1. "Andrew Borden - The Man"
Posted by Carol on Dec-10th-02 at 4:36 PM

Over time I've come to realize that some people on this forum don't think Andrew Borden was that bad of a person, at least not as negative as most of the material purports him to be. Apart from his being a good man of business (which Scrooge also called Marley)I was wondering if anyone would like to tell why they don't think Andrew was such a bad character or personality? What evidence is there of his positive features? What speculations are there? Would you have liked to have been his daughter, wife, business partner, etc? Or do you think the printed material about him is accurate and maybe he needed to have been visited by the three ghosts of Christmas?

I'd have to agree, in some aspects it would seem he was the scroodge of his time. But he always made sure Lizzie and Emma were well taken care of. Perhaps it was just him trying to fullfill his manly duties, and in overworrying he became rather skin flintish in the way he would run the rest of his affairs outside of his family. Yes I do think the water and electricity was a bit much, but looking at Lizzie's spending, perhaps it wasn't that far fetched. Also perhaps he wanted to make sure that in case of his demise his family had no worries, since it would seem at a time their family was rich and other members just did not know how to take care of money. He was determined to have his family well to due for many generations maybe?
   RedFern

I think Andrew Borden was a man like any others, he had his good points and his bad points.  It must be remembered that he was raised in a poor family, his father was a fish peddlar and he may never have been able to get that taste of poverty out of his mouth.  I think this is were his frugal behaviour comes from. 

My husband's parents lived through the depression and I can tell you, they were very frugal people.  Their basement was stocked with non-perishable food items, enough to last a year!  And besides having bank accounts in multiple banks, they also hid vast quantities of money about the house in case the banks failed again.  My father-in-law reminds me of how Andrew possibly was, gruff exterior, crabby, but, inside beat a heart of gold.  When my husband and I were just dating, my car died completely, my father-in-law gave me his old car that he was going to trade in, a 2 year old Chrysler New Yorker with all the bells and whistles, just gave me the title to it and never said a word about it.  I think Andrew may have been a man of this character, from what I have read of him and my own suppostion here. 

If I hadn't told you of this here, no one would know, its not written up and everyone would just know him as that crabby old guy with all the money whose son married me.  I think the same can apply to Andrew, there may have been acts of charity or kindness that were never reported or written about.

And NO, I would not want to be his daughter or especially his wife, we all know what happened to her!  That household was just to frought with tension, I couldn't take that day in and day out.  But, Lizzie and Emma receiving a yearly allowance for doing nothing really around his house is pretty generous.  But, perhaps that was expected in the Victorian era when woman weren't supposed to work and they were supposed to live at home until they married, their father was to give them all they wanted or needed in life? 

I think I would have rather been a member of his family
than one of his business contacts. It seems like the
women were the ones controlling the house, I wonder was
he the cause of all the stress or was it just Emma/Lizzie
trying be in control over Abby? Could Andrew just have
been Mr. Henpeck? I think Susan was saying something
about the Legend movie making it seem like Andrew &
Abby were so awful that it was hard to feel bad that
they were killed & almost that they needed it. I like
to think that they (A&A) were just a normal couple &
not the "monsters" they are usually said to have been.
Perhaps he felt powerless at home & was a little more
gruff with outsiders to compensate?

Nobody is one dimensional in character and heart-even Andrew Borden. I can't forget the fact that he married Sarah Morse on Christmas Day. Of all the days to choose for one's wedding, to expect to celebrate your anniversary at that joyful time of year with the lights and decorations and gift-giving of the season always accompanying the marking of your wedding. Even if Sarah chose the day, he certainly had a say in it too, could have asked her to wait til after the holidays.
Surely they were a couple in love, and I think that he became almost psychotically obsessed with his money after her death (even if he was excessivly frugal before from neccesity and habit). I imagine him being dreadfully grieved at her loss and unable to express it. And then to realize that neither Emma nor Lizzie was ever going to give him grandchildren-Sarah Morse's grandchildren-might have pushed him over the edge.
Plus he wore Lizzie's ring throughout his life-surely he is a man that is ill remembered unfairly.


(Message last edited Dec-11th-02  7:51 AM.)

Ebenezer Scrooge was a "corn merchant", he made himself wealthy by raising the price of food. Worse than a swindling undertaker? The economic situation in America (widespread ownership of land) prevented the nobility or aristocracy from controlling the price of grain. Refer to the "Corn Laws" of England; maybe the current "History Today" in your library?

