Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Just a couple of things I noticed.
Andrew seems to have bought that Ferry Street homestead several times over!
In Rebello, pg. 28, it seems that in 1854 it was deeded to him from his father Abraham. I thought that further reading brought me the idea that Lurana and Andrew paid Abraham an annuity for life for the property. (?)
Then, in 1883 Andrew inherited 1/3 of Abraham's estate giving him $1960.00, and also Lurana. Then Lurana sold her share of the Ferry Street property to her brother Andrew, which occasioned the split between Hiram and Andrew over that outstanding water tax.
Then, in 1887, Andrew gives that same house to Emma and Lizzie, and then buys it back again in 1892.

So, by calculation, how much money did he lose on that Ferry Street house- how many times did he have to buy it?
It might be he bought that house 1 & 1/2 times! If not 2 times. And bought 1/2 the Fourth Street house.

I'm surprised Andrew didn't kill all the women in his life!

Remember: add into his expenses, the 1/2 a house he bought for Abby's 1/2 sister in 1887... I'm not sure what he paid, but in Rebello, pg. 278, it was attributed to Abby as being worth $2,000.

All this money should be multiplied by 18, by the way.
I figure over time he must have given away (thru houses) 1/10 of his fortune- to the women in his life. That must have been very hard for him to do, don't you think?

Kat @ Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:24 am wrote:Just a couple of things I noticed.
Andrew seems to have bought that Ferry Street homestead several times over!
In Rebello, pg. 28, it seems that in 1854 it was deeded to him from his father Abraham. I thought that further reading brought me the idea that Lurana and Andrew paid Abraham an annuity for life for the property. (?)
Then, in 1883 Andrew inherited 1/3 of Abraham's estate giving him $1960.00, and also Lurana. Then Lurana sold her share of the Ferry Street property to her brother Andrew, which occasioned the split between Hiram and Andrew over that outstanding water tax.
Then, in 1887, Andrew gives that same house to Emma and Lizzie, and then buys it back again in 1892.

So, by calculation, how much money did he lose on that Ferry Street house- how many times did he have to buy it?
It might be he bought that house 1 & 1/2 times! If not 2 times. And bought 1/2 the Fourth Street house.

I'm surprised Andrew didn't kill all the women in his life!

Remember: add into his expenses, the 1/2 a house he bought for Abby's 1/2 sister in 1887... I'm not sure what he paid, but in Rebello, pg. 278, it was attributed to Abby as being worth $2,000.

All this money should be multiplied by 18, by the way.
I figure over time he must have given away (thru houses) 1/10 of his fortune- to the women in his life. That must have been very hard for him to do, don't you think?

I'm not so sure I feel sorry for poor Andrew having to buy the Ferry Street house that many times. The house for Abby's sister was more or less a gift. Even $2,000 doesn't seem like much money to me when you consider how much Andrew was actually worth. But he was collecting rents on the Ferry Street house so I'm thinking that would've lessened the strain on his expenses of buying the house. He would've regained some of the money he spent on it through payment of rent. We can't be sure how much rent he received each month for who knows how long or from how many tenants. But any rent would go towards paying back what he paid for the house.

I can't really think of Andrew as "poor Andrew" (except for the fact that he was murdered) because of the things we've read about him and the general reputation he had around town at that time. I remember reading that someone said right after he heard about the murder that he wasn't surprised it didn't happen sooner (or something to that effect), so it appears Andrew wouldn't have won any man of the year awards. I think his treatment of people and his rigid ways certainly were the cause of his death. Someone unstable to start with was hurt enough by him to want to strike back. With his rigid, parsimonious, humorless demeanor to deal with, Lizzie may have well considered herself totally justified in committing the deed. Can you imagine living under the roof and being totally dependant on someone like that with no end in sight? And then possibly having him support the one woman who you hate and think is after your entire future? She may have visualized having to live under his judgmental thumb for many more years and then, after he died, being subject to Abby who now held the purse strings. If she died, then wouldn't the money go to whomever she wanted, which would have probably been her own family? Lizzie knew this would be the victorious revenge Abby could have had against the two girls who made her such an outcast during her time with them earlier.

Kat may be onto something here!
Andrew's life was completely dominated by women at home. His only male relationships seem to be in his business world. except for the occassional visit from Uncle John Morse and that may have been partially business. Perhaps that is what contributed to his sour demeanor. Pure self-defense against the feminism in his life. The world of finance was still dominated by men and it may have been the one place he felt in control. (I know I will win a few men on the list with that one!)

Gramma

This is only my opinion but, if Andrew didn't have male friends it's because he didn't want any. He does not strike me as the social type.

