The Origins of a Classic American Witticism About Water, Society, and Hell
“This Place Would Source Be Much Better If We Had Plenty of Water and Good Society” > > “So Would Hades”
American frontier humor produced countless memorable exchanges. Wade, Benjamin Franklin (1800-1878) This particular quip stands out for its devastating wit. The joke captures harsh realities of westward expansion while delivering a punch line that still resonates today.
Two men claim credit for this famous retort. Source Benjamin Wade, an Ohio senator, tops the list of potential originators. Charles H. Hoyt, a playwright, also receives attribution.
The exchange follows a simple pattern. Someone observes that a location would be pleasant with adequate water and decent company. The response cuts deep: those same elements would make hell itself habitable.
The Earliest Record of Wade’s Wit
William D. Kelley delivered a lecture in November 1869 that changed everything. The Philadelphia Inquirer covered his talk. Kelley described traveling on the newly completed Union Pacific Railroad.
During the journey, Wade engaged a station-master in conversation. The local man praised his home’s pleasant qualities. However, he added a significant caveat. The place needed good society and sufficient water.
Wade’s response was characteristically brief. “So would Hades,” he said before turning away. The station-master stood speechless. His home had just been compared to eternal damnation.
Kelley witnessed this exchange firsthand. His testimony provides the strongest evidence for Wade’s authorship. Nevertheless, he omitted one crucial detail: the exact location where this occurred.
How the Story Spread Across Continents
The tale gained traction remarkably fast. By January 1870, The Daily News of London published the story. British readers learned about Wade’s cutting remark just two months after Kelley’s lecture.
The London version changed some details while preserving the core joke. Someone suggested the Great American Desert could be delightful with water and companionship. Wade replied that hell itself would be pleasant under those conditions.
American newspapers picked up the story in March 1870. The Daily Kansas State Record ran the tale. The Gold Hill Daily News in Nevada also featured it. Local interest ran high since Nevada sat along the transcontinental route.
By September 1870, the joke had migrated south. The Hartford Daily Courant placed the exchange in Warsaw, North Carolina. A Texas traveler delivered the punch line instead of Wade. The setting shifted from the Union Pacific to the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad.
This geographic transplant reveals something important. The humor transcended its original context. Any underdeveloped region could serve as the butt of the joke.
Victorian Sensibilities and Censorship
Newspapers of the era often censored profanity. The Hartford Daily Courant rendered “hell” as “h-ll.” This practice reflected Victorian-era propriety. Publishers wanted to share the wit without offending sensitive readers.
Modern audiences might find this amusing. The joke’s entire point involves comparing a place to hell. Yet newspapers felt compelled to partially obscure the word.
Literary Accounts Add Color and Detail
William Fraser Rae published “Westward by Rail” in 1871. His book placed the exchange between Promontory, Utah, and Elko, Nevada. He provided more geographic specificity than earlier versions.
Rae introduced a literary reference into the story. He called the optimistic party member “Mark Tapley.” This character from Charles Dickens’s “Martin Chuzzlewit” maintained cheerfulness despite adversity. The allusion added sophistication to the tale.
John Hanson Beadle offered the most vivid setting in 1873. His book “The Undeveloped West” described nearly four hundred miles of desolation. White alkali deserts stretched endlessly. Gray rocks, red buttes, and yellow hills dotted the landscape.
Beadle characterized Wade as “bluff” and direct. The senator’s reputation for unvarnished speech preceded him. A settler defended his home with a “deprecating air.” He admitted the country lacked only water and good society.
Wade’s response possessed “equal truth and point,” according to Beadle. The author essentially agreed with Wade’s harsh assessment. The comparison to hell seemed fair given the conditions.
The Chicago Tribune’s Abbreviated Version
By 1873, the story had entered common circulation. The Chicago Daily Tribune published a condensed version without full context. Readers apparently recognized the reference immediately.
The newspaper noted that Plains society was “highly educated in the use of fire-arms.” Yet it remained “a great country.” It needed only water and good society—elements that would make even Hades habitable.
This abbreviated form demonstrates cultural penetration. The joke had become shorthand for commenting on frontier conditions.
Regional Variations Multiply
The story’s flexibility allowed endless adaptations. In 1877, Cope’s Tobacco Plant set the exchange in Lincoln, Nebraska. Two men met at the Railroad Hotel. One praised Nebraska while noting it lacked water and good society.
The respondent’s reply added religious invocation: “Why, good Lord! that is all hell lacks.” This version maintained the structure while adding exclamatory emphasis.
Nebraska promoters often exaggerated the Great Plains’ agricultural potential. Wade’s joke served as a counterpoint to such boosterism. It offered realism instead of optimism.
By 1889, “Wit and Humor of the Age” placed the encounter in Laramie, Wyoming. This version reversed the usual dynamic. Wade began by calling it “a God-forsaken country.” A rancher named Jules Daniels defended his home.