Andy Borden seems to have been traumatised (right word?) by his youth of poverty (relatively speaking, of course). Trained as a carpenter (making coffins?) he soon learned the real money was to be made not in working hard, but in working other people hard and profiting from their needs and wants. Since he seemed to be the only licensed undertaker (for awhile?) in town, that was a license to steal. Are there laws that prevent moving dead bodies to take advantage of lower rates in other towns? Getting licensed introduces you to the town officials and their wants and needs.

Andy was a "loathsome miser" who swindled widows and orphans. He got the house at 92 Second St by foreclosing on a debt (from that book I read in 1965). Yes, he was good to his family (compared to who else?). Most men today, pretty much let their wives run the household, as long as they stay in budget. Your own experience?

Didn't Uncle John say Abby was due more than a widow's dower because of her thriftiness and faithfulness, compare to Andy's first wife? There is some story here!

According the books read, Abby seems to have been the most "normal" of that family (I have nothing to say against Emma and Lizzie). When her father died, the married Abby gave her fourth of the house to her stepmother. Her stepbrother gave his fourth to his married sister. How very nice!!! But when her stepmom wanted to sell out her half, Abby asked Andy to buy out her stepmom's share so her sister would not be forced out.
Last and not least, Bridget seems to have been on very good terms w/ Abby. And left employment after Abby's death.
Isn't this often true today? A nice lady with a mean husband?

But did you get or expect a wedding gift afterwards?
Yes, it was a nice gesture to his son's fiance. And I'll bet he wasn't poorer afterwards.

[It is NOT a good idea to hide paper money around the house. Fire as well as theft. Ever try convincing the IRS when claiming lost money? With "cold cash" (specie) you can bury it in your garden. Nobody will dig up an entire garden in the vain hope there is money there.

My parents also kept a well stocked pantry of canned goods. They lived thru the depression (couldn't buy - no money) and WW II (couldn't buy - no goods or ration cards). (But if you knew the right people, the black market always had it for cash.) Frugal, not miserly.]

(Message last edited Dec-11th-02  12:01 PM.)

I hadn't thought about Andrew being married to Sarah on Christmas Day, that might indicate as you say, a notable spark of joy in Andrew's personality. The season itself does seem to sparkle even if one is not religious. And the ring Andrew wore of Lizzie's has always been a mark I have taken of some sort of emotional tie with her in particular.

True, people have many sides to their personalities, such as doing kindnesses to some while others never know of them.  And maybe these didn't ever get noted by others in Andrew's case. Knowing such a personality might influence one to not be so hard on others like that.

Perhaps coming from poverty did influence him to go overboard in one direction, and coming from such an atmosphere of material denial he would think water and electricity were luxuries. He definitely did hold to the Protestant work ethic but wonder why he didn't seem to have a will then, if he was so interested in keeping both the sisters and his wife protected after he died, seeing as they didn't get on.

I wonder who really was the cause of the stress in the house, Andrew or the women's own problems with each other separate from their relationship with Andrew? If he did feel powerless at home at least in the ability to make the women get along, that might have made him even more sour or made him block it out and focus on business.

Do men let women run the households?  You ask about my own experience. My experience is that I find men compartmentalize easily and while they may appreciate and even require or prefer women to run the daily household routines, the men do like to keep the overall control through money and their position in society.

It does seem we have more evidence of the women in the house not getting on rather than them not getting on with Andrew. And I cannot resolve these two rather disparate situations as they seem to interrelate.  If Andrew did have a heart of gold or otherwise was a person others liked to be around it bothers me no one in the testimonies said anything positive about him in such a vein that we have proof of. Surely there must be some proof of his generosity and being misjudged over time by history.

To me he wasn't generous by providing only necessary and not even up to date household things. Are we sure he paid for Lizzie's overseas trip? It was, I think, a positive thing that he gave each woman in the house some money each month but that might have been so they wouldn't be bothering him each day for something they needed. I am at a loss really to square a better picture of him with what is known even though I think all the points brought out are valid ones. Am still perplexed. And I do realize that a person, even one who is skin flinty, can be endearing to some people, but it is usually the other person who makes the adjustments and either puts up with, overlooks, or finds something in the other to really appreciate. That says more of the compassion in the other person than the skin flint though, to me. And there is a difference between a person, maybe like Susan's father-in-law, who maybe did have another side to them but didn't show it often0 and one who was just mean and didn't have another side.

What do you think, Kat?  What are your reasons for thinking that Andrew wasn't as negative a character as has been portrayed. 



