore. the girls pinafores may get a quick washing also. but other than that i leave the rest for home.

I wouldn't do laundry at a "smorgasboard" style camping event, but I would consider it at a historic house event with the right laundry equipment.

The scenario for the Oregon Trail event was one that *would have* included laundry--such rest layovers were not always a weekly thing, particularly in the push to get across Wyoming and Idaho while there was still grass for the livestock.  Fort Bridger tended to be at least a day layover to restock, hunt, rest the livestock, and Do Laundry, as well as bake ahead (as in the next few weeks on the trail, they'd be going through present-day Southern Idaho, where there's not much wood, nor buffalo chip to pick up, so the sustained fire-building needed for baking was problematic.)

But, we didn't choose to demonstrate laundry, as that's a pretty focused activity, and isn't terribly condusive to restful period chat with one another and site visitors.  Instead, we focused on the the "rest" elements, restocking at the store, taking livestock into the next little valley where grazing was better, and some folks being off on hunting parties.

...clothing that looks like it was worn to do laundry...

What was the mortality rate like for kids in the 19th century. Working around large animals, sharp objects, scalding hot water and the like? I guess i'm looking for deaths caused by accidents around the property, not by disease. Is there such a separation available?

I don't have specific numbers at hand, Dave, but it's a good question.  The largest mortality rates seem to be for infancy--once you make it to about three, things get a bit easier, though the accident rate is there.

Considering the children of the era are more likely to be comfortable with their own Threat & Accident Risk Level (city kids learn to look out for the freight wagons and foraging swine, farm kids learn to avoid being stepped on by oxen and stay out of the hog pen)--our modern kids, tossed into unfamiliar settings, have a higher probability of accident in the same time span (event weekend) just from the unfamiliarity of it.  If a child has not been raised with open fires and boiling pots within reach, it takes more training to avoid the accidents.

That's not to say accidents didn't happen to The Original children.  One family account talked of GGGrandfather burning out some bramble near the house; when the toddler awoke in the morning, he was delighted to see this lovely field of fluffy white "snow," and darted out into it, not realizing it was ash, and the coals below were still very glowing.  He stood in the middle, screaming.  His older sister saw him, dashed in (also barefoot), and dashed out of the ash field with him under her arm.  The little fellow was kept in the house and off his feet for many weeks while they healed; big sis was in and out so fast, she hadn't a single blister on her feet, but the heat had singed her petticoat hems.

Some links to accident/mortality in Illinois, 1850 (no particular reason for Illinois... I just googled "child mortality from accident 1850s) and this is what came up:

http://www.iltrails.org/crawfordco1850ms.html

http://www.iltrails.org/ford/vermilion1850.htm

Without further census data, it's not really helpful information, but it gives a sample of what some kids in Illinois in 1850 were dying from, at least.

In these two instances, disease seems to be more prevalent than accident or injury.

Quote :

In these two instances, disease seems to be more prevalent than accident or injury.

A few months ago Hank and I were creating characters and my character's husband died of an accident (we kill off the spouse a lot so our characters can court, much more fun!)  

Anyway, he said that there's always too many accidents and never enough dying of illness.  Well... Liz's post made me look up the 1850 mortality schedule for Lawrence County, Ohio (next door neighbor to where we live).  He's right!  Of those 148 there were only 7 deaths not caused by disease; these were 2 accidents, 3 drownings, 1 burned and 1 killed.

Of the 148 deaths, 95 were children.  All were disease except for three; 1 accident (9 yr old), 1 drowned (2 yr old), 1 burned (3 yr old).

Added to Liz's post I'd say we're starting to see a trend here of most deaths caused by disease, just like in the army.

Oh, and just for the record, I'm counting children as anyone who's not yet celebrated their 18th birthday.

Linda.  

--Last edited by Linda Trent on 2007-11-06 18:23:19 --

With the discussion of child mortality it leads me to a question. At one point and time I had my nephew with me at a couple of events. He was 10 month old then. I no longer get to see him,(when I am asked about him I tell people he is "lost" to me now). I still have the things I had made for him for events. Would a mother have kept some reminder of the child? I have a wooden duck which was made for him and I want to keep it with me.  How would it have been kept. Maybe in my sewing basket or a keepsake box? Should I have the clothes in some kind of keepsake box? Would this have been something I would have kept with me, if at all possible, if I was run from my home?


Thanks

Beverly Simpson  

--Last edited by yankeebelle on 2007-11-06 19:40:32 --

Bev,

I'd say that it all depends upon the individual.  People deal with death in so many different ways.  Some get over it with no ill affects, others (like Victoria) never really come out of it.  I have one character that I developed that will be in a continual state of mourning for the rest of her life due to the untimely death (pneumonia) of her very best friend, and beloved husband.  (It gives me a sense of how I'll react if Hank dies first.)  But I do digress...

I'm going to assume that your character considered the child to be your own son.  If that's the case...

I believe that for me? I'd figure that the toy was meant to be enjoyed by my child who will never have that priviledge; but I have family and friends who live nearby who have children, and when they stop by my house perhaps they'd like to play with the toy.

Another option I might take is to give the toy to family or friends; it really all just depends upon the individual and the circumstances surrounding them.

Depending upon the size of the toy you could store it just about anywhere.  A chest, sewing box, etc.  Another question is, do you ever plan to have another child?  Otherwise, personally, I'd probably give the clothes away to a family that is blessed enough to have their own child.

Keeping the toy on you as you flee for your life would, in my own humble opinion, be a bit odd.  But if you have a house and you're at home -- I'd see nothing wrong with having the toy there for others to enjoy.

At October 62 my character was a bit mentally unstable, not to the point that it really showed or came out; only when her son was brought up.  Her son had been fighting for the Old Dominion at Antietam, and his name was on the roster of those killed in action in the cornfield, but she blocks that out all the time.  Instead she carried letters of her son that told of his regiment's courage and valor. And the one written on September 16th telling her that he'll be home in time for the harvest.  Whenever she saw someone she knew, she'd ask if they've seen him yet?  He should be home any day now...  Those who knew her knew that she was told of his death, and they just let her talk.

That's just my two cents worth.

Linda.  

--Last edited by Linda Trent on 2007-11-06 20:31:41 --

In looking at what's left of his clothing, I'd tend to choose one dress and one bonnet as particular items to hold on to, and carry them in some quiet safe place--a sewing box or a tie on pocket or a small box that also holds your well worn bible.

I am reminded though, of a large dogtrot cabin we spent some time in.  I had already grumbled under my breath about the site not properly conserving two little dresses hanging up on the wall, then realized that there were insects in the fabric.  I mentioned the problem to the site manager, and was told that the two little dresses were the condition of the gift--the house had been moved and given to the site with the proviso that the little dresses were to always hang there on the wall, left alone until they turned to dust, a remembrance of a brother and sister who spent their short lives in that fine cozy home.