Sunday, July 26, 2015

Something Old; Something New: When a Colonial Revival Drawing Catches You Off Guard

It's no secret that Clermont was renovated about half a dozen times over the course of its existence.  Who can blame them Livingstons?  They honored their family's ancestral home, but by no means felt the need to live in outdated spaces.  They added wings, porches, bathrooms, and decorative elements that met new standards of grandeur.  In short, Clermont has done a lot of evolving.  And sometimes that results in a little confusion.

While I was writing about Clermont's South Wing last winter, I cited this image as being from the 1830s:

You can see it's already got both the north and south wings added on (1817 and 1831, respectively), and it looks pretty similar to this drawing from that period: 

The porch and pediment over the front door are different, and the railings and roof lines of the wings show some differences too, but those could feasibly be excused as artistic issues.

So oh!--wasn't I embarrassed when our Friends of Clermont Executive Director Conrad pointed out a critical, critical piece of information on the first image: 

Please excuse the fact that it's blurry, and forget the fact that the date is obscured by an unfortunate blot of some sort.  The important information is the architect's name, and it's why Conrad caught this, not me.  

Mott B. Schmidt was an architect who first became known in New York City for his Colonial Revival town houses in the 1920s and later for the country houses that served as summer dwellings for the wealthy.  Born in 1889, his signature marks this drawing not as an image of Clermont in the 1830s, but as possibility for what Clermont could have looked like now, had things just gone a little differently.  
In the 1920s, Clermont was a big amalgamation of Victorian aesthetics , plastered over a Georgian core, and John Henry was ready to make some changes.  He wanted to make the house more reflective of its hallowed post-American Revolution rebuild.  Be gone, louvered shutters!  Be gone giant porch!  

So apparently at some point, the family consulted Mott B. Schmidt for his opinion.  

There's no doubt about it; Schmidt had a stellar grasp over early American architecture.  Many of his contemporary homes could easily be taken by a casual observer for something much older, and he proposed this same treatment for Clermont.  

By removing the Chateautesque roof and even the second story on the south wing, he could bring the house from its peaky, twentieth century look back to something Chancellor Livingston may not quite have recognized, but at least would have understood.  

Whether it was because of the likely very-great expense, some sort of reverence or pride in the work that John Henry had done, or because of the simple loss of floor space that this renovation would cause, the Livingston family turned down Mr. Schmidt's proposal.  Instead, the family removed the veranda, put up our current shutters, and basically called it good.  Apparently some Victorianisms were here to stay at Clermont.

Interestingly enough, this New York State face the same decision 40 years later in the 1960s and 70s when they determined how the house would be interpreted to the public.  They had inherited a fast-deteriorating relic that had not been lived in since 1942.  After a year of being shown to the public in 1965, the house was again closed for extensive renovation.  

Choosing its current interpretive date of 1930 was a tough decision.  New York was trying to get the house ready for opening during the Bicentennial celebrations of 1976.  Returning the house to its 18th century appearance, when it would have showcased Margaret Beekman Livingston's proud post-war rebuild, would have been most relative to the sentiments of the celebrations, and it would have showcased the Livingstons at their most prominent.  But that would have meant tearing off not only the big roof and the second floor of the South Wing, but the entire wing itself and it's mirror on the north side.  

Still, leaving the mansion as it looked in 1930 (the decision that was eventually made), meant restoring the house to a period still within living memory.  After all, in 1970, that was only 40 years ago!

There was at some point a plan to interpret the mansion to an early 19th century date--the 1830s or 40s (this comes from stories I've heard bandied about the break room by old-time staff so please excuse me if I'm vague).  Even that would have meant even-more-massive restoration projects and removal of some beautiful historic architecture.  What would Clermont be without that big, pointy roof line?

So in the end, New York State made the same decision that the Livingstons did when they were handed Mott B. Schmidt's beautiful architectural drawing.  Probably something to the effect of, "Wow that's beautiful, but we can't just throw big pieces of Clermont into the trash."

And Clermont was left with this beautiful Mott B. Schmidt drawing reinterpreting its history circa 1831.  Well, I learned something new today.  

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Cutest Historical Document Ever? From Katherine Livingston Timpson and Her Babies

In my spare time this summer I've been pouring over the delightful finds sent to me by Katherine Livingston Timpson's great grandson.  They are amazing glimpses into a history I wasn't even fully aware of.  And part of what makes them amazing is the way they tie into a history I am familiar with.

Much like this photo at right, which shows Clermont with the great veranda still intact (possibly the best photo of it that I've ever seen), the photos that have been sent to my email box every few days ring with familiarity while filling me with excitement at the new angles, moments, and faces.