 

Andrew was hardly Simon Legree.  He supported a household of 5, 2 of which apparently did NOTHING to help.  Didn't beat his wife or his children as far as we know.  Except for lighting and bathrooms (granted, two important items) the house was fairly comfortable and they seemed to have solved the privacy problem by dividing the house.

Just because Lizzie wanted to live on the Hill, what makes us think Andrew would want to?  He was from the wrong side of the Borden tracks. Abby, likewise, brought no claim to upper crust society.  They would have been just as much out of place there as they were on Second Street. Even if Lizzie had got her house there, more than likely she would have been tolerated but not really accepted.

He paid the "girls" an allowance (for what, I don't know) of $4 a week. Sounds small but that's roughly $72 in todays money. Do you get to spend that on yourself each week?  Add to that a trip to Europe for Miss Lizzie, the Ferry street house (worth $5,000 then, $90,000  in today's dollars) a summer house in Swansea, a horse and carriage until he was too old to take care of it anymore.   Not too bad for a scrooge.

As for his business affairs, most of what I have read of him was that he was scrupuously exacting.  Wanted everything due him to the letter of the law.  He was probably no worse or better than most of his contemporaries.  The police could not find anyone with a serious motive to have wanted to kill him.

As Kash says he was, like we all are, not one-dimensional.  His personality was a mixture of his poor origins, his struggle upward and his current living arrangement.  In short, he was not a saint nor a devil.  We should also remember this was 1892, not 2002.

That was a great point Harry, about Lizzie not being
accepted on The Hill, I had never thought about
that before. Knowing she wasn't accepted after the
murders it seems like it makes perfect sense that it was
a combination of looking down on the accused & they
were also looking down on someone not raised in their class.

Rays, my husband and I weren't engaged at the time that this happened, I could have broken up with him and had a car for free.  And yes, we did get a wedding present eventually, the down payment on a new house!  His parents held the title incase the newlyweds screwed up at all.

And I agree about the money about the house, I told them repeatedly that they shouldn't do that, not to mention that they forgot a couple of their hiding places, it just wasn't safe!


Kimberly, I think you hit on something with the class consciousness of the time, did you see the movie, Titanic?  There was mention there on how the bluebloods looked down on the "new money" or nouveau riche.  The Andrew Borden family was definitely new money, they weren't born into it, so, they may have been accepted on the outer fringes of high society, but, not let in entirely.  That must have really chapped Lizzie's hide! 

I think everyone's views have been very fair, balanced and straightforward--each adding a dimension to the man Andrew in their own interesting ways.
Stefani and I have been following this topic but not really entering into the subject, as I think our impressions of Andrew are pretty clear to all who know us...going back a couple of years.

The summation that Andrew was a man of his generation if not so much of his time, seems the bottom line.  According to one newspaper (Rebello, 24), thousands of rich families lived similarly in New England during those times...(and the implication is that those household heads were not murdered.)

So I suppose he wasn't anything so unusual for Victorian 1890's...well maybe somewhat out of date...but those times were changing too fast for the old-timers who, like ... "Mr. Borden was a plain living man with rigid ideas, and very set. ... He earned his money, and he did not care for the things young women in their position naturally would; ... Everybody knew what Andrew Borden's ideas were. ... he did not care for anything different. It always seemed to me as if he did not see why they [Emma and Lizzie] should care for anything different."
(Rebello, 27, cites Alice Inquest 151-2)
About the same in every generational conflict--this cultural gap?

Rebello, 24, gives plenty of different views of the man.
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=8&topid=867

Emma, in her *Interview*, Boston Post, 1913:
"Some unkind persons have spread the report that my father, despite his great wealth, was niggardly and that he refused to even give us sufficient to eat. That is a wicked lie. He was a plain-mannered man, but his table was always laden with the best that the market could afford.' Interview with Emma Borden", Boston Post, April 13, 1913: 25.

--Also see LABVM/L:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/AstrologicalBordens.htm#ajb
...............................................................

--Ray:  Notebook out, pencil ready.  (I love pencils!)  Anyway, here is the scoop on the Gray family....(R. 23)

Oliver Gray, Abby and Priscilla's father, married Jane Eldredge D. (Baker) Gray and they had Sarah (Whitehead).  Oliver died in 1878. 
Jane had two children from a previous marriage, one a boy and one a girl.  Not much is known about the girl.
The boy was named Henry H. Eldredge, and he died of consumption, in So. Dartmouth, Mass., in 1882., aged 32.
He would have been Abby's stepbrother.
The land transaction amongst the Bordens, Grays and Whiteheads took place in May of 1887.
The disposition of the shares of the house on Fourth Street was 1/4 Abby, 1/4 Priscilla, 1/4 Jane, 1/4 Sarah.
This was the normal distribution of widow and three natual daughters.  Henry was a stepson and not involved in the estate..

