Talk:Mary Boykin Chesnut

Courtship

How many years is "many years courtship," considering she married at 17? -70.111.4.149 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your observation. I added the "dubious" tag. If anyone can clarify how the courtship lasted, please do. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He met her when she was 13. I have rewritten and referenced the marriage. clariosophic (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

redirect

Please redirect 'Mary Boykin Chestnut' here.Zigzig20s 04:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Merged Mary Chesnut with Mary Boykin Chesnut because she is best known by that name. clariosophic (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs work. First, very little of this diary was actually composed at Mulberry, but rather in Richmond, Columbia, and Charleston. Some of the verbiage is a bit disingenuous...she never "confronted" the problem of men fathering mulatto children, she just exposed it, privately.

It might be interesting, too, to list some of the well-known people whom she mentions in her diary, like Jefferson Davis, Varina Davis, the Wigfalls, the Prestons, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismaelbobo (talk • contribs) 17:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

publication history

You may delete your question mark. The diary was first published as: Isabella D. Martin and Myrta Lockett Avary, eds., A Diary from Dixie, as written by Mary Boykin Chesnut, Wife of James Chesnut, jr., United States Senator from South Carolina, 1859-1861, and Afterward Aide to Jefferson Davis and a Brigadier General in the Confederate Army (New York, 1905).

Ben Ames Williams, ed., A Diary from Dixie by Mary Boykin Chesnut (Boston, 1949).

The above is related on page xv note 3 of "Diary in Fact--Diary in Form" in C. Vann Woodward, Mary Chesnut's Civil War (New Haven: Yale, 1981). Woodward says that the two previous versions of the diary derive from the 1880's version. Woodward also notes that Mary Chesnut would not have appreciated the term "Dixie" being inflicted upon her book as she did not like it (page xxviii). --rumjal 02:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Articles section on Marriage

This section will need to be rewritten. Ms. Chesnut actually draws parallels between slavery--which she understandably dare not openly oppose--and marriage.

On August 29, 1861, wrote that women are bought and sold. She also wrote that an unnamed person said that Purgatory will never be abolished while women and children have to live with drunken men, and that the South has an unnamed institution worse than the Spanish Inquisition. At the end of this she wrote "Now ho! For Port Royal!" and one wonders if this is an oblique reference to the South's most famous advocate of slavery, George Fitzhugh of Port Royal.

On December 9, 1863, she wrote that her husband laid down the law for her: no more feasts in the house. She wrote that he is the master and that to hear his word is to obey. She does not say that she is a slave, but she does not need to add that. All is clear but one thing: did he ever beat her? Rumjal --rumjal 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Chesnut's diary makes it clear that her husband, a Charlestonian gentleman to a fault, never beat her. However, she had mixed feelings about her marriage. She never had children, and in those times the assumption was that it was the woman who was sterile. She wrote that she felt the silent reproach of others for barrenness. She understood her husband very well, and commented in her diary that "he is like his mother in temperament, and wants to be thought like his father." His mother was kind, gentle and intelligent, while the father was aggressive and something of a domestic tyrant. In some moods her husband enjoyed her lively, witty nature. There are accounts of her wearing his uniform coat, for warmth, as the two of them talked far into the night over a fire. On one occasion, he told her of a horrific atrocity, committed by a gang of renegades, which had deeply shocked him. He trusted her, and no others, with his vulnerability. There were also other times when he would have preferred that she was a traditional submissive wife. The marriage was a mixed bag, and should not be characterized as a bad one. Younggoldchip (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Key to understanding Mary Chestnut's view on marriage is the fact that, in South Carolina, there was no divorce, for any reason, not even adultery. Even prior to the Civil War, South Carolina was unusual among the States on that subject. In 1868, the South Carolina Legislature, under the control of Carpetbaggers, passed a statute legalizing divorce. In 1877, the federal troops withdrew, and the Carpetbag government collapsed. In 1878, the statute authorizing divorce was repealed, and in 1895, a new constitution was adopted. Article XVII, Section 3, expressly prohibited the granting of divorce. This remained the law until after the Second World War. In view of the societal pressures exerted by that conflict, many South Carolinians demanded the ability to obtain a divorce. On November 2, 1948, the people approved an amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified by the Legislature on April 15, 1949, and divorce became legal in South Carolina. Other grounds have been added since, but South Carolina is the only state where the grounds for divorce are regulated by the Constitution. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• The 1st paragraph contains the sentences below. They make no sense. Might be good to remove them until clarified. The comments appear without source or context in a section about Mary's early marriage. Does it refer to romantic love? Mrs. Rosner is referred to as a "girl"— is she a slave or maybe a very young married person? "...the first time she was married..." who does the pronoun refer to here? It immediately follows a "she" which refers to Chestnut. Ambiguous sentence structure.

"Mrs. Rosner was the name of the girl she fell in love with after the first time she was married. Her parents at first opposed to this. Even at sixteen Mary began to take an interest in the young lady"

I added CN's. Aimzzz (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Sherman days

We could do with a few words on her memories of Sherman's punitive march through South Carolina. 86.178.157.135 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Box on info about person is missing!

Don't you see in every article about a person has a box that contains general info like birth and death to the right? This article doesnt! Make the format of the page like this one here. Please fix this! Carmaster 1000 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please remember that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit--you're welcome to make changes like this yourself in the future if you see the need. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

I just rewrote the "Reception and legacy" section to mention a scathing review from 1981, mainly because it is so easy to find online that not acknowledging its existence might suggest lack of neutrality (it was published in the NYT). I emphasized that it is very much a minority view, as I have never seen any other similar argument against Chesnut's book. Open to other ways of handling this and think the entire article could do with substantial expansion in any case. Not something I have time for right now, alas.Valli Nagy 16:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValliNagy (talk • contribs)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mary Boykin Chesnut/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

She married at the age of 17 following "many years of courtship"? How "many"??

Last edited at 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Boykin Chesnut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606135735/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=-877017370&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=-877017370&ResourceType=Building

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Anti-slavery

Unlike her husband, Mary secretly held anti-slavery views.

This is featured in the lede, but not in the article. Could we have some support for this claim? Valetude (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)