I have a lot of doubts about Andrew being dominated by women. It seems to me he was the one in charge. It was his choice to live in that house and that's where they all lived. It was his choice not to have lights or toliets and as a result that's again how they all lived. I don't think there's any evidence that Lizzie or Emma were what we today would call being a feminist. Lizzie did want some things but, as I've said before I really don't think she was out of line with what she asked for. She wanted to travel and I understand that since I love to travel. She wanted a nicer home but it doesn't look like she was demanding a castle or something along the lines of a du Pont estate. She just wanted a nicer home and he could afford it.

Did Andrew ever offer to send Lizzie on to college? Did he encourage her to think about a career or did he nip all of those thoughts in the bud and that explains why she dropped out of high school? If Lizzie had so much power why couldn't she get Andrew to buy Maplecroft and give it to her and Emma thus getting them both out of the house? Could Andrew have moved both women into Maplecroft and set them both up with a few things to make them happy? Seems like he had the money and he and Abby weren't using a lot of it. Seems to me he liked them both under his thumb.

"Poor" Andrew can mean a couple of different things- one being that if he was obsessed with money, spending all that could have influenced him to be harder and more withdrawn from the womenfolk.
(Abby,Emma,Lizzie,Lurana,Mrs. Whitehead).
I see a lot of demands being made on his purse by dependents. If he argued back for a year before giving in, for instance, that could really sour him- lead to resentments - if he was ungenerous, it really could have rankled for him to feel like he had to give in- rather than being indulgent of his own free will.
"Poor" Andrew can mean he felt poor- because of the expense.

Isn't it somewhere written that he really thought he was poor? If he had alot of money, yet never felt rich, maybe he was OCD? That could be why he seemed controlling. All these traits may have been very hard to live with!

In those times, women did not get set up in their own households by their father.
Another flaw in those girls tho might be a feeling of entitlement. They weren't entitled to anything. They were their father's property.

What you just said about dependents, Kat, struck a nerve and made me wonder; could Andrew have viewed the women in his house as such and was stingy with his money because he wanted to make sure that they would all be well taken care of in the event of his demise? Yes, he left a small fortune that split three ways would have left each woman more than comfortable, but, being a man of business could he have had the forethought about things like inflation that might affect what he left to them? Just a thought.

The problem with "poor Andrew" is the world was changing around him and he wasn't. Yes, Lizzie and Emma were making "demands" women in general were starting too. By the end of the 1890s, there were women doctors, lawyers and journalists. One of my favorites was Julia Morgan who was the first woman to graduate from Berkeley with a degree in Civil Engineering. Later, she studied in Paris. She's most famous for having been the architect of Hearst Castle. Now, I would assume it was her father who helped pay for her education that later helped her do these things. So, some men were getting it.

Now, about those "demands." Were Lizzie and Emma being unreasonable? From what I've read the answer is no. Andrew could have bought a bigger home and a nicer home. Other men made that choice. In the book the Devil In The White City, architect Burnham moved his wife and kids out of Chicago and into the suburbs. He bought an old farmhouse that had sixteen rooms and land that went clear to a nice lake. Why? Because of his children. Andrew could have made life a bit easier for his family and he chose not to. Was it Alice Russell that said something about him not being able to "appreciate" girls? Even Alice saw it.

Susan @ Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:30 pm wrote:What you just said about dependents, Kat, struck a nerve and made me wonder; could Andrew have viewed the women in his house as such and was stingy with his money because he wanted to make sure that they would all be well taken care of in the event of his demise? Yes, he left a small fortune that split three ways would have left each woman more than comfortable, but, being a man of business could he have had the forethought about things like inflation that might affect what he left to them? Just a thought.

Actually, there is an interview about Andrew by a contemporary (in the paper) where he states that a lease/sale deal fell through with Andrew exactly because the leasee wanted to own any modifications they would make to a Borden property, yet Andrew's terms were that he himself finally own the place after a certain period of time. I think I got that correct, in essence?
The point was made that he was planning for the future, and to further his estate holdings even after death.

The thing about "PooR" Andrew is he was born pretty close to the previous century-- the latter 1700's were what formed him, and he was of Quaker stock where living simply was its own reward. I admit he was a contradiction, but he was master of his domain, and society could not fault him if he was dictatorial. Changing times had not quite made it to 1890's Fall River. He had every right to expect to be unchallanged.