It was usually the unsinkable & very loud Molly Brown who
was the snubbed, think Lizzie acted like that? With her
"gutteral" voice & flashy new clothes & car & house? Think
she ever knew that she may have been treated the same way
if Andrew & Abby died of old age & she wasn't an accused
murderer? This is a new way to think about it, thanks Harry.

Exactly Harry and Kim. I referred to Lizzie as "nouveau riche" at my slideshow, and imagined the curt answers and sidelong glances she must have received after moving into Maplecroft. Plus, the way in which she became an 'heiress', and the high-falutin' gesture of having the name etched onto the step only furthered her ostracization, I'm sure. Old Yankee money does not easily accept such infamous new kids on the block!

Fifty years ago or so I visited relatives in the county. The old man, born in the 19th century, eschewed electricity. Kerosene lanterns, well water, and a privy were good enough for him and his wife! But not the younger son! These were not rich people.

If a well-paid (?) factory hand earned $10 a week, then Lizzie $4 is equivalent to about $320 a week. I would like to calculate this for you, but I left my slide rule in the basement.

And have YOU replaced all your incandescent bulbs with fluorescents?

(Message last edited Dec-13th-02  3:27 PM.)

Many women, then or now, have lived at home and are not used to budgeting. "Money is for spending" said an aunt of mine. But in other cases its the woman who controls the spending. Its just who has the better sense, and if this is recognized by the spouse. The man who turned over his paycheck to his Mom is likely to do the same thing after marriage. The woman who received an allowance from her Dad is likely to do the same after marriage. Can anyone generalize?

The 1947 English film "Christmas Carol" shows a traditional Christmas day, before the late 19th century commercialization into a buying festival. Thrifty Andy could kill "two birds with one stone" by combining the wedding feast with Christmas!!! Tell me I'm wrong.

(Message last edited Dec-13th-02  3:35 PM.)

You don't need a slide rule Rays.  For at LEAST the 4th time I use the U.S. Government's method of adjusting money value by inflation.  What part of that do you not understand?  Here's how it's done: 

1.  Go to this site.  http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
2.  Enter 4.00 in the first box.
3.  Enter 1892 in the second.
4.  Enter 2001 in the third.

Press submit.

Wow, amazing....it's $75.70.   I have been using the years 1892 to 1999 for my calculations.  It only went to 1999 when I first used this site.


(Message last edited Dec-13th-02  4:10 PM.)

First, that is NOT the official US Govt site for calculating "inflation" (properly, the devaluation of the currency).

The part I don't understand is this: if a factory hand could live on $10 weekly, how can anyone claim $189 is the equivalent? That's only $4.50 an hour!!!  Yes, "what were luxuries are now necessities", but that complain goes back to Roman times. Can any family (even living in a rural area trailer) live on $189 a week? That's why I estimate that $10 weekly would be $400 weekly today.

"A worker is only as good as his tool."

[Since slide rools became obsolete in the mid 1970s, my comments were meant as humor, even if true. Am I the only one with a working 286 in the basement?]

Just estimate the cost of housing, food items, etc. Note that while milk is more expensive than 20 years ago, the NE dairy farmer doesn't get any more per hundredweight than then.

(Message last edited Dec-13th-02  4:31 PM.)

I give up. You win.

The CPI is the official index of the U.S. Dept. of Labor.  I'll write and  tell them they have it all wrong.

Don't you mean that we "agree to disagree"? While that index is the "official" measure, it assumes that 1) it is accurately reflected in that web site; and 2) the index is totally valid and not subject to "official" finagling? Remember about 2 years ago when they revised the measurement by adding in personal computers to lower the rate so: 1) the increase for social security would be less, and 2) the increase for inflation in the income tax exemptions and deductions would be less? Doesn't the govt have a built-in incentive to keep them lower than reality?

Their grandfather's two-family house was sold for $3000 around 1890. Would a similar house go for $150,000 today? That's FIFTY times more.
A $10 weekly wage would be more than $500 today (factory worker).
THAT is how I calculate the difference. Just common sense (as I understand it), not "official statistics". Which may be based on political purposes.

Your serve.

