Many widows were young. In times of war or conflict, it was men who died. If the woman died intestate, the property was divided among her children. If she had a will, it would have been awarded as her will directed. Women in general made sure any daughters were well inherited. This is just the way it was.
Women at that time held at least half the privately owned property and a controled a good portion of the corporately or business owned property, if not outright ownership. Women owned and controlled many businesses in those times, their civil status modified to allow torts and other civil action against them as owners.
Are you talking about today, or early last century?
What we have today is nothing like the way it used to be. Women were advised to marry in many cases using the argument that it was the way to increase her property. What property a women brought into a marriage remained hers. The husband controlled the property during the marriage, but could dispose of it only with her consent.
Divorce, when it happened, had to have a basis in damage: infidelity, nonsupport, physical cruelty, abandonment, and in a lot of cases, civil death (long prison terms). If the charge went against the woman, she would retain the property she brought into the marriage. If the charge went against the man, his property was awardable as alimony. This was before the 19th amendment, which made women taxpayers and gave them civil responsibilites and duties.
The old system was heavily loaded in favor of women, even in the face of debts.
I also think the property rights laws varied among the states.
Only very minor differences. This area was controlled by the common law in every state but Louisana which used the Roman civil law.
Furthermore, since many Americans lived on farms in times past (and not too many of them were wealthy), that farm was a family enterprise. Widows can run a farm by themselves. Ditto for the family business.
Not getting your point here.
Women may have owned wealth, but I believe you exaggerate the extent of the wealth they held.
The condition of women at that time was more or less defined by the custom of coverture. They were short on civil duties, but also equally short on civil responsibilites. They were long on property, personal and real. When they married, their business for the most part was controlled by their husband, but the courts rode herd on that relationship, and, in any controversy involving that relationship, heavily ruled in favor the woman.
The notions people have today about the past customs (and not too long past) are patently false, and much of it outright lies made by people who knew the truth. You have been lied to and made to think false information and implication are true. If you check the support behind the 19th amendment you will find a lot of backing from financial institutions, because when she inherited property with a note attached they could do nothing drastic to recover it.
In all things important to a woman, she not only had custom and public support but legal and court support. There are even cases where the court ordered a husband to pay more attention to his wife, and it was enforced by the executive department of the state!
All in all, if I were a woman, I would much rather be one under the old system of law than this one. There were downsides, of course, but downsides only as seen from the viewpoint of a male nature, not a female nature. 