I meant to mention that as I read all these fancy bio's on big-named men of the era, the thing they had attributed to their names, that Andrew had not, was charitable donations and endowments. These guys who made their big names were lauded as somewhat philanthropic, whereas Andrew didn't seem to have contributed anything back to his community that we know of. (Except for a good rent rate to the WCTU once his building was erected).
Anyone know of any charities he was involved with? At the last, seems Morse is saying Andrew thought about giving some Swansea property to an old ladies home. Maybe he was just beginning to think about his legacy?

Quote from Kat: "I can't really think of Andrew as 'poor andrew' (except for the fact he was murdered) becaus of the things we've read about hime. I remember reading that someone said right after he heard about the murder that he wasn't surprised it didn't happen sooner (or something to that effect), so it appears Andrew wouldn't have won any man of the year award"

I have to agree with that.Because I remember reading something to the effect of that many townspeople didn't like him but respected him. I also think he was the one pulling the purse strings. He was just a nasty piece of work from everything that I have read about him. Quite the businessman, just not well liked.

So I have a hard time thinking of him as poor Andrew, too.

There is one other reason that "poor andrew" may not have wanted to move.
The section of the city where they lived was ancestral ground. I think Andrew carried the cloud of his father being ostracized and left behind by some more successful family members. I think he saw ita as his duty to regain family status and part of that to him may have been to preserve ancestral ground for his descendants. I am sure he did not like the decline of the neighborhood he saw coming as it became more and more central urban with all the problems that brings. Unlike the others, who decided to move out, his intention may have been to retain possession to protect it. Now I realize that may not have been the wisest course to follow but it still may have been the way his mind was working. Something like "I will not be driven off land my family has owned almost forever." "If it takes everything I have it will be Borden land forever"

Well, he did succeed in that and it took everything he had!

Gramma

not trying to "monitor" -- but before an unnecessary "convolution" occurs -- that quote above by snokkums, attributed to Kat, Actually In Fact Originated from Angel. i'm not complaining about a post or telling anyone how to post. but i've become mystified by who said what due to this type of thing -- therefore, Before this simple error becomes duplicated further by further quoting, i'm pointing it out now. is this clear?

you see, you'd have to go back to the beginning of the thread to understand....oh, hell, nevermind -- whatever.

Thanks, eugene ... I'm with you.

I'm sure we'd all agree that this particular error was unintentional -- but just because so much of our investigation is based on a 'consider the source' maxim -- any incorrectly attributed quote has the potential to create problems and deserves to be noted.

Andrew may have thought about planning for the furture but, it doesn't look like he really did anything about it. Even though he was 70 years old he still had not sat down and taken the time to write out a will and make sure that there wouldn't be a free for all after his death. If he had died of natural causes how much of his estate would have gone to Lizzie and Emma? How much control would Abby have had over his estate? Could Abby be trusted to divide Andrew's estate fairly or would she have taken care of her stepsister first?

Same thing goes for charity. All I'm hearing is he was going to do something but, he never did it.

Even people at the time noticed how cheap Andrew was. This isn't just a case of people today looking at him and thinking him rather mean. People back then did to. Emma in her inteview in 1913, talked about how people viewed him. So, his behavior did stand out.

Finally, I don't think Andrew had a "right" to think he was going to go unchallenged in his home. Women through out history would and did stand up to their fathers. They didn't all roll over and play dead. Lizzie was not the first one to do it. I'm sure many homes had more than one family fight.

there was a thing today on tv about "emotional abuse", they had women on telling of their situations. Men were mean and insensitive to them.
Boo Hoo, get over it, back in 1892 it was just the
norm. I'm sure ugly ol Andrew was mean and
demeaning to the women in his home.

Kat @ Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:26 am wrote:[Actually, there is an interview about Andrew by a contemporary (in the paper) where he states that a lease/sale deal fell through with Andrew exactly because the leasee wanted to own any modifications they would make to a Borden property, yet Andrew's terms were that he himself finally own the place after a certain period of time. I think I got that correct, in essence?
The point was made that he was planning for the future, and to further his estate holdings even after death.

The thing about "PooR" Andrew is he was born pretty close to the previous century-- the latter 1700's were what formed him, and he was of Quaker stock where living simply was its own reward. I admit he was a contradiction, but he was master of his domain, and society could not fault him if he was dictatorial. Changing times had not quite made it to 1890's Fall River. He had every right to expect to be unchallanged.

Thanks, Kat. So, there was thought of the future for his family, unless he was planning on leaving some of his estate to others.

I can easily see why Andrew wouldn't live high on the hog and possibly why he wouldn't give in to all the girl's demands. People are creatures of habit, they don't like change. The Bordens lived in that house on Second Street for many years, Andrew could walk to his meetings and such. He knew the ins and outs of that house, its good points and bad. Moving to a new house at his age would have probably shaken him to his Quaker roots.