Thanks to you both for the information on the price equalizations between 1892 and now. I guess it doesn't matter to me how each of you came up with the amounts because I am more interested in thinking about the idea that it is easier to give people money, especially for those who have a lot of it, because they don't have to invest anything of themselves in that expense, no need to shop or care about what the person might want, or to care about thinking of their needs. Andrew wasn't the sort to think of the sisters or his wife's needs regarding the living conditions in the house he provided, as long as they fit HIS needs. He could distance himself from them in this way. I am reminded of the humor in remarks made of people with money such as, "Oh, such and such, he or she doesn't care at all about money." They don't have to, they have it. Another point is that Andrew lived in that Second St. house because it was close to HIS business affairs
and he was a plain man.  I think had he wanted to move to The Hill he would have been accepted there.

It is interesting what you bring up about Andrew and thus his family being the nouveau riche of Fall River. From what I understand there are two parts to the class system dealing with snobbery. One is the family name and the other money.  A Borden, even without money, was still acknowledged as society in Fall River, weren't they? That Andrew had money meant that he would have been accepted on the Hill had he chose to live there, because both he and his wife fulfilled that rule as being from the founding fathers stock that they would have been acceptable to the Fall River Hill society. Andrew actually re-newed or won back through hard work his ability to buy property on the Hill, but he always had the social standing being from the founding fathers branch of the city.

I think Andrew did what his limited empathy with women told him to do, yes, he divided up the house for privacy by installing locks. He could have moved, maybe not up to The Hill in a grand mansion, but into a larger house somewhere in between where he was and The Hill, into a home with bathrooms and lighting, but nothing showy, thereby showing some consideration for the females who did not get on in the house together.

I have read that the nouveau rich social classes were people who had no social standing by family name, but had money and thereby bought into society, such as Molly Brown's, etc., and not those people who had family name but not much money. A person rising from nothing to become a baron of the coal, textile or whatever business but who had no family standing were the outcasts in snobbery.

Lizzie and Emma, the two in the house who "apparentlyl did nothing to help," couldn't really do anything to help could they?  They couldn't work for money because of the culture, they had to stay with their father in his house, they were rather circumscribed in their activities.  Should they have died and decrease the surplus population?....just kidding.

Rays, I don't think it is fair to generalize either, but you specifically asked for my experience and I gave it to you regarding the gender control of household and money.

Kat said: "Stefani and I have been following this topic but not really entering into the subject, as I think our impressions of Andrew are pretty clear to all who know us...going back a couple of years."  There are many people, 123 of us now?, many newcomers I am sure on the forum who don't know you nor the specifics of your views on Andrew and would find them interesting. I can always read Rebello and the LBQ for others opinions. If I knew them I wouldn't have asked.

I think talking about this helps jar thinking that has become too polarized, as Harry, I think said, Andrew wasn't a saint or devil. I would just like to see him more as a human being and see if through this discussion he will move a few degrees to the saint side of the pole for me.


 

When I talked to Stefani about this thread, we had already thought our views were pretty well expressed by Susan and Harry, early on.  (Not necessarily excluding others, but those two opinions specifically)
And my view was enhanced again by Harry's next posted opinion #11, and my comment that :  (post 14)

"The summation that Andrew was a man of his generation if not so much of his time, seems the bottom line.  According to one newspaper (Rebello, 24), thousands of rich families lived similarly in New England during those times...(and the implication is that those household heads were not murdered.)

So I suppose he wasn't anything so unusual for Victorian 1890's...well maybe somewhat out of date...but those times were changing too fast for the old-timers who, like ... 'Mr. Borden was a plain living man with rigid ideas, and very set.'."..

I believe that Andrew's reputation needed rehabilitation from the extremes of Legend and a more balanced and fair view of the man has always been called for.  I don't need Rebello to understand that people are 3-dimensional.  If any of my views on Andrew were really important to anyone, there are old threads and plenty of past posts of mine on the subject that someone may research.
I was mainly more interested in reading other's views this time, hopfully seeing this sea-change and well-balanced opinion of Andrew's character in member's thoughts, here.
And as Harry pointed out, and needs re-iterating...This was 1892, not 2002.

