While many readers know of Rose Wilder Lane, the only surviving child of Laura Ingalls Wilder and Almanzo Wilder, fewer are aware that the couple actually had two children. Laura and Almanzo’s second child—a baby boy born in 1889—died shortly after birth. This heartbreaking loss is mentioned in Laura’s posthumously published memoir, The First Four Years.
Due to this tragedy, Laura and Almanzo had only one child who survived to adulthood. Rose would go on to become a successful author and journalist, and would play a key role in helping her mother launch the Little House book series. But her life as an only child was shaped by the quiet grief of the brother she never knew.
The Loss of Baby Boy Wilder
Laura gave birth to her second child—a son—in July 1889, while the family was living near De Smet, South Dakota. Tragically, the baby died just a few weeks later, on August 7, 1889. His name was never recorded publicly, and on his grave marker in the De Smet Cemetery, he is simply referred to as:
“Baby Son of A. J. Wilder”
This loss came during a particularly difficult time for the Wilder family:
Almanzo had contracted diphtheria the year before, leaving him partially paralyzed and physically weakened.
The couple had already endured harsh winters, crop failures, and financial hardship.
They were living in fragile circumstances, and the death of their infant son was another heavy blow.
While the exact cause of the baby’s death is unknown, infant mortality was sadly common in the 19th century due to limited medical care, infectious diseases, poor nutrition, and lack of prenatal knowledge.
Why Didn’t Laura Have More Children?
After the death of their infant son, Laura and Almanzo did not have any more children. Although there is no written record explaining why they chose—or were unable—to have more children, several factors may have played a role:
1. Lingering Health Effects from Diphtheria
Almanzo’s serious illness in 1888 resulted in long-term neurological damage and physical disability. Some researchers speculate that his illness may have affected his fertility or reproductive health, although their son was born after the illness, which makes this connection unclear.
2. Emotional and Physical Trauma
The death of a child is emotionally devastating. Laura may have chosen not to risk another pregnancy out of fear of experiencing another loss. Given the grueling pioneer lifestyle and the family’s limited resources at the time, the couple may have felt that having another child was not a safe or viable option.
3. Coincidence or Unexplained Infertility
It is possible that Laura experienced one or more unrecorded miscarriages, which were rarely documented during that time. However, there is no known evidence of additional pregnancies, and researchers largely believe that Rose and the unnamed baby boy were Laura’s only children.
A Pattern of Infant Loss in the Ingalls-Wilder Family
Laura was not the only member of her family to experience the loss of a son in infancy. The loss of baby boys seems to have been a sad pattern:
Laura’s own younger brother, Charles Frederick “Freddie” Ingalls, died at just 10 months old in 1876.
Laura’s daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, also gave birth to a stillborn son in 1909. She never had another child.
So, over three generations, Laura’s mother (Caroline Ingalls), Laura herself, and Rose each lost a baby boy in infancy—and none of them would go on to raise a surviving son. While this could be pure coincidence, it does reflect the broader reality of the time: infant and child mortality was heartbreakingly common, especially among frontier families.
