It's good. 3.5 star and it's best aspect is that after reading all this you truly get "the feel" of where the Mistress fit into the system, the family, the law, the larger economic class society, and where/what she did with most of her hours.
And detailing for the levels of physical work! I can certainly understand that being an invalid was often a reality, not some pretentious state. This is especially true of the child-bearing years as large, large families were norm coupled with the reality that 6% of the Mistress population died young from issues related to child birth. So far more children were left without a mother than those who experienced loss of a father. Both remarried often, almost as a duty- but this left men quite often with 2 or 3 marriages in their lifetime.
Some chapters, like the one on divorce, were so very dry, it is like reading stats lists. Catherine Clinton is thorough and introduces her methods and numbers of cases and the years she has centered for examination. Religion, role in providing medicine and food, and the isolation in regard to mobility (not allowed to travel without a chaperon and where do you find these?) quite beyond the legal aspects of dependency, isolated far beyond the levels of wives in the North.
This is worth the read, but it is not easy read. It's not written in the current 2000 plus era of interpretation being pivotal to the material. But she does equate certain assumed outcomes and trends because of the depth of the proofs.
Certainly because of all the issues that were totally centered on her "Mistress" role- the making of clothes, medicine, foodstuffs etc.- NO STORES- all of this is enough to make you choke. It being so endless the work. The lounging and prone figure of some film, literature portrayals is as distant from the reality of plantation life as could be possible. And this could also occur without her husband providing large sums or any sums of income to supplement any shortages. In fact, most of the time she was also by produce or foodstuffs, beyond the crops, supplementing HIS debts.
So many dichotomies of her role and being the communicator in the conflicts between these factors inherent in the slave system and her own immense dependency by law combined, IMHO, to give her a skill for understated and yet immense influence by her well placed input at diplomatic intervals. But it required a strong "face" - sometimes covering the real emotion that differed from her calm and "feminine" imploring. This control was primed by habit of having to use words wisely. In a manner that held most influence! Often a great deal of the time, the most feminine (as it was defined in that era) approach was the one that worked best. IMHO, that had to require some acting skills.
When visiting antebellum plantations in Louisiana last winter, we went to about 7. And just as this author noted, most of the women were used up WAY before the men. One differed and it was called Laura (named after her). This one happened through happenstance to be run by a woman for 3 successive generations. Early death of husband and many of the children through diseases. And that's what made me read this book. Because eventually the last Mistress Laura left the plantation for New Orleans life, and refused her inheritance just because of the isolation and responsibility it required. Her Mother had given her entire life to the running of the sugar cane crews, cooking it down- feeding and managing all those people for medicine/clothes etc. for 30 plus years. And after just a couple of years managing most herself- she did not want to do the same. She married into the city eventually and purposely toward a life lived mostly in France.
Some of these women Clinton writes about were spinsters, despite the title. They (very few) purposely remained unmarried and did so because of the work and position they had observed were put upon any woman as a "wife" role. Some of them did not appeared bothered by the disdain for being not chosen. They also worked and were heavily used (extra women to spin the cotton- that's how the word spinster originated) and yet it left them a "bit" freer than their married sisters.
The chapter that included the "oppression" that these women felt- was truly interesting. Some of them felt that the slaves got clothes before they did? And felt themselves as just a little different. No. They couldn't be sold away and the slave women were far more oppressed. And often a husband could not get a divorce decree, even if he wanted one. (But he could almost surely if it became common knowledge or his wife admitted that a child she bore was not his.)
It was a terrible dichotomy and horrible system that required a whole core message of intermittent pretending all around, IMHO.