I think Andrew may have been afraid to let the women in his house have too free a hand with his money for fear that they might fritter away the fortune it took him years to accumulate. And, he may have felt that his not being in charge of his money and household would possibly emasculate him in the eyes of an 1890s male dominated society.

Thanks you guys! snokkums tried to quote without using the quote feature (Which I asked her to try to refrain from using) and somehow it got mixed up again. At least we are all paying attention.

To be accused of sounding like a broken record, I had posted a pretty extensive review of the estate laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the Boston Globe recently which explains the distribution of property with no will.
It's possible, if Andrew knew somewhat the laws, he took no exception to the state's distribution and so made no will. Technically, he only needed a will if he wanted to be specific.
It's not necessarily an error on his part.
He had once had a will- back when he was in partnership with Almy. That kind of thing is a standard business arrangement. He got rid of it apparently, when he retired. So he had dealt with these instuments before. I think it's an assumption he was remiss and that his intentions were other than what was inherited under the law.

- a link to the transcription:

viewtopic.php?t=1352&start=0

Susan, you have good instincts. Here is the source I was explaining:

Rebello, page 26:

"Anecdote of Andrew J. Borden," New Bedford Evening Standard, Saturday, August 13, 1892: 1.

"Did you know Andrew J. Borden? Not intimately, but I know he was a close-fisted business man. Here's an incident: As one of the committee of the Knights of Pythias, I called upon him to see about leasing his lot on Main and Anawan Streets where his big block now stands ... He said he would lease the lot for a term of 20 to 50 years on a sliding scale of its assessed valuation, asking nothing but 6 per cent on that amount. That struck us as very favorable; then he added as the condition that we build a structure costing no less than $65,000. That was all right. Then he added that at the end of the lease the building should belong to the estate.

That knocked the whole thing. But you see how careful he was on behalf of his heirs, for he must have been dead at the expiration of the lease by thirty years at least, living his allotted time. We wanted him to provide for the sale to the estate at a figure to be fixed by judges, but he had said his way and would hear nothing else. This is an incident fairly illustrative of Andrew J. Borden's character. He is well-known to have been a hard businessman, and I do not know that his treatment of his daughters was such as to furnish a possible motive for such a deed as this."

------

Also, I have read that when Andrew did give stock to the girls, they turned around and sold it too soon and it lost like half it's value.
BUT- then today I read that some stock he gave them was not worth much to begin with. I don't know if this is the same stock situation described. Interpretation depends on a lot of things.
However, any money those girls had was Andrew's.

Finally, I don't think Andrew had a "right" to think he was going to go unchallenged in his home.

--DWilly

I'm referring to legal rights under the law. Not moral or ethical imperatives. The more one studies the time period, the more one realizes that it is very hard for us, as moderns, to get inside the heads of these 19th century characters.

Kat @ Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:55 am wrote:

Finally, I don't think Andrew had a "right" to think he was going to go unchallenged in his home.

--DWilly

I'm referring to legal rights under the law. Not moral or ethical imperatives. The more one studies the time period, the more one realizes that it is very hard for us, as moderns, to get inside the heads of these 19th century characters.

In a court of law Andrew could have expected not to be challenged by his mere daughters. His "property" as you pointed out but, at home he did not enjoy that right. This was Fall River not Rome and women had been challenging men at home for years. Back during the American Revolution Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John telling him to " remember the ladies." That of course expressed her disagreement with the men folk on women's rights to vote. So, Andrew had no right to think he had an "entitlement" to a peaceful home. To quote Nancie, boo hoo Andrew.


As for blaming Andrew on his attitudes well, people were starting to question how things were run and Andrew again had no right to think that wasn't going to happen in his own home. To bad if he wasn't ready for it. Again, boo hoo Andrew.

Now, let's keep in mind that Andrew chose to get married and have a family. He didn't have to. If he didn't want daughters he shouldn't have gotten married. He took on the responsibility. Granted, he probably wanted a son but hey, life didn't promise him one. So again, boo hoo Andrew. He had daughters so he was stuck with them. And keep in mind, if they were overly dependent on his money it's because men like him KEPT women dependent.

Finally, I still think Andrew contributed in many ways to the problems in his household. I still haven't seen any proof he tried to set things up for his family in case he died. Even though he was 70 years old. Could it be he couldn't stand the thought of others having control of his "money?"

DWilly @ Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:15 pm wrote:

Kat @ Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:55 am wrote:

Finally, I don't think Andrew had a "right" to think he was going to go unchallenged in his home.

