Friday News "Shrink-wrap" 9.24.21

Those Vocal Historic Political Wives Again: Revisiting A Civil War Tour de Force

Greetings from newShrink, and a happy season-opener for Fall!

This week I’d anticipated a bit of a news-break with perhaps just a short Friday Postcard-post. (Mom is re-settled and granddaughter Miz-E is hosting my birthday weekend and long-overdue first visit up to their new home in Asheville.)

But then, this…

Ever since last Saturday morning’s quite cursory, first-coffee read of political historian Heather Cox Richardson’s Letters from an American, my curiosity, reading- and news-tending sleuth-time have been captured with no sign of release! And the lure was just a background voice of someone neither center-stage nor even mentioned in that day’s Richardson piece which tied today’s politics back to its Civil War-era roots.

The voice belongs to Mary Boykin Chesnut, someone I once knew well through her writing and cherished for her life-force, complexity and talents. But most compelling in memory was the array of contradictions in this one, unusually educated for her time, upper-class 19th Century political daughter, wife and writer — whose way of life and adult life-span were bisected by the four-year Civil War Confederacy portrayed in her diary. (I’ll come back to a bit more on the Richardson piece below.)

bio, some basics…

This website has a general summary of Mary Chesnut’s biography, including:

1. Mary Boykin Miller was born in 1823, into one of South Carolina’s oldest landowner/slaveholding plantation families through her maternal Boykin ancestors and her father, Stephen Decatur Miller, a prominent politician who served both as SC governor and US Senator.

2. Educated at a French boarding school in Charleston, Chesnut valued and expressed Continental and French language and cultural influences throughout her life, widely know as the central magnet or courtesan, “her drawing room always serving as a salon for the Confederate elite.”

3. At 17 she married James Chesnut, Jr., 8 years her senior, the Princeton-educated politician son of an enormous plantation family, another of the state’s landowning (and enslaving) wealthy.

4. The couple were reportedly unable to have children, and Mary thrived on urban — and Washington political — life as well as travel, while suffering stifling depressions in plantation life she found isolating.

5. In 1861 the Chesnuts were intimately involved at the onset of Southern secession, formation of the Confederacy and start of the Civil War — events detailed below.

6. She reportedly endured various health issues all her life, although she lived and wrote until her 1886 death at age 63 — near penniless, as by then was common for her social set. That was particularly true for widows, who like women of all classes of the day could not legally own or inherent even what property or financially unproductive land their families’ males did have.

chesnut and me…

It was my early ‘80’s journalist days at a Southern daily newspaper when news came that Chesnut’s book, finally given the scholarly annotation and integrity-restoring editing it merited by renowned historian C. Vann Woodward, had won the Pulitzer Prize in history nearly 100 years after her death. From that second-wave feminist period vantage point, I recall this vocally anti-slavery, but loyal-Confederate, woman as extraordinary and contradictory… inspiring and challenging… revolutionary and conventional… courageously outspoken and heartbreakingly vulnerable… a role model yet also a sad expression of her limiting times. (Will note also that for me as a progressive-liberal-leaning lifelong Southerner, Chesnut’s entire vividly described antebellum plantation way of life built on slavery was not romantic but painful and cringe-inducing.)

Here’s one among numerous examples of her range, from a comprehensive 2011 article, “Carolina Diarist: The Broken World of Mary Chesnut,” by John Tibbetts in the SC Sea Grant Consortium magazine:

“Mary Chesnut was not always composed herself. She extolled southern femininity (“Our women are soft and sweet—low-toned, indolent, graceful, quiescent.”), but at times she couldn’t meet her own standards of ladylike comportment. Mary Chesnut, when provoked, could be hot-tempered and sarcastic, but in public she held her tongue on one subject—slavery. Although her wealth and privilege were built on slavery, she loathed the South’s peculiar institution.

“God, forgive us but ours is a monstrous system, and wrong and iniquity,” she wrote in a March 1861 entry.

An aristocratic insider living in the heart of the Confederacy, Mary Chesnut was the daughter and the wife of U.S. senators from South Carolina who argued for states’ rights over slavery.”

Until this month I had not seen or much thought about Chesnut at all, for well over 30 years. I had to order a new copy of the book to see if any of those youthful perceptions hold true for me today — and in what words and images, similar or changed.