As to life on the Hill, I don't think these Bordens would have been accepted.  I think they would be tolerated, and nodded to, on their perambulations about the Hill, taking the air.
But these Bordens, name not-with-standing, were not raised in Society, therefore they would never have *belonged*--even if Andrew bought a new coat and string tie.
The people in Society had a clicque, and one had to be born into it, be invited to the same birthday parties, the same Christenings, the same Cotillions, the same Finishing Schools, the same Engagement parties and Weddings and Whist parties, throughout a person's whole life, in order to *belong*.  A person was born into the group, lived in that group, saw the same people every day for life, and then died.
If having a Brayton nod at one on the street was good enough, then that would be about as accepted as they would get.  Maybe for some, newly rich, that aspired to the neighborhood of the Hill, that was enough.
This was a boom town at some point, and a lot of people made a LOT of money, so *new rich* and *old rich* might not quite be the distinction that one would think.  But just having the name would not be good enough.  Maybe even that 1/4 million (cited as Andrew's fortune) wasn't even considered that much, compared to the really wealthy in Fall River.


(Message last edited Dec-16th-02  3:47 AM.)

I think that had Andrew been so inclined, HE and his family would have been accepted into the Hill society-name and power and all. But Lizzie, after the murders, never stood a chance. Why she didn't move away is, to me, more of a mystery than August 4th.

When you added the caveat, had he been so inclined, do you mean that his personality would have to undergo a complete change whereas he would have had to be sociable and entertain and smile and be friendly to his neighbors?
That is not our Andrew, and I was speaking of our Andrew, warts and all.
It was too late for his family to be accepted on the Hill.  They didn't grow up with the right people.  Lizzie's friends were maiden school teachers and girls who worked for a living.  I think at best they would have been on the fringes, but not anywhere near automatically accepted.

Lizzie seemed to be thought of as a little gauche, like
having Maplecroft on the step. I think a family that
became rich over the years would have felt less at home
with people who had been born rich, than maybe the brash new money
types who go busting into the social whirl. Those seem different
than the hardworking, thrifty Andrew types. I think even
with a name they would have not quite fit in. Lizzie wasn't
really all that snobbish. I guess she was in her own way, but being
a snob & not being snubbed are two different things.

I agree with your assessment, it was more that Lizzie's later situation, accusation of murder, etc., denied her social approval on The Hill once she got there. One of her friends reported later that in the end she was very unhappy possibly because of her decision to stay in Fall River, but at the time she bought Maplecroft she was young and full of anticipation maybe.

It think there is a difference too in "social snobbery" type acceptance and "business snobbery" type acceptance.  Maybe Andrew's personal ways did not allow the sisters to rub elbows and go to parties with the elite elite younger people of Fall River, but his work ethic, business performance, money and holdings and his meetings/knowledge of the town's male controlers put him and his family right up there with The Hill people. And should Andrew have been of the type to have given his daughters the means to access the more "social snobs" of The Hill, I think they would have accepted the women.  The women, most likely, were in control of the "social snobbery" and the men the "business snobbery" and the men had overall control of society in general so with the Borden name and money they would not have prevented his family from associating with them.  It was Andrew who decided not to take part, I think, he was not so inclined.

I hope to have the time, some day, Kat, to pick through all the two years of postings to find your reasons, besides just your view that Andrew was a product of his time, for why he should be thought of in a gentler light. You pretty much stick to your position once taken so I am sure your previous thoughts on the topic will be the same when I find them and not out of date.
 

Do not forget "human nature" in addition to snobbery. IE the fact that people like to look down on others and feel superior to them!!

Michael D Knox "Confessions of an OJ Juror" tells about this in his jury experience. (He was kicked out because he never reported an arrest for kidnapping.) If we were all black, then it would be those w/o glasses against those with; the old against the young; those w/ college against the dropouts, etc. Is this true among the people on this site? Or with their families?

People with inherited wealth look down on the nouveaux riche; the latter on those who lived off their inheritance; both on the poor.
And so it goes!

(Message last edited Dec-16th-02  6:27 PM.)

I have to agree with Carol, that Andrew's wealth, power at the banks and mills, his real estate holdings and stoic personality would have eased the family onto the Hill without much ado. Not to mention the name of Borden, and the fact that they were old Fall River. But what Kat says is true, there's just no way he ever would have moved there. We can only wonder what might have happened if he had-we probably wouldn't be discussing the Bordens at all.. (Lizzie who?)

(Message last edited Dec-17th-02  7:22 AM.)

I have to say I'm feeling a bit *singled out* here. I'm sorry you aren't satisfied with my lesser views on this subject of Andrew's character.
I did explain that it wasn't a topic I had preferred to respond to, at the beginning.
If I had gathered all the info you seem to require and then re-formed my opinion in a concise and deliberate manner, I would probably end up with an article acceptable to the LBQ.
This just was not something I felt I wanted to invest such time in right now.  (Besides my posts do get rather lengthly as it is).
As I did respond a few times, I  don't feel the need to keep repeating myself.
As to my stance or position on certain topics being unchangeable, I would say that sometimers that may be true, but probably a larger amount of time I prefer to be influenced by another's well thought-out argument.  That's why I read books.  To seek influence.  To not stagnate.  To stay open to different interpretations.
So I would hope I am perceived in a kindly light of fellowship and sharing...and not stubborn in my views.  I may be stubborn in not wishing to feel as if I am being put on the spot, so I hope I am in error thinking this.