--DWilly

I'm referring to legal rights under the law. Not moral or ethical imperatives. The more one studies the time period, the more one realizes that it is very hard for us, as moderns, to get inside the heads of these 19th century characters.

In a court of law Andrew could have expected not to be challenged by his mere daughters. His "property" as you pointed out but, at home he did not enjoy that right. This was Fall River not Rome and women had been challenging men at home for years. Back during the American Revolution Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John telling him to " remember the ladies." That of course expressed her disagreement with the men folk on women's rights to vote. So, Andrew had no right to think he had an "entitlement" to a peaceful home. To quote Nancie, boo hoo Andrew.


As for blaming Andrew on his attitudes well, people were starting to question how things were run and Andrew again had no right to think that wasn't going to happen in his own home. To bad if he wasn't ready for it. Again, boo hoo Andrew.

Now, let's keep in mind that Andrew chose to get married and have a family. He didn't have to. If he didn't want daughters he shouldn't have gotten married. He took on the responsibility. Granted, he probably wanted a son but hey, life didn't promise him one. So again, boo hoo Andrew. He had daughters so he was stuck with them. And keep in mind, if they were overly dependent on his money it's because men like him KEPT women dependent.

Finally, I still think Andrew contributed in many ways to the problems in his household. I still haven't seen any proof he tried to set things up for his family in case he died. Even though he was 70 years old. Could it be he couldn't stand the thought of others having control of his "money?"

Maybe it's possible that he did not talk of making a will, but had made one and never mentioned it to either Lizzie or Emma. I can see why he wouldn't want to bring it up if he had. I think talk of a will and distribution of his assets after his death would've made that house a war zone. This would be especially true since Andrew was a man who made up his mind and was not easily swayed from his path. Look at what happened with the half house put into Abby's name. The girls stopped taking meals with the elder Borden's, Lizzie stopped calling her mother, she was heard to call her a "mean old thing" all over one half of a house. That was probably minor compared to the head aches he would expect to suffer from trying to make a will and divide up everything. I'm sure he knew that would get Emma and Lizzie even more riled up, especially with Abby.

I think even talking about making a will and leaving anything to Abby could've precipitated the murders. Lizzie might have believed he was going to leave Abby more than her fair share. In my opinion, Abby did not have a fair share in their eyes, so anything Andrew 'threatened' to leave her would've been met with opposition.

I think Lizzie and Emma's hatred of Abby, and need to do things just to spite her, played a role in Andrew either not making a will, or not telling them he did. These are some of the comments in The Witness Statements which describe what the atmosphere of that household was already like.



The Witness Statements page 10-11:

Elle M Gifford. no 38 Franklin Street. " I know nothing personally of the domestic relations of the Borden family; but I have heard much rumor to the effect that they did not get along very pleasantly."

Mrs. Perry Gifford. " We do sewing for the Borden family. I have heard Lizzie say harsh things of her stepmother. She said she did not and would not dine at the same table. She also said she ( Her step-mother) was a horrid old thing. she was very pronounced and out-spoken when referring to Mrs. Borden. This occured last April."

Miss Ida Gray, No. 27 Whipple Street. Last Friday evening Aug. 5, while on the horse car, two ladies were talking of Lizzie Borden. One remarked that Lizzie said, when referring to Mrs. Borden, that " she was one of the kind that never die." Who the ladies were, she did not know.
All this from these three ladies was given very reluctantly, and not until they were forced quite hard.

Hiram Harrington. " When the perpetrator of this foul deed is found, it will be one of the household. I had a long talk with Lizzie yesterday, Thursday, the day of the murder, and I am not at all satisfied with statements or demeanor. She was too solicitous about his comfort, and showed a side of character I never knew or even suspected her to possess. She helped him off with one coat and on with another, and assisted him in an easy incline on the sofa, and desired to place an afghan over him, and also to adjust the shutters so the light would not disturb his slumber. This is something she could not do, even if she felt; and no one who knows her, could be made believe it. She is very strong willed, and will fight for what she considers her rights......"

page 12-13:

We then went to Mrs. Geo. Whitehead, on Fourth Street. She said "this property was owned in part by me and my mother. My mother wished to dispose of her interest. I could not purchase it, and did not want to sell ; so in order that I might keep my place, Mrs. Borden, my step sister, bought the other interest. This the girls did not like; they showed their feeling on the street by not recognizing me. Lizzie did not like Mrs. Borden."

page 17:

Harrington. Visited Mrs. Jane Gray, Mrs. Borden's step mother. Her statement. "Things were not as pleasant at the Borden house as they might be. That is the reason I did not call at the Borden house as often as I would have liked to. I told Mrs. Borden I would not change places with her for all her money. What I know about them is all hearsay. Mrs. Borden was a very close mouthed woman. She would bear a great deal, and say nothing. She told me she and the girls were allowed an equal montly allowance, but they had more out of it than I for I had to furnish the table coverings, towelling, and other small things for the house out of mine."