For now will note that from the vantage point of today’s news, politics and divided American culture in metaphoric civil war — and considering newShrink themes of psychology and soul, consciousness and shadow — it seems near miraculous that Mary Boykin Chesnut lived as she did, wrote at all. Even more remarkable is that she did so with the level of conscious awareness, owning of so much shadow, and the “witnessing eye” that her writing demonstrates.

navigating today’s different newshrink…

So… instead of a breezy Postcard, it turns out this Friday post is a first “Shrink-wrap” — single-topic — newshrink edition. (The normal News Notebook of usual length range will return next week.) You also can always access everything on the website directly from a browser at newshrink.substack.com. (http://newshrink.substack.com works too.)

This initial Chesnut Shrink-wrap will have later (shorter, topical) installment updates, either as linked Notebook sections or as separate posts. That will be after I’ve hung out again with the 896-page volume and had time to explore an apparently scholarly biography of Chesnut I found and ordered.

Both from psychological and writing standpoints, I am ultimately more interested in Chesnut’s life, biography and writing process than so much the content details of the diary (and Confederate society) itself. I’ll say more about this in later explorations of the work.

more on the Richardson piece…

Back for a moment to that Saturday morning (9.18.21), Heather Cox Richardson was doing her usual brilliant tracking of today’s national politics around voting rights, economy and race — this time all the way back to and through its Civil War-era roots. The piece does that by first setting up two colorful, even visceral, word portraits.

One is gruesome battleground scenes captured by early war photography of the day. The other is a couple of paragraphs describing pro-slavery, blatantly white supremacist vs abolitionist politics in the US Congress in the decades leading to the 1861 secession, creation of the Confederacy, and start of the Civil War that April.

Then — before focusing the rest of the post on linking today’s politics to those events — Richardson narrows the lens to a passing mention of one explosive March 1861 scene in the US Senate:

“South Carolina Senator James Chesnut Jr. assured his neighbors that there would be so few casualties he would be happy to drink all the blood shed in a fight between the South and the North. And so, poorer white southerners marched to war.’”

This James Chesnut, Jr., is the US Senator from South Carolina who, history tells us, shortly thereafter would join his fellow Southern secessionist US senators. They would soon resign from their seats to return home, form a new Confederate government and prepare for war. James Chesnut, Jr., in fact, at his Confederate commanding officer’s order, issued the call for the firing of shots on US Fort Sumter near Charleston that began the Civil War.

HCR’s soon-to-be-former US Senator here, James Chesnut, Jr., was of course Mary Boykin’s prominent politician husband in pre-War Washington — the once united nation’s capital where they had been a popular and high-profile power couple. From the standpoint of historical significance and relevance, this pivotal snapshot event is probably the most interesting and significant thing James Chesnut, Jr., ever did — except, perhaps, his having married Mary Boykin Miller!

Mary and James .Chesnut photographed in 1840. (from the SC Sea Grant Consortium.)

Comments on Richardson

I highly recommend reading the entire HCR post, as she captures quite viscerally the war and its run-up with some of its turning points and battle scenes along with her signature links to present-day politics. (If you aren’t a HCR subscriber, from your browser you can always go to:

heathercoxrichardson.substack.com. Then scroll in Archive to the post from Saturday, 9.18.21.)

mary chesnut’s relevance in today’s news-scape…

Revisiting Chesnut brings to mind so many of today’s news issues and explorations of psychological and soul dimensions in recent months’ newShrink focus. Such as:

• Race- and white-supremacy-related events and controversies around Confederate statues, Daughters of the Confederacy and the Jim Crow era “Lost Cause;” teaching of so-called Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project; Black Lives Matter and police shootings; voter suppression and voting rights.

• The parallels between her literally, violently, geographically and economically divided country over the four years of the Civil War and Confederacy and today’s less visible, but complex, divisions around politics and virtually every aspect of American life.

• My continuing focus and commentary here on gender relations, intersections of sexuality and power both public and private, and #MeToo.

• Separate but related, to me Chesnut is an especially useful reference point for looking at how women have for millennia survived, economically and in terms of power, in patriarchy. That survival includes internalizing it, colluding and aligning with power in whatever ways available — including women-vs-women. As reminder of this sobering dynamic I consider that a majority of all American white women in 2016 voted for Donald Trump over the first and enormously qualified woman candidate Hillary Clinton. Another way that Chesnut is a useful reference point on gender is as reminder of another sobering fact —antebellum and reconstruction US and Confederacy alike: That women were property and therefore could neither own nor inherit property. And the financial realities have changed slowly, with setbacks and not completely, today.

• And finally, examining what we know of Chesnut — and her relationship with James — can offer useful insight and example from the psychological and soul/unconscious perspectives.

things I’m curious about

… regarding Chesnut herself

1. What is known of Chesnut’s life, including examples of psychological and soul dimensions, from biography. (So far much of this here is from C. Vann Woodward’s excellent Foreword to her book.)

