|
Post by Rabble on Jan 18, 2008 18:02:24 GMT -6
From the Brooklyn Eagle, March 15 1877
"Mrs Custer declines the benefit which Mr Daly had arranged at the Fifth Avenue Theatre. She expresses her gratitude for the kindly feeling displayed in her behalf, but thinks the money she received from the General's life insurance will enable them to get along comfortably. She has paid her husband's debts in full, but there is a mortage of $2,500 on her home which it is thought will be paid off by the brother officers of the General."
Ron
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 18, 2008 18:21:10 GMT -6
Ron:
This is hardly useless information. Either "the money received from her husband's life insurance" was considerably more than is generally thought, or the amount required to pay "her husband's debts in full" was considerably less than thought. If there were only a mortgage of 2500 dollars left on her house, that is not quite the picture people tend to paint of the widow left desolate and destitute by her profligate husband. I hesitate to point this out for fear of being labeled a Custerphile, which I am not.
The thought that the Widow Custer, or the Late Brevet Major General [or both] was highly enough thought of that brother officers would kick in the 2500 bucks is something to think on. Does anyone know if this is what actually transpired? An enquiring mind wants to know [without doing any work]. BTW - The declining of the benefit offer shows that she was not ENTIRELY grasping.
Gordie MC Mrs. Custer needs our help.........................................
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 18, 2008 18:53:01 GMT -6
Extremely interesting . . . . While Googling for that theatre, I found the item below. I know it's not the same place, but it's a bit eerie that the fire was on what would have been GAC's birthday. I have to believe that the GAC legend and lore would be stronger many-fold had there been a deadly fire on his birthday during a benefit for Libbie! Brooklyn Union
On the night of December 5, 1876, over 300 people (including some of the actors) who had come to see the popular actress Kate CLAXTON in "The Two Orphans" died in a fire that engulfed the Brooklyn Theatre. The L-shaped theatre built in 1871, occupied a large portion of the Johnson Street blockfront. Started by a kerosene lamp, that swept up the ceiling and turned the auditorium into an inferno. The theatre had no fire escapes and ond only 5 narrow exits.
Unidentified bodies were buried in a common grave in Green-Wood Cemetery. A monument was erected to the victims of one of the worst fires in history. Modern fire prevention in public places resulted in part from the tragedy. More articles at www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/Newspaper/BSU/1876.Bklyn.Theatre.Fire.html
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 18, 2008 19:18:30 GMT -6
Fifth Avenue 27 West 28th Street (NW Corner) Also named: Gilsey's Apollo Hall, St. James (1870), New Fifth Avenue, Madison Square (1891), H.C. Miner's 5th Avenue Theatre Built: 1860s, Rebuilt after fire in 1891 Demolished: 1939? Seats: 1,529 Note: Although not on Fifth Avenue, this theatre took its most lasting name from an opera house that burned down in 1873 – see below for details. An 1877 renovation included an innovative ventilation system that blew air over blocks of ice, making this the world's first air conditioned theatre. In the 1880s, it was one of the most popular venues for operetta. Destroyed by fire in 1891, it was rebuilt at the same location and renamed the Madison Square. It became a vaudeville house in 1900 and hosted burlesque as of 1929. It was a movie house when it shut down in the late 1930s. Musicals: The Pirates of Penzance (1879 - US Premiere)
Fifth Avenue Opera House Fifth Avenue at 24th Street Later named: Fifth Avenue Theatre, Broughman's Built: 1865 Demolished: 1873 (fire) Note: From 1869 on, this house was managed by Augustin Daly. When the theatre burned down, hard times delayed rebuilding. A new theatre was built on 28th Street (see above). Musicals: The Christy Minstrels performed here, followed by comedies and major burlesque troupes. Source: www.musicals101.com/bwaypast2.htm#FifthFrom bits and pieces on the web, the story of the Fifth Avenue Theatre is interesting. Perhaps Mr. Daly's proposal of a benefit for Mrs. Custer was a way to get attention for his newly renovated -- and air conditioned! -- theater.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 19, 2008 0:39:54 GMT -6
I'm sure you're right, Diane.
She won't have wanted to be used as an advertising ploy, plus she may not have felt Daly's shows were the sort she should be associated with anyway -- didn't they tend towards the risque? (Or am I thinking of Niblo's?) And Whittaker's book was out by then, painting its picture of the perfect husband in the perfect marriage; she couldn't spoil that image by letting the world think she was reduced to penury.