Page 18:

Sunday 21. Summoning witnesses, Bestcome A. Chase and wife of 199 Second Street. Their Statement. Understood from general talk the girls and Mrs. Borden did not get along very pleasantly. Never heard Mrs. Borden say anything about the family relations. Her allowance was about $200. a year; but much of it was spent on articles for the house. The lace curtains in the parlour she purchased. The girls got the same amount as she, but it was for their own use. A short time ago Mrs. Borden, for the first time, told me of the robbery, which took place about a year ago. She simply mentioned it, and said she would tell me about it some other time.

page 31:

Fall River, August 8, 1892.

Paid a visit to Mrs. Cyrus W. Tripp at her home in Westport on August 7, 1892. In reply to my questions she made the following statement. " Lizzie told me she thought her stepmother was deceitful, being one thing to her face, and another to her back. Lizzie told me her stepmother claimed not to have any influence with her father. But she must have influence with her father, or he would never have given my stepmother's half sister such a very large sum of money. She said, I do not know that my sister or I would get anything in the event of my father's death. This conversation took place at different times during our former visits; nothing being said on her visit of July 26th.

Thanks for all the transcriptions, Allen!
It's always interesting to collect like things with like and put them in one place!

I am not personally using the appellation of "poor" to describe Andrew, as always to mean *oh the poor guy- what he had to put up with!* I am using it in several ways, which I hope is clear.
My next intent is to show how Andrew thought of himself as literally poor.
Explanations and interpretations can all lead to possible motive, in my mind.

Rebello, pg. 124:

"A New Bedford Relative's Opinion of the Borden Murder," Fall River Daily Globe, Thursday, August 18, 1892: 7.

"The wife of Oliver E. Gifford of this city [New Bedford], and Andrew J. Borden's first wife, were cousins. Mr. Gifford is the New Bedford man who called at the Borden house on the day following the murder, but the name appeared in all of the newspapers as 'Fish.'

Mr. Gifford was interviewed for the first time by a Mercury reporter. He said at the time of his call, which was on the noon after the murder, the officer at the door challenged him when Emma came to the door; 'I'm so glad to see you Oliver', she said and he went in. At that time, Mr. Gifford said that the family did not dream that suspicion pointed at Lizzie as they had not read a newspaper. ... Mr. Gifford said Mr. Borden was tight fisted to that degree that it had become almost a mania. He recently sustained losses in his real estate transactions, and he seemed to regard himself as a poor man."

"Have you any theory of the crime? asked the reporter. I think it was the work of a woman, said Mr. Gifford. I saw the wounds, and the larger number of little cuts didn't look like a man's act."

Kat @ Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:21 pm wrote:Thanks for all the transcriptions, Allen!
It's always interesting to collect like things with like and put them in one place!

I am not personally using the appellation of "poor" to describe Andrew, as always to mean *oh the poor guy- what he had to put up with!* I am using it in several ways, which I hope is clear.
My next intent is to show how Andrew thought of himself as literally poor.
Explanations and interpretations can all lead to possible motive, in my mind.

Rebello, pg. 124:

"A New Bedford Relative's Opinion of the Borden Murder," Fall River Daily Globe, Thursday, August 18, 1892: 7.

"The wife of Oliver E. Gifford of this city [New Bedford], and Andrew J. Borden's first wife, were cousins. Mr. Gifford is the New Bedford man who called at the Borden house on the day following the murder, but the name appeared in all of the newspapers as 'Fish.'

Mr. Gifford was interviewed for the first time by a Mercury reporter. He said at the time of his call, which was on the noon after the murder, the officer at the door challenged him when Emma came to the door; 'I'm so glad to see you Oliver', she said and he went in. At that time, Mr. Gifford said that the family did not dream that suspicion pointed at Lizzie as they had not read a newspaper. ... Mr. Gifford said Mr. Borden was tight fisted to that degree that it had become almost a mania. He recently sustained losses in his real estate transactions, and he seemed to regard himself as a poor man."

"Have you any theory of the crime? asked the reporter. I think it was the work of a woman, said Mr. Gifford. I saw the wounds, and the larger number of little cuts didn't look like a man's act."