Daniels claimed the area was quite good. It lacked only water and good society. Wade growled his familiar response: “Yes, that’s all hell lacks.”
The Theatrical Connection to Charles H. Hoyt
Charles H. Hoyt incorporated the joke into his 1893 comedy “A Texas Steer.” The play featured a scene where Texas constituents pressed their congressman for an appropriation. They defended the project by noting their township needed only “good society and more rain.”
A judge delivered the punch line: “That’s all hell needs!” The substitution of “more rain” for “water” made the dialogue more colloquial. Theatrical audiences appreciated the familiar humor.
Hoyt’s attribution stems from this theatrical use. Source However, he adapted existing material rather than creating something new. The evidence doesn’t support crediting him with origination.
The Boston Sunday Globe published a different version from “A Texas Steer” in 1900. A character observed that hell wouldn’t be bad without its terrible climate and bad people. This formulation inverted the usual structure.
By 1905, Cosmopolitan Magazine presented another variation. One character claimed Texas needed only “running water and good society.” The response noted these were precisely hell’s requirements. The phrase “running water” added specificity.
Twentieth-Century Adaptations Continue
The joke remained relevant well into the twentieth century. Joseph Kinsey Howard published “Montana: High, Wide, and Handsome” in 1943. His chapter titled “Rain Is All Hell Needs” placed the exchange in Great Falls, Montana.
An embarrassed local businessman apologized to visitors. He noted that “all Montana needs is rain.” A capitalist from Grand Rapids, Michigan, had endured blistered streets and parched prairie. He quietly agreed: “and that’s all hell needs!”
This Montana version demonstrates enduring relevance. The joke retained its bite decades after the frontier era ended. Irrigation and development had transformed many western regions. Yet the humor still resonated.
In 1967, “The Modern Handbook of Humor” returned the story to Nevada. Someone in a railroad party suggested Nevada would be acceptable with water and congenial companions. Ex-Senator Wade responded that hell wouldn’t be bad under those conditions either.
Why This Joke Endures
The witticism survives because it balances multiple elements perfectly. It acknowledges harsh realities without surrendering to despair. Frontier settlers faced genuine hardships. Water scarcity threatened survival. Isolation from established society created loneliness.
Yet the joke transforms complaint into comedy. It doesn’t deny difficulties. Instead, it confronts them with sardonic humor. The comparison to hell validates the hardships while refusing to take them too seriously.
The brevity enhances impact. Wade’s response contains just three words in most versions. This economy of language delivers maximum punch. No elaboration or explanation dilutes the effect.
Additionally, the joke’s structure allows infinite adaptation. Any challenging location can substitute for the original setting. The formula remains constant while the specifics change. This flexibility explains its geographic migration.
The Role of Frontier Humor
American frontier humor served important psychological functions. Settlers faced isolation, danger, and deprivation. Humor provided coping mechanisms. It acknowledged difficulties while maintaining morale.
Moreover, sardonic wit demonstrated toughness. Those who could joke about hardship proved they could endure it. The ability to laugh at hell-like conditions showed resilience. Consequently, such humor became a badge of frontier identity.
The Verdict on Attribution
The chronological evidence points clearly to Benjamin Wade. William D. Kelley’s November 1869 testimony provides the earliest documentation. Kelley witnessed the exchange directly. His account appeared contemporaneously in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Subsequent versions demonstrate the joke’s spread and evolution. They don’t establish alternative authorship. Instead, they show how a memorable line migrated across regions and contexts. Each adaptation served local purposes while preserving the core structure.
Charles H. Hoyt deserves credit for theatrical adaptation. However, he popularized existing material rather than creating it. His 1893 play came nearly a quarter-century after Kelley’s testimony. The timeline doesn’t support original authorship.
The various geographic settings—from Utah to North Carolina, Nebraska to Montana—reflect the joke’s universal appeal. Each region could claim the story as its own. This adaptability ensured longevity. Furthermore, it demonstrated that frontier challenges transcended specific locations.
Conclusion: A Lasting Legacy
Benjamin Wade’s terse observation has survived more than 150 years. The joke appears in humor collections, regional histories, and popular culture. Its endurance testifies to both its wit and its truth.
The exchange captures something essential about American frontier experience. Settlers combined optimism with realism. They promoted their chosen homes while acknowledging shortcomings. Wade’s response crystallized this tension perfectly.
The comparison to hell might seem harsh. Yet it resonates because it contains truth. Many frontier locations lacked basic amenities. Water scarcity and social isolation created genuine hardship. Wade simply stated what everyone knew.
However, the joke also contains hope. The conditional structure—”if we had”—implies possibility. With water and society, these places could improve. Even hell might become habitable under the right conditions. This optimistic subtext balances the sardonic surface.
Ultimately, the witticism survives because it speaks to universal human experience. We all encounter challenging situations. We all seek improvements while accepting limitations. Wade’s response models how to navigate this tension: acknowledge the difficulty, maintain perspective, and find humor in the absurdity. That lesson remains as relevant today as it was in 1869.