Re the money: Shirley A. Leckie in Elizabeth Bacon Custer: The Making of a Myth says (p. 207) that initially, in 1876, "the claims against Custer's estate exceeded $13,000. Elizabeth's assets, including her insurance, would amount to $8,000 at most." There was a Congressman trying to get her pension raised from $30 a month to $50, but that was stalled in the Senate. By the fall of 1877 -- i.e. six months after she turned down Daly's offer -- "Debts still stood at $13,291.10, including the amount owed Justh, and assets were still [sic] assessed at $2,140" (p. 218). The Justh debt was a loan Custer had taken out to cover an investment gamble -- $8,500 at 7%.
Not sure how she swung it, but somehow she got away with paying off Custer's debts at 10 cents on the dollar. From Leckie, however, it looks as if this didn't happen until the fall, so Libbie's being slightly economical with the truth in her response to Daly. And I can find no mention of "brother officers" paying off any mortgage. That was an inspired touch. Clever Libbie.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jan 19, 2008 4:47:22 GMT -6
Presumably a $2,500 mortgage was a fair amount in 1876. One of GAC's debts was the $100 (is this the right figure? - I've not checked) that he borrowed from Benteen that was never repaid (at least according to Benteen).
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 19, 2008 5:19:16 GMT -6
Luckily, that was one debt she didn't have to worry about, as Custer had finally paid it back -- over a year later.
In the B-G Letters, p. 265, Benteen says: "In the winter of '69 and '70, I learned from an army officer just up from Leavenworth, that Custer had made a haul at Jenison's faro bank. I wrote him that if he had the money convenient it was high time the debt was paid, telling him it was $91 -- nine dollars having been absorbed in 'calling him' for small amts. when I knew he had the winning hand, and save putting up cash to his pile to ascertain fact. He replied immediately to my dun, sending his check for $92, which he said was his account of it. Now, as one dollar would scarcely be living interest on a hundred doll. for fourteen months and over, and as I was not a Shylock, lending money at interest anyway, I coolly returned on same day a one dollar bill, thanking him for his promptitude in discharging the debt!"
Yes, I wonder how $2,500 would translate now? I seem to remember that $2,000 was a year's pay for a Lt. Col., so it wouldn't be easy to pay off ... And all the "brother officers" she speaks of would have been strapped for cash or in debt themselves, given that long suspension of pay when Congress had failed to vote any money for them. They must all have found themselves with horrendous bills to settle once the money finally came through in June '76, having had to live on credit for so long.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Jan 19, 2008 5:53:55 GMT -6
Rabble-
Thank you for that. There really is no such thing as useless information. The Devil lives in the details.
We can all have our beliefs as to what the various characters involved in the Little Bighorn episode were like, but with each fragment of information we gain a little more understanding of who they were.
M
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 19, 2008 7:46:38 GMT -6
I wonder why Elizabeth Custer never went on the lecture circuit as so many notables of the time did? Perhaps she was a poor speaker or possibly she felt it wasn't proper.... frowned on for women? Would it have tarnished the grieving widow image? Twain made a fortune speaking. Considering her fame and notoriety at the time she could have made millions, she was at one point America's Jackie Kennedy so to speak
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 19, 2008 8:16:48 GMT -6
You're right, I'm sure Redpath would have signed her up at the drop of a hat. She did do quite a bit of speaking later on, but was very careful (a) to address mostly women's groups rather than the standard public lecture audience, and (b) to make a show of being becomingly nervous and self-effacing ... She said in one of her letters that she had a horror of the female lecturer as a breed -- they were seen as strident and unfeminine -- so she had a difficult balance to achieve: maintaining her (and Custer's) profile, yet retaining the right ladylike image. As with everything she touched, she did that supremely well, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Jan 19, 2008 10:28:42 GMT -6
Custer himself was preparing to go on a Redpath tour that Fall. Had even arranged with Lawrence Barrett to stay at the actor's Scituate, Mass. cottage (we used to summer in Sitcuate, Mass) ((or was it Cohassett?)) To write a script and take elocution lessons.
Custer's provisos for the tour was that were to be no Q&A sessions.