One incident involving Andrew that has always stood out for me was when Abby went to see Dr. Bowen the day before the murder. She was sick and scared. Instead of being concerned about her all Andrew cared about was Dr. Bowen's bill. Which of course Andrew didn't want to pay. Looking at his behavior I do think he set into motion much of the turmoil that broke out. Those women were unhappy and they weren't going to just take it. Things were bound to boil over. Andrew could have done a few things but he chose not to.

Yes, thank you for all that, Melissa! That was alot of work.


Interesting article, Kat. I wonder what all these real estate transactions were? Was the Ferry Street house included in all that, or was that just small potatoes compared with the other land holdings Andrew had at the time? That is something that his parsimonious ways were almost a mania with him, I wonder what prompted it? I have noticed this trend in the past when I worked as a waitress, the more wealthy that the patrons appeared to be, the cheaper the tip left after the meal. While the best tippers tended to be the regular 9 to 5 people. There seems to be an obsession with seving every cent possible while there may be millions sitting in the bank, I don't get it?

Or hows this for an example; my late husband's aunt had married into money, she could purchase the stores that she frequented if she wished. But, she would play these weird little games, she would round up a few neighborhood kids and bring them with her to a store she wanted to shop at right around closing time. She would let the children go wild in the store while she haggled with the salesclerk on the prices of garments. All this to say get $10 dollars off a $100 dollar garment. I don't get it.

I agree with Kat. I think it is very hard for modern people to get into the mindset of an Andrew Borden.

He was from a prominent family, but his father had lost their money. The kind of stigma poverty leaves does not fade with time. As people grow older, they tend to reflect more on the past. Andrew had poverty in his.

Also, these "old families" came from Puritan stock--no dancing, singing. laughter, etc. No frivolous dress. Think Amish with no sense of humor who come to settle a "new continent" which only had savages (mindset of the day--not mine). These were not fun people.

Also, they were very inbred by today's standard. Brothers of one family marrying sisters of another. Brother marrying his brother's widown They shared this same frugal, austere, intolerant mindset for years.

New England today is not the New England of my childhood. Neighbors tipped their hats to one another but did not visit. People only married within their own faith and social set. They were just "polite" to others. Words used for New Englanders when I was growing up in the 1950s were cold, reserved, austere.

As an example, I served on several boards of local organizations with a woman from a "good, old family." She recently passed away and left millions to charity. I remember her wearing the same navy blue Pendleton suit for at least 20 years. She had a favorite pair of Papagallo flats (when Papagallo was considered an exclusive brand and people here had to go to Providence to buy them). They probably cost $100 in their day, which was a fortune for shoes then. But she wore them daily for 20-odd years. I can remember her, on one rare occasion, crossing her legs (not ladylike). She had cardboard stuffed across holes in the soles, when cobblers would repair soles for about $1.75.

Even in the Kennedy family, our former President was known never to carry money from his early days. When his business friends stopped for coffee, they would have to pay for his.

Money here was power. If you wanted power, you made money and kept it. You did not spend it. Ever.

These people would be horrified by phrases like "discretionary income" and the self-indulgence of people today. Life to the people was spare and sparse. The fact life was hard was taken for granted, and they did nothing to make life easier.
God was hell-fire and brimstone, and you were on earth to pay for mankind's sins.

Andrew Borden was not very different from the people I grew up around. Their attitudes rub off. Sometimes I fault myself for not being more frugal and spending money just to enjoy myself. This was not done!

I think he didn't set things up for his daughters and his family was because he didn't want them controling his money. In the end the daughters got everything and controled his money. Ha Ha Andrew.

Abby would have gotten a life interest which means after she died it would revert to the girls anyway.
Andrew may not have minded this distribution. A will may not have been something he needed. This is a Commonwealth situation and the estate and inheritance laws were not what you'd think, nor were they simple.

It's conceivable that by purposely avoidng making a will, Andrew hoped to not be held accountable to his womenfolk while he was alive.

There was some evidence I believe, or at least talk, that there was an inventory started in Abby's handwriting.
That could mean a couple of things.
It could mean that Andrew wanted an inventory prior to deciding if he thought he needed a will at all- or it could mean that he was making it so that, without a will, his administerer (Emma) would have an easier time settling his assests and debts.
Or it could mean that Abby was getting info about his holdings behind Andrew's back- but I think his business cronies would have leaked that info to him.
Or it could be just a rumor.
Or Andrew could have been taking inventory for a will.
As I say, tho, Commonwealth laws are different than other states. In my personal experience the executor or administerer makes the inventory, after the death. It seems logically that while a person is alive an inventory would not ever be finished- it would still be theoretically in flux because it could change drastically at any moment.