2. Comparisons and contrasts between Mary Boykin Chesnut (and that complicated, perhaps caring but seemingly often lonely for both, marriage to James) and the extraordinary intimate Abigail and John Adams partnership nearly a century earlier, also during wartime, about which I have written before.

3. Definitely both Chesnuts, but particularly Mary, from a psychological standpoint clinically, relationally, and from the soul/unconscious perspective. For example, both effects and causes of the couple being childless, in that heir-breeding-obsessed culture and with James the sole remaining son among 13 children, are of significant interest. So are Mary’s health issues, reported opium use and depression — among a host of family system and psychological elements.

4. Regarding race, from perhaps a deeply unconscious perspective, I’m curious about Mary’s writings vehemently expressing her disgust and calling-out the hypocrisy and deep immorality of white men of her class fathering children they disclaim with family slaves. She expresses this personally — against her father-in-law, James’ father. From a psychological standpoint, I am wondering how she could not be concerned about this with her husband as well, and whether this is a blind spot and projection.

Regarding the book

1. The fact that she wrote it against what was earlier the antebellum and then wartime social- and class- and domestic life backdrops — and what was sure to be enormous backlash, especially from women (who tend to serve as enforcers of the social norms in patriarchy, especially patriarchy as intense and restrictive as the US Confederacy.)

2. Chesnut’s process of writing. First was her contemporaneous (and lock-and-key private) “Journals” — capitalization hers — during the 1861-1865 war. Then there was a 20-year period of rewrites and stylistic evolution that resulted in the “literary diary” manuscript.

3. The format and genre of her writing. Unlike a journal, which reflects movement back and forth in time, in diary entries are made within the stylistic conceit that there is no connection with past or anticipation of future but solely the day and moment at hand. (For me this stylistic approach can make Chesnut seem more ditzy and gossipy than I think she likely was.)

4. From the psychological standpoint of the ways that our deeper levels of unconscious/soul process, heal, and individuate this constant present tense can be problematic — and often can be a manic defense against feeling past pain, loss and trauma or facing uncertain or difficult future. I wonder about that with Chesnut.

5. Reading the diary format can feel to me a lot like today’s Twitter, SnapChat, TicToc and a lot of Facebook — a bit “bumpy?!” This makes me wonder about parallel past pain/future uncertainty amid today’s deeply divided politics and culture and the extended pandemic.

6. Then there’s the history of the manuscript itself, largely from C. Vann Woodward’s research and Foreword. Shortly before her death in 1886, Mary Chesnut turned the manuscript over to her best friend in hopes that it would be published.

7. Most interesting to me, considering news issues today regarding the Confederacy and long Jim Crow white-supremacy resurgence, were ways long after her death that the manuscript was effectively commandeered twice (in 1905 and 1949). It was selectively, if not dishonestly, edited and amended consistent with the pro-slavery, white supremacy purposes and beliefs of what had become “The Lost Cause” and the Daughters of the Confederacy. (Yes, the same Daughters of the Confederacy who made white supremacy respectable again and spearheaded all of those municipal monuments to slavery-supporting Confederate soldiers decades after the Civil War, Emancipation and Reconstruction.)

8. All of this said, one caution: As I recall, the book’s breezily glib tone and inconsistently casual uses of racial labels and terms jarring to the 21st-century reading ear can make the diary at times an uncomfortable or off-putting read. (For me this discomfort may be a cue that I need to look more closely at, not away.)

Regarding the title of those 1905 and 1949 versions of the book, A Diary from Dixie, Woodward describes Chesnut’s likely reaction:

“That the term ‘Dixie’ should have been posthumously inflicted on Mary Chesnut’s book was an irony she would not have cherished. She consciously avoided use of the word herself, pronounced the sentiment of the song ‘prosaic’ and declared that ‘it never moved me a jot.’”

A nod is in order to the late historian, gifted writer and compellingly complex thinker on the thorniest matters of the historic Southern soul, C. Vann Woodward. His 1999 obituary in The Washington Post provides an excellent sense of his range and humanity.

and about that “tour de force” title… what do we call ‘a woman like her?’ ’

Especially when considering a historic public figure from across not one, but two sweeps of time — 160 years ago, 40 years ago, and today — one useful shorthand for looking at changing cultural patterns and norms is just to look at everyday language. For one very mundane example, in Chesnut’s day and her social class emulated by others, it was blatantly insulting — and a little suggestive of compromised sexual “virtue” — to refer to a woman as woman, rather than lady. Married women wore their husbands’ names ostentatiously and unmarried women were identified as “unclaimed” by various distinguishing labels.