At something like $200 a night, a 2-3 month tour would have paid off all their debts.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 19, 2008 12:06:29 GMT -6
-- didn't they tend towards the risque? From what I saw online, his productions included several Shakespeare plays around that time and, as indicated in the material I quoted, the American debut of Gilbert & Sullivan's Pirates. There could have been some burlesque in there, but I didn't dig that deeply. Regarding the lecture circuit, she probably would have been an enormous hit, but I would understand if her concern was that she might be viewed somewhat like a train wreck. "Let's go see if the hero's widow falls apart." Plus, it would expose what she said in response to Daly's offer to be false. Just guessing, of course.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Jan 19, 2008 12:29:57 GMT -6
The more I learn about ‘Libbie’ the more I just gotta love her. A true master of marketing. Find, develop and display a product ‘they’ want and then - appear reluctant to let them have it. Premium prices follow and are gladly paid.
To be fair to ‘Professional Widow’ Libbie, opportunities were rather limited for women of her era, and the necessity of generating an income for oneself was the same as today. The process was the same as well - support yourself through whatever assets you had (talents, skills, other abilities or through connections). Some endeavors were acceptable for men in the Victorian Age, while for women they were considered scandalous. Today, some of the acceptable and scandalous remain the same, but many others have reversed roles within our modern mores, or have gone away altogether. Ah, the joys of being a man. Same work, higher pay. Sorry ladies. That was mean, but had to say it. (insert smiley face, silly grin or whatever here)
Remarriage was an option for her, BUT I don’t get the sense that she would have considered that. Just my opinion, and I’ve said it before (to the raucous laughter of the more cynical here), but I think the Custers’ love story was for real. Evidence for, and rumors of, hanky-panky aside - their flirtations or apparent dalliances with others were perhaps intended as teasing aimed squarely at one another. A back and forth game in which the first to become outwardly irritated or angry loses the round. Besides which, the field of prospects for a second marriage weren’t exactly a basket of peaches to select from. Based on what I know of them.
M
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Jan 19, 2008 12:47:53 GMT -6
Re the money: Shirley A. Leckie in Elizabeth Bacon Custer: The Making of a Myth says (p. 207) that initially, in 1876, "the claims against Custer's estate exceeded $13,000. Elizabeth's assets, including her insurance, would amount to $8,000 at most." There was a Congressman trying to get her pension raised from $30 a month to $50, but that was stalled in the Senate. By the fall of 1877 -- i.e. six months after she turned down Daly's offer -- "Debts still stood at $13,291.10, including the amount owed Justh, and assets were still [sic] assessed at $2,140" (p. 218). The Justh debt was a loan Custer had taken out to cover an investment gamble -- $8,500 at 7%. Not sure how she swung it, but somehow she got away with paying off Custer's debts at 10 cents on the dollar. From Leckie, however, it looks as if this didn't happen until the fall, so Libbie's being slightly economical with the truth in her response to Daly. And I can find no mention of "brother officers" paying off any mortgage. That was an inspired touch. Clever Libbie. This is really interesting information on the 'Lovely Libbie' and does a lot to change some of my opinion of her. (Out of ignorence that opinion of mine, I'll admit). What an immense amount of pride she must have had, and I must say that I admire her for that. And of course, for many to know of the monetary mess her husband left her in would not have set well with the populous. At least it helps to explain some of her actions in the aftermath of that terrible battle and its results. So I guess I admire her more for the straight and narrow line she took to redeem her husband's 'good name', while keeping her own commitment to herself of remaining a perfect lady. Very commendable. (And coming from me that is a hugh compliment!) One can always have their mind changed!...Somewhat... Bab
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Jan 19, 2008 13:02:06 GMT -6
Remarriage was an option for her, BUT I don’t get the sense that she would have considered that. Just my opinion, and I’ve said it before (to the raucous laughter of the more cynical here), but I think the Custers’ love story was for real. Evidence for, and rumors of, hanky-panky aside - their flirtations or apparent dalliances with others were perhaps intended as teasing aimed squarely at one another. A back and forth game in which the first to become outwardly irritated or angry loses the round. Besides which, the field of prospects for a second marriage weren’t exactly a basket of peaches to select from. Based on what I know of them. M Michael, You are such an incredibly observant fellow! I agree with your assessment of the Custer's relationship. Besides, anyone who has been married for awhile knows that the slightest inclination of a "dalliance" in a marriage only serves to spark an ember which has been allowed to simmer! (I read that somewhere.) Bab
|
|