So here's Katherine Livingston Timpson, John Henry's oldest daughter.  She spent part of her childhood at Clermont, and when she married Red Hook resident Lawrence Timpson in 1901, she threw her bridal breakfast here in the dining room (this photo was taken to the mansion's south.  The doors to the milk shed are in the background).

Katherine and Lawrence continued to live in the Hudson Valley for another four years, during which time they had their first two children: Theodore "Theo" and Katherine "Kay."

It was entirely by luck that I was scanning through Clermont's registry of visitors from 1900 to the 1930s that I came across the page below:

There at the top of the page on June 12th, 1903 is a visit from Katherine Livingston, Theodore Livingston, and the new baby Katherine Livingston.  The most charming part of the page of course is the addition of "his mark" and "her mark" where Katherine handed the pen in turn, first to her toddler, and then to her baby and gave them each a chance to "sign" the book.  Theo had signed the book twice before, but this was the first time his sister earned the honor.  

Perhaps it is the young mother in me, but it certainly gave me an "awwwww" moment.  Was it right around the time this photo was taken? (Perhaps not, Katherine looks to be quite a big baby) Can you imagine John Henry bouncing the new children on his knee?  What rhymes did he recite to them?  Did he pinch their cheeks?
This little moment of family life was rife with tradition as the children each took the pen and signed the book in a sort of ceremonial gesture, but also with familial love that identified the them as worthy of being recorded for all of history in the household register.  

It reminds me of all the little things we do with babies even today that they may not understand, but that confirm their identity as being part of our families.  They sign birthday cards.  They open presents at their first birthday (often long after they've gotten bored with it).  They are present at the Thanksgiving dinner table even though they'd much rather be under it chasing the family dog.  With a stroke of the pen, Katherine and John Henry were bringing little Kay and Theo into the Livingston fold.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Setting the Record Straight: Rediscoveries About Katherine's Family

It was five years ago that I first started exploring John Henry's oldest daughter Katherine Livingston Timpson.  Katherine was born to John Henry's first wife in 1873.  When Katherine's mother died, she was raised by her Hammersly aunts, rejoined John Henry when he married his second wife Emily.  Eventually Katherine too married, and she moved to England in 1905. 
And it was complete luck when, late last summer, the doorbell rang and one of Katherine's great grandsons appeared in Clermont's basement with a bag full of goodies and a head full of history about Katherine's life.  The donation was a treasure trove of snippets from Katherine's life (including the miniature portrait of Katherine's oldest son Theodore "Theo" at left and the miniature of Katherine herself above), and the stories that I've only just begun to catalog have been painting in rich new details on Katherine's life. 
One of the most important things that comes out of this for me is a correction of my history!  When I wrote my first blog about Katherine back in 2010, my records seemed to stop with Katherine's first three children.  Pictured at right are Theo (1901), Kay (1903), and Bob (1908).  But I failed to check the genealogy, and I missed the births of Katherine's last two children: twins Alastair and Rosamund (1915).

Upon going to check my Big Red Book of Livingston Genealogy, I found them there today, not lost at all but neatly recorded on the pages.  Well don't I feel silly!
Since that first visit, I've been receiving periodic emails as my new friend painstakingly photographs and scans the nearly-lost record of his branch of the Livingston family.  First of all, there's Alastair and Rosamund, who were nearly painted out of the Livingston family through my own accident.  About them, I received this tidbit, "Zelly was their governess and was also my mum's (Kay's) governess. She was flemish, French speaking. When Alastair was 11 he spoke French and English equally well. Whilst Appleton was being renovated Zelly was asked to take the twins to their house in Coq Sur Mer, Belgium. When Katherine died in 1933, she left the house to Zelly. My mum consequently loved it and got to know that part of the word very well."
The emails land in my box in little groups of 4 or 5 or 6.  And each one is loaded with more images of the family that Katherine built.  Here are Kay and Theo, the first two children.

Then there are even a few pictures of Clermont, which show the mansion with its extravagant veranda on the front.  The walnut tree on the right will have its own blog entry coming up!

Since this donor is descendant of Kay Timpson, many of the best photos are of her of course. Kay as young teen: 

Kay at a London wedding:

Even Kay presented at court:

There are so many beautiful pictures to share, I believe it will take me good bit more time to sort them all out--and I haven't even shared any of the Appleton Manor photos yet!

