Texas vs. the Midwest
Quality of Land in Texas
Figures like Elise Wærenskjold and Johan Reiersen wrote high praise of Texas. They claimed and clearly believed that Texas was the best place to settle primarily because of its rich farmland that was largely unsettled. They wrote in publications in Norway about their beliefs, and despite these naysayers, they continued to defend Texas and its positive geographic features.Reiersen wrote a section on Texas in his publication Pathfinder for Norwegian Emigrants. He asserts "wheat will thrive, in addition to maize, which is harvested twice each year, and rye, oats, barley, potatoes, cotton, and tobacco. Fruits such as figs, peaches, nectarines, oranges, and lemons, which are suited to the tropical climate, thrive well here. Nuts and berries grow in superabundance. Pecan and pawpaw trees grow wild, and mulberries and grapes are found that are very rich in quality.” (Derwood, pg. 264)
He goes on to talk about other aspects of the superiority of Texas. “Great hordes of deer, wild cattle, and wild horses or mustangs graze on the upper prairies. Limestone suitable for burned lime or building stone is found in several places, mainly along the banks of the largest streams ; and salt springs and coal mines have been discovered recently. Pipe clay suitable for crockery and pottery exists in coal formations. Great quantities of iron are found along the Trinity, and rich lead deposits have been discovered upstream where the river branches out in two arms. All the region along the Trinity and the Brazos, with the possible exception of the lowland along these streams, is guaranteed to be healthful, and the air is always fresh and clean because of the daily breezes coming in from either the mountains or the sea [gulf]." (Derwood, pg. 264-265)
Wærenkjold adds to this praise, "I believe Texas is the best of the States to migrate to, partly because the climate is milder and more pleasant than in the Northern States and partly because the land is cheaper. Furthermore, without owning land a person can here acquire as many cattle as he pleases, and, finally, a person can here sustain himself with so much less work, since less is required for housebuilding, for getting feed for the animals, etc., etc., than in colder climates." (Wærenkjold, July 9, 1851)
The Pull of the Midwest
Scholars like Theodore Blegen have written retroactively about the reasons why Texas did not become as popular among Norwegian settlers as the Midwest did. Despite the claims of many Norwegian settlers in Texas, many settlers ultimately left Texas in favor of the more prosperous settlements in the Northern states. Later investigation will reveal some of these reasons. "Their settlements in Texas were islands, not mainlands, of immigrant colonization, but they are interesting….principally through the long-continued writing of a woman who arrived in Texas as early as 1847 and maintained her correspondence to the home country for nearly half a century.” (Blegen, pg. 13)"As her [Wærenskjold] letters and others from the same region illustrate, these immigrant Texans were protagonists not only of the glories of Texas, but also for the wider sweep of America - and their voices were widely heard in the home country. The attractions of the North were greater than those of the Southwest, and Texas never became a focal point for large numbers of Norwegian immigrants. They followed instead the waterways and pathways to the Middle West, to the Great Plains, and to the lands beyond." (Blegen, pg. 13)
Despite Texas not being able to reach more groups of Norwegian immigrants, those who lived there strongly believed in the advantages of settling in Texas. J.M.C.W. Wærenskjold, husband to Elise, reiterates the claims of his wife and Reiersen: “the extremely low price of land here enables even the poorest emigrant to become a freeholder; and the extraordinary quality of the climate not only permits the production of all the grains found in the northern states but is also excellently suited for the production of cotton, tobacco, rice, tropical fruits, sugar cane, and sweet potatoes (the latter very different in taste and appearance from those of Norway). Add to this the mild winter which frees the farmer from the very burdensome, time-consuming work connected with haying and the winter care of the animals. To my mind, these last factors are decisive, since cattle-breeding is the least difficult and most profitable source of income available to the settler." (Blegen, pg. 357)
Advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
One of the biggest advantages that Reiersen and others wrote about was the low cost of land. As land was quickly being claimed in the Midwest, especially after the Homestead Act, the price of land was rising in these areas. Meanwhile, because Texas was new to the Union, much of the land there was yet unsettled. Because of this, and because there was soil suitable for farming, Peerson and Reiersen believed that Texas was the best place for new Norwegian settlers.Another major deterrent for settlers considering relocating to Texas was the Civil War and the issue of slavery. Many Norwegian settlers did not want to live in areas where slavery was commonplace, as it was not in Norway and the majority of the settlers opposed the idea. During the Civil War, emigration to Texas was obviously stunted due to the war, as no settlers wanted to move into Confederate territory.
Sources to explore:
Reiersen’s Texas by Derwood Johnson, Norwegian-American Studies (vol. 21)
The Lady with the Pen: Elise Wærenskjold in Texas, by Elise Wærenskjold
The Immigrant Image of America by Theodore C. Blegen, Norwegian-American Studies (vol. 19)
Pathfinder for Norwegian Emigrants by Johan R. Reiersen
Land of their Choice: The Immigrants Write Home by Theodore C. Blegen