Mary Boykin Chesnut never had a child. This was probably one of her greatest disappointments. James Chesnut, Sr. had two sons of his thirteen children, who lived to adulthood. John was the eldest of the children and James, Jr. the youngest. James Chesnut Sr. would never know that the Chesnut name would discontinue in Camden after the death of James, Jr. in 1885. James Chesnut, Sr. knew that upon his death his son, James, Jr., would inherit Mulberry Plantation. Upon James Jr’s death, the property would go to James Sr's grandson Johnny Chesnut, son of John Chesnut. Unfortunately, Johnny died in 1868 at the age of 31. Thus, the property remaining in the family, lost the name of Chesnut.
How important was the bearing of male children? In Catherine Clinton’s book The Plantation Mistress, she discusses the disappointment of not having a male child:
“Their disappointment can be rationalized. Southerners without sons were faced with genealogical extinction. Only sons would continue family traditions and carry on the family name. But this preference for male offspring went deeper than genealogy and inheritance; it was part of a larger ideological framework that proclaimed men superior and women inferior. As the South expanded its hierarchical social system, gender roles became even more rigid. The function of the dynasty was to merge social and political systems within an economic unit: the family. Wealth, power, and status derived from this source. The family was not merely a mirror or microcosm of society, but an instrument; the home provided a training ground for the culture as a whole, and the favored status of males was generated as well as reinforced by domestic roles. Whatever indulgence a daughter might receive from her parents, she was never granted complete freedom of choice; her options were severely curtailed by her gender" (p. 46).
In this quote we see two important points. The first point was that male sons were tremendously important. And second, those males were given favored status.
Besides Mary Boykin Chesnut's personal disappointment, she also had to bear the implication of not providing that "all important" male heir that her father-in-law desired. It is no wonder that childbearing was such a strong influence in her life.
How important was the bearing of male children? In Catherine Clinton’s book The Plantation Mistress, she discusses the disappointment of not having a male child:
“Their disappointment can be rationalized. Southerners without sons were faced with genealogical extinction. Only sons would continue family traditions and carry on the family name. But this preference for male offspring went deeper than genealogy and inheritance; it was part of a larger ideological framework that proclaimed men superior and women inferior. As the South expanded its hierarchical social system, gender roles became even more rigid. The function of the dynasty was to merge social and political systems within an economic unit: the family. Wealth, power, and status derived from this source. The family was not merely a mirror or microcosm of society, but an instrument; the home provided a training ground for the culture as a whole, and the favored status of males was generated as well as reinforced by domestic roles. Whatever indulgence a daughter might receive from her parents, she was never granted complete freedom of choice; her options were severely curtailed by her gender" (p. 46).
In this quote we see two important points. The first point was that male sons were tremendously important. And second, those males were given favored status.
Besides Mary Boykin Chesnut's personal disappointment, she also had to bear the implication of not providing that "all important" male heir that her father-in-law desired. It is no wonder that childbearing was such a strong influence in her life.
by Bruce A. Brown