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

The Things He Carried: Richard Montgomery’s Equipage

 On December 31, 1775 General Richard Montgomery, husband of Janet Livingston, led a desperate attack on the British held city of Quebec.  Leading one of three wings of the attack Montgomery found the first barrier he and his men faced undefended.  He crossed with many of his sections officers and waited while a detachment of soldiers began tearing down the barrier to allow the main body of troops through.  Suddenly at the end of the street Montgomery noticed movement in a fortified blockhouse.  He knew well that the narrow street his men were using to enter the city would become a slaughterhouse if the defenders were able to fire a canon down the street from the blockhouse.  He drew his sword and charged the house with his officers hoping to catch the defenders off guard.  Unfortunately, the defending British and Canadians were not asleep and their canon spat grapeshot at the advancing Americans.  Most of the officers fell, Montgomery had been hit by three balls, in the leg, groin and head.  He died instantly.
            The attack on Quebec fell apart but the American army would stay around the city under the command of Benedict Arnold for several more months before a fighting retreat down Lake Champlain.  Montgomery was a wealthy man, an experienced campaigner and had plenty of time to prepare for the campaign in New York, Livingston Manor and Albany so he was well equipped. So what happened to his stuff?
            His money, in various denominations was inventoried on January 2, 1776 to be sent back to New York.  It amounted to a little over £ 347.  In addition his watch and seal were recovered from his body and sent to the Americans and then back to Mrs. Montgomery.  The General himself was buried in Quebec with full military honors.  In 1818 his body was returned to New York.
            The next day January 3, 1776 his personal effects were inventoried and, as was the custom of the time, they were auctioned off with the money being sent to his widow.  This custom may seem morbid but it allowed the other officers a way to resupply themselves on campaign and in many cases the money would be far more useful to the widow than her deceased husband’s shirts.  The officers who performed the inventory of Montgomery’s goods were Colonel Donald Campbell, Major John Brown, Major Fred Weisenfelts and Aide-de-Camp Aaron Burr. 
            The single largest buyer at the auction was Benedict Arnold.  His purchases included 3 ruffled shirts and six plain shirts, six cambric stocks, a silk neck cloth and three linen handkerchiefs.  Arnold also purchased a pair of “casimere” (perhaps cashmere) breeches and matching waistcoat which were probably quite comfortable in the cold Canadian winter.  Interestingly Arnold also purchased a pair of moccasins and “elegant Indian leggins”.  Because they are described as “Indian” the leggings were most likely leather, worn to protect one’s stockings from being destroyed when walking through the woods.
            Arnold (at right) also purchased a dozen knives and forks, six silver table spoons, six silver tea spoons and a pair of tea tongs.  He also purchased five table cloths and an old trunk for storage.  Silver spoons and table ware may seem fancy for a military campaign but it was important for Montgomery’s reputation that he be able to entertain his officers and if necessary enemy officers in high style.
            Among the other items sold from Montgomery’s possessions were two blankets and a counterpane (bed spread) sold to Colonel Seth Warner.  Aaron Burr bought a clothes brush, which was used for keeping his uniform looking clean and presentable.  In addition a pair of woolen stockings was given to Dick, described in the inventory simply as “the negro boy”, most likely a slave.  His sheets were sent to the hospital to be used for the wounded.
            There was a surprising amount of stuff not sold at the auction, especially considering that Arnold and his men had lost almost all their possessions on their march into Canada.  Among the unsold items were three more ruffled shirts, six muslin neck cloths, fifteen pairs of stockings of various materials, five pairs of breeches, two waistcoats and two cotton caps, shoes, gloves, a watch coat, his mattress and pillows. 
            Montgomery also had a small library with him which was not sold.  The titles included; Reveries on the Art of War by Maurice De Saxe, two volumes by Polybius, a Greek historian, L'Ingenieur de Campagne by Clarac (a book on military engineering),  four volumes of La Science Militaire and Johnson’s English Dictionary.  These books show Montgomery to be a serious student of military tactics and not someone who was willing to rest simply on the knowledge he had already gained.
            One thing that is not listed on the inventory are any personal letters. He did correspond with Janet Montgomery during the campaign and his letters to her have survived, at least in transcribed form but none of hers to him survive.  It is believed that Montgomery took the prudent step of burning the letters after he had read them.  This would prevent the enemy from gaining any intelligence from them should he be captured.

            All in all the inventory of Montgomery’s personal goods gives us a good idea of the type of man the Montgomery was.  He was a man fully dedicated to the cause; nothing in the inventory obviously indicated his life with Janet.  Everything he carried was what was viewed as necessary for an eighteenth century military officer on campaign.  Nothing more to remember his life at home and nothing less, which could have lowered other opinions of him.