By the time Chesnut’s award-winning diary arrived, our early 1980’s newsroom and others across the country were grappling with stylebook dilemmas such as generic egalitarian women vs lady… courtesy titles or none, and for just-women or both women and men? And, Ms, Miss, Mrs. or none? (All with vehement opposition and offense taken, on all sides.) Somehow the generic men vs gentlemen question never reached same white-hot frenzy level

And on all this today we have a range, from still-adamant (now often along party lines) preferences around lady/gentleman vs women/men, intensely around “Ms.” and even regarding courtesy titles… to robust efforts to address LGBTQ inclusivity linguistically via respectful self-selected pronouns.

Along these lines the French descriptor tour de force title of this newShrink post in today’s world sounds a bit over-the-top. But that’s consistent with the subject’s lifelong influences from her 19th Century, French-influenced education and her lifelong role as magnetic courtesan with her drawing room a favorite elite salon.

By the book’s arrival in 1980s mainstream America the salon idea suggested rather exotically pleasant European cafe society while courtesan, when used at all, was inching toward slut-shaming — especially the kind turf-protecting women aim at other women. And by now, in today’s dictionaries a salon is just a place to get a hairdo and a courtesan is a prostitute.

Tour de force, however is still French for “feat of strength.”

Unlike with “Dixie,” I think Mary Boykin Chesnut herself might have been OK with that one.

🦋💙

Something I haven’t mentioned, that goes to the soul-tracking theme of newShrink, is a synchronistic (meaningful coincidence) aspect of Chesnut’s showing up. A couple of weeks before Richardson’s Civil War post mentioning James Chesnut, my Monday, September 6, early-morning journal entry describes a quick visual image:

On a smartphone or iPad screen there’s an HCR Letters from an American on the topic of ‘Mary Boykin Chesnut.’ Pondering this when fully awake, it doesn’t seem important or connected to anything I’m doing or working on.

So I move on and don’t think of it again — until the Saturday, September 18, fully-awake Richardson Civil War post. (At which point James’ name jumps off the screen!)

I share this as a mundane example of connection points, ways the unconscious or soul part of us can expand our awareness by making its living presence known to our waking conscious (“small ‘s’/ego”) selves. While I envy people who get time-travel or flying, mine tend to be specific and factual. Similar to the ear-worm song lyrics and titles I’ll get during a run, dream or in liminal time, I’ll also get visual images like this one with words — or often like headlines or big directional (literal) “signs” on the highway. At the very least, this adds a richly interesting, at times entertaining or seriously helpful, dimension to routine daily existence!

🦋💙

Reflecting on that early-‘80s, 29-30-year-old me, Mary Chesnut with her remarkable book is today even more a gift most precious and appreciated. Opening the copy that just arrived to greet her for the first time in well over 30 years, I’m excited and curious to hear what she speaks to me next.

And I just realized, delivered on the same day were my two lifelong-favorite gift items, books and shoes! (In this case, from both Soul and sole?)

And, that is all I have. Talk to you next week with News Notebook!

🦋💙tish

… it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give — yes or no, or maybe —
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.
— William Stafford, “A Ritual to Read to Each Other”

--

1. Richardson, H. C. (2021). Saturday, September 18, 2021. Letters from an American. Retrieved 18 September 2021 from https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

2. Ferris, W., & Wilson, C.R., (eds.) 1989. “Mary Boykin Miller Chesnut, 1823-1886. In Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. (Used by permission of the publisher www.uncpress.unc.edu.) Retrieved 22 September 2021 from https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/chesnut/bio.html.

2. Tibbets, J., (ed.) (2011). “Carolina Diarist: The Broken World of Mary Chesnut.” In Coastal Heritage Magazine of the S.C. SeaGrant Consortium. Vol. 25, No. 3. Spring 2011. Retrieved 21 September 2021 from https://www.seagrant.org. https://www.scseagrant.org/carolina-diarist-the-broken-world-of-mary-chesnut/

3. Woodward, C. V. (ed.) (1981). Mary Chesnut’s Civil War. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

4. Mary Boykin Chesnut Biography. Retrieved 21 September 2021 from https://www.nps.gov/people/mary-boykin-chesnut.htm.

5. C. Vann Woodward 1999 obituary from The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1999/12/19/historian-c-vann-woodward-dies-at-91/baa984f2-6181-40ac-848b-8ec8c7c50401/