I'm not requiring any information from anyone, I just thought it would be nice to have your up-to-date input and so asked you for it.  You have said no on this subject, period, so then no it is. Contrary to feeling you were being put on the spot, I was hoping you would have a rather Christmas glow on knowing your views are of particular interest to us all. I promise in the future not to "single you out" specifically for your opinions, I promise on my Lizzie Borden paperweight. 

Anyway, back to the topic, I was wondering to myself how much my relationship with my own father and what kind of person he was, has influenced my thoughts about what kind of person Andrew was really. My father was a WWII veteran, a glider pilot on Utah beach on D-Day who was injured and sent back to Britain on a hospital ship. He closed up after that, came west from New York and became a school teacher.

This has made me wonder if Andrew had any military training, participated in any kind kind of male war activities. This wartime participation seems to have a great influence on men, as Tom Brokaw in his book, The Greatest Generation, has said. But in Andrew's day, with no great wars, perhaps men put all their aggressive needs into business...he succeeded as a warrior and won back the family forture through hard work.

Perhaps this is part of the reason he was so disregarding, it seems, of the emotional side of life and of understanding his women regarding their household's needs, he was so absorbed in this drive. Perhaps, on the other hand he was a real patriot. I wonder how he felt about the country or if he was more provincial and associated mainly with his place in New England? 

He certainly did have an affinity with death being an undertaker.  War has a lot to do with death or the prospect of losing your life at any moment. And I wonder how this itself influenced his personality and choice of job.  Men's jobs are everything to them.  Did he become an undertaker because he had not much interest in live people, did this job present him with a real opportunity to avoid them, on the other hand did this job show his desire to express his concern and compassion for people under stress (the remaining kin)without getting involved personally.  I wonder if he felt he was contributing emotionally to his family and community by being an undertaker, a sort of displaced psychological need to care for people in some way.

Is this a can of worms?       

Thank you for your consideration.
I appreciate your response.

I always considered his undertaking venture the first of many savvy business moves. We're all going to need one someday...like a plumber. Never thought of it as an affinity with death Carol, interesting concept.I bet Dr. Freud, would have had a field day with the Bordens.

Andrew & Wm. Almy opened their furniture business in 1845.  As early as that, they may have dealt in undertaking.  That would include  "selling caskets, renting chairs, furnishing hacks and other supplies needed for wakes and funerals." (R. 53)
One of their earlier ads, though, does not promote this aspect of the business.

Andrew was no stranger to death.
Previous to this career choice and for the rest of his life, those nearest and dearest to him died at an alarming rate.  Alarming to my generation, but maybe more expected than not, in Andrew's day & time:

His grandfather Richard died 1824.....Andrew was 2.
His sister Lurana died              1825....Andrew was 3
His sister Charlotte died           1828....Andrew was 6
His mother Phebe died             1853....Andrew was 31
His sister Phebe Ann died        1855....Andrew was 33
His daughter Alice died              1858....Andrew was 36
His wife Sarah died                     1863....
His President was assassinated 1865
His only nephew George died    1867
His father Abraham died              1882
His step-mother BeBe died         1883
His business partner Almy died  1885

If any of these deaths affected Emma & Lizzie personally, we can only guess.  It's possible that they took their cue from Andrew, as to how they might react.


(Message last edited Dec-18th-02  10:03 AM.)

"His sister Lurana died in 1825-Andrew was 3."  Hunh?  Were there two Luranas? 

Andy was either over aged, or bought a substitute; quite common in those days by the rich. JP Morgan, Teddy Roosevelt's own father, etc.

Compared to the 20th century, death was ever present. Read a book on epidemics (cholera swept thru the world recurrently, etc.). The average American had more to fear from disease than wild animals or native Indians (who, for some unknown reason, were quite put out by having their lands stolen away from them).


(Message last edited Dec-18th-02  6:09 PM.)

If he was the sole undertaker (paying off the town officials to see there was no competition) that was certainly a money-maker!!! Note that he sold out the business once competition came to town.