Of all the characters involved in this question of inheritance without a will, somehow I think it would be Abby and her family who would not be conversant with the laws. Just my opinion on Abby.

Kat,
You are right about the intestate laws in Massachusetts. It may well be he deliberately did not make a will. It is also possible he was superstitious about it. Many, my parents age and older, would not make a will as it meant they were about to die. Even my father was this way and it took great persuation to get him to do one for my mother before he had a heart by-pass operation.
My mother had to tell him she wasn't going to be left at the mercy of the state if something happened. Looking at it that way convinced him to do something about it.
Cynthia is so very right about the mindset of the older generations in Fall River. It is impossible to apply today's way of thinking to then because they just didn't view things the same way.

Gramma

I realize that Andrew came from a whole different generation and in his mind he may have felt he had his reason. I got that. What I'm looking at is how Lizzie and the other woman reacted to it. They all seemed pretty unhappy. Abby is grossly over weight and Lizzie and Emma weren't speaking (at least much) or eating with either Abby or Andrew. These are signs of unhappy people. What was going through Lizzie's mind? She was worried about there being no will. Lizzie told one of her friends that Abby was "one of the kind that never die." Bet Lizzie was thrilled thinking Abby would have a life time say in Andrew's estate. Mrs. Tripp talked about how Lizzie feared she'd end up with nothing. Lizzie talked about not trusting Abby etc. In everyone's rush to explain or justify Andrew you haven't been looking at how Lizzie and the other women and how they felt. You have explained Andrew but not how his ways may very well have produced the tensions in that home that eventually created, "The House Of Hate."

Here again is a quote from Mrs. Gray that Allen posted:

page 17:

Harrington. Visited Mrs. Jane Gray, Mrs. Borden's step mother. Her statement. "Things were not as pleasant at the Borden house as they might be. That is the reason I did not call at the Borden house as often as I would have liked to. I told Mrs. Borden I would not change places with her for all her money.


Ok, so we all understand "poor Andrew" now but ,we're still left with the fact life was miserable in that home.

This was true in many households. And there were many very unhappy people who viewed their state as their "lot in life" or their "cross to bear". As much as I believe Lizzie was a Victorian lady in many ways I also believe she was a part of a fast changing society and I do not see her bearing crosses willingly, without resentment (although she certainly ended up having to do that very thing!), or putting up with any lots in life she did not purchase for her own enjoyment (or was that for her own protection?).

Gramma

This topic was examing Andrew mainly and how he felt and what might have motivated him- what formed him. I mentioned that if he had money yet still felt poor, etc. the point being he might himself have had OCD or beginning senility. It's accepted also maybe he was hard to live with.

The women's story has been covered before.
I didn't really intend this topic to be finding Andrew's faults.
We've actually pretty much stayed on topic for a change leaving out the women's reactions to living with Andrew.

I think they are what we call today a desyfuntional family.
Surprised that there wasn't any drinking or incest going on. Everything else was going wrong in that family.

Mother always wondered what was in the small package Andrew put on the mantel! Something from East India trade ships perhaps?

Gramma

In "Poor Andrew", Kat posted:

Mr. Gifford said Mr. Borden was tight fisted to that degree that it had become almost a mania. He recently sustained losses in his real estate transactions, and he seemed to regard himself as a poor man

.

From Mr. Borden's personal real estate, it is unclear what these "recently sustained losses" were. It has occurred to me that he hoped to influence the Investment Committee of the bank to make certain purchases from which he could later benefit personally.

I always wondered if the Ferry Street property he gave to the girls and then purchased back wasn't part of the deal. Like many politicians who transfer properties to a trust while they are in office, Andrew may have given this property to his daughters to make peace but also to make a profit for them and a bigger profit for himself.

It's hard to picture what Ferry Street was like, filled with tenements, in 1892. Today, it is a divided, isolated street cut by highways.



The upper part of the street is still tenements, but bordered by a highway ramp.


It dead-ends at the gymnasium behind the Doran School:


It is divided from the other part of Ferry Street (where the Borden homestead was located) by Rt. 138 and on and off ramps to I-195. The black dot shows the roof of a factory building plant on the lower part of Ferry Street (photo taken from behind school) :

Note the car speeding by...

The lower part today is industrial:




With a City pier at the end:


The marina and boats there show some of the promise of the original area:




Like his downtown building, I still believe Andrew had an eye for location and a mind on transportation. If the property was in his daughters' hands, he could honestly say he did not own it anymore.

At any rate, Ferry Street is no longer a simple walk from downtown.