Could the death of baby sister Alice have meant some sort of attachment by Emma to Alice Russell? Or just a coincidence of popular names of the time?

Actually they set up shop across the street from the current Undertakers, Westgate & Borden, at South Main and Anawan.
Andrew and his partner built a 3-story bldg. for their business.(R. 53)

2 sisters of Andrew were twins:  Charlotte & Lurana.
Our *Lurana* was born one year after the first died. (1826)

Thanks, Kat.  Boy, thats strange, 2 daughters in the same family named the same thing, weird.  Were they trying to give Charlotte back her twin, I wonder?  Poor Charlotte must have felt a great loss, wonder how she dealt with it. 

I don't think this was uncommon back then.
I personally wouldn't ascribe too much *strangeness* to it.
Unless every family who did this was somewhat strange?

Well, when it comes to the Bordens, strange seems to be the name of the game!    I've been wondering since I read this if Charlotte and Lurana #2 became close?  Did Charlotte use her to fill the void left by Lurana #1?  I'm thinking here as a twin and if I lost my brother I wouldn't know what to do, I don't think anyone could fill his shoes, even from my own family.  I would be lost! 

I've been thinking more about this subject of Fall River SOCIETY, and reading a bit more on the subject, as well.

The rich ones on the Hill did have their clicques and their clubs and their Florida vacations.  They also had culture which, more than anything, might be the deciding factor in whether OUR Borden's were ever accepted.
These rich and powerful men had collections, of art or huge library's, and would hire cataloguer's to draw, describe and find provenance, binding and publishing limited copies for friends and family.  They also donated or lent parts of their collections to display.  This was an "IN" thing at the turn of the century, if not before.
They endowed charitable organizations, and had wings of buildings named after them.
Andrew had a WHOLE building named after him, which he had built himself, and was a business venture.  Andrew just wouldn't have fit in Society, nor would he have wanted to.

Also, recall a few months ago how happy we were to find that Lizzie had actually been to  "A" Military Ball!  ONE Ball, that we KNew of!
We envisioned her ONE party and her NEW dress!
That's a long way still from seeing her being accepted on the Hill...
if those Borden's had moved there at Lizzie's age.


(Message last edited Dec-23rd-02  3:47 AM.)

Edward Radin's book (out of print?) tells quite a lot about Lizzie before 8/4/1892. She did seem part of her peer group's activities.
Radin writes her up sympathetically, and not as a terrible person.

Has anyone here ever known a person who was messed up by a tragedy?

Edward Radin's book (out of print?) tells quite a lot about Lizzie before 8/4/1892. She did seem part of her peer group's activities.
Radin writes her up sympathetically, and not as a terrible person.

Has anyone here ever known a person who was messed up by a tragedy?

I also assume or think that the big collections of art etc. were not part of small-town life in Fall River. New York or Chicago or ?

I just read over the link to the Arnold Brown Controversy and copied off this portion of it. In it Brown is answering an inquiry as to his evidence of a William Borden as Andrew's illegitimate son. 

"Secondly, if Mr. David Salvaggio will give me his bonded pledge of confidentiality until such time as the California court relaxes its binding restraining order, I shall happily inundate him with proof of the existence of Andrew Borden's illegitimate, mentally ill son -- chapter, verse, city, county, Commonwealth, and out-of-state vital statistic records, asylum records, church records, and a studio photograph. Yes, David, there was a William S. Borden, and he was LEGALLY established as the illegitimate son of Andrew J. Borden years before the 1892 murders."

On this link Brown also says he had a new book coming out in 1996,or at least finished then on Billy Borden. What happened to this book, was it never published. If this was discussed this summer I missed it.

Brown also goes into more detail on this link fleshing out his original book's premises.  At one point he says that when Uncle John
left the Borden house Andrew asked him back to lunch that day but no one heard Uncle John's answer.  Therefore he says Uncle John was really going from the Borden house back to Fairhaven.  I just read Uncle John's inquest statement and in it he says he told Andrew he would come back for lunch. I wonder why Brown didn't see this in the inquest statements.

If Brown could have established Billy Borden legally as an illegitimate son after his first book came out, why didn't he, because in the first book he didn't do that conclusively?  Was there a court case preventing him from disclosing this?

Who decided on naming Andrew's son, if he really was, Bill? Bill is another word meaning dollar as in dollar bill.  If it was Andrew, then he was keeping to form.





 

"Its a Wonderful Life" was shown on TV this week. In this drama there is a "Banker Potter" who plays an important part.
How does Andrew J Borden compare to "Banker Potter"? Better or worse?