The Southern Claims Commission ~ Franklin County, NC Disallowed Claims
The Southern Claims Commission was established in 1871 to settle the claims of Southerners who remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War. Any person who had property or provisions ((i.e. home, crops, clothing, wood, livestock, hay, foodstuffs, etc) taken from them by and for the use of the Union Army were eligible to submit a claim for reimbursement, but the procedure for filing such claims was arduous and detailed and required that the claimant prove their loyalty to the federal government (Union) throughout the war and provide proof of lost property. The "proof of loyalty to the Union throughout the war" requirement was an impossible pill for many southerners to swallow, so many losses were never submitted or were submitted without any mention of loyalties. When all was said and done and a total of more than 22,000 documented claims had been reviewed by the Commission, fewer than one third were deemed to have provided proper proof of loyalty and/or loss and, of the $60,000,000 in value of claims submitted, less than $5,000,000 was reimbursed. Because a number of different governmental offices were involved in the settlement process, the records of the Commission are divided among several NARA record groups. The barred and disallowed case files are part of RG 233, Records of the United States House of Representatives. The case files for the allowed claims are in RG 217, Records of the Accounting Officers of the Department of the Treasury. They are arranged alphabetically by State, and thereunder by county, and thereunder by surname.
Following are the disallowed claims of Franklin County residents
Claim # 14388 ~ Frank P. Haywood of Franklinton, Franklin County, State of North Carolina
|1 Morgan mare||$350.00|
|1,000 lb. bacon||$300.00|
|2 saddles + 2 bridles||$60.00|
Remarks - Mr. Haywood is a farmer about sixty-five years of age. He owned a farm in Jackson County, Florida, and another farm was owed by his wife near Raleigh, North Carolina. His residence was on the Florida farm during most of the war. There is much evidence in the general case of a character calculated to impress the casual reader favorably as to his loyalty during the war. Much of it is from persons who did not know him during the war and are opinions formed on hearsay and the reputation for loyalty which Mr. Haywood had and was justly entitled to at the time, or about the time, the war closed and subsequently. One of the most earnest witnesses in favor of Mr. Haywood is Mr. Purman, member of Congress from Florida. He states no facts from personal knowledge excepting such as are similar to the facts applicable to the case of every prominent confederate who accepted the situation after the surrender of General Lee, favored the reconstruction measures of Congress, and identified himself with the republican party. It is probable that Mr. Haywood opposed the secession of his State. The proof shows he did. After his return from imprisonment at Elmira, New York, he joined the Union League just at the close of the war, and identified himself with the Union men of his vicinity. His history during a portion of the war as told by himself, with a slight allowance for coloring, is as follows: He lived quietly, peaceably, and undisturbed as a farmer; he never threatened, molested, or injured on account of his Union sentiments; received passes to go an return between Florida and North Carolina from the confederates; the confederates took his property for supplies from him; and he is unable to state whether they paid for them or not; thinks they did not, because their money at that time had given out, clearly implying that they would have paid him had they been in funds. In 1864 Mr. Haywood was fifty-three years of age; beyond the age when he was required to do militia duty and beyond conscript age. At that time (1864) he allowed his "name to be enrolled as one of the home guards." Three days thereafter he was called out with the home guard. Went to Campbellton and seven miles beyond to Holmes's Creek "to watch for whoever it was that was committing depredations," or, as we interpret it, to repel the invasion of General Asboth. These home guards retired before General Asboth without making any resistance; in fact, fled to Campbellton and from there on to Marianna, past the claimant's house. Asboth never overtook this home guard. The claimant stopped at his house where he was overtaken by General Asboth, arrested as a prisoner of war, sent to Pensacola, thence to New Orleans, thence to Ship Island, from thence to Governor's Island, and from thence to Elmira, where he remained a prisoner until the 12th of December 1864, when he was paroled and returned to his home in Florida. This evidence shows conclusively that Mr. Haywood was, if not in full sympathy with the confederate cause, willing to give the confederacy the benefit of his services as a soldier. It is idle to say that this service in the home guard was compulsory. Mr. Haywood did not remain an adherent to the Union cause and the claim is disallowed.
Claim # 15942 ~ Frank P. Haywood, in behalf of his minor children, of Franklinton, Franklin County, State of North Carolina
|1 double set harness||$35.00|
|50,000 fence rails||$1,500.00|
|Lumber in one frame stable||$750.00|
|Lumber in two barns, carriage-house and smoke-house||$950.00|
|Lumber in three frame houses||$800.00|
|Lumber in two cabins||$100.00|
|Lumber in flooring, doors, and blinds||$50.00|
|Lumber in plank flooring||$400.00|
Remarks ~ This claim is for property taken from a farm near Raleigh, North Carolina. It is made by Frank P. Haywood, the petitioner, in behalf of his two minor children. It is alleged in the proofs that the farm from which the property was taken belonged to the claimant's wife, who died two months previousto the taking of the testimony and five months before the filing of the petition, and that she left the property, including this claim, by will to the two minor children of herself and the petitioner. The property was taken late in the war, in April, 1865. The carriage and harness doubtless belonged to the petitioner. The building, for the materials of which claim is made were msotly destroyed and comparatively a very small portion made useful to the Army. Mr. Haywood, in his petition, which is verified under oath, says he was the original owner of the property. When the testimony was taken, he stated the fee of the land was in his wife. If the claim by will really passed to these minor children, there is still an insurmountable difficulty as the case now stands submitted. Mrs. Haywood's loyalty should have been proved. The petitioner says: "My wife was a loyal woman to the Government of the United States - strongly in favor of the Union." This is all the proof there is on the subject. It may be strictly and literally true; when she was loyal he does not state; he does not show that she remained a loyal adherent to the Union cause throughout the war; it is not the kind of proof we require. There is really no earnest attempt made to establish her loyalty. The claim is disallowed.
Claim # 4163 ~ Claim of William H. Allen of Louisburgh, Franklin County, State of North Carolina
|15,000 bushels corn||$15,000.00|
|18,000 lbs. fodder||$350.00|
|300 bushels pease||$300.00|
|125 gallons molasses||$125.00|
|400 lbs. salt||$20.00|
|1,000 lbs. bacon||$250.00|
|400 bushels sweet-potatoes||$400.00|
|30 bushels corn||$45.00|
Remarks ~ The claimant was a planter. He resided in Panola County, Mississippi, until the 1st of January, 1863, when he moved to North Carolina, where he has since resided. He was a cripple. This kept him out of the confederate army as a conscript or a volunteer. He is now about forty-nine years of age. In 1863 he visited Atlanta, Georgia. Upon his arrival there he was arrested by confederate authority for disloyal sentiments, expressed on the cars, and upon examintaion released. We have only his version of the affair. He declares that he was always friendly to the Union cause, but had to resort to some evasive answers to secure a release from arrest. This circumstance is an indication of loyalty, but, standing alone, as it does, is not conclusive by any means. Mr. Allen's arrest may have been for denouncing the officer of the confederate government or army, or management of the war, and not for the expression of any opinion against secession or the confederacy. He had two bothers-in-law in the confederate army. To one, who was wounded, he sent $2,700. He also sent $500 to a cousin who was wounded in the confederate army. They never reimbursed him; though he expected they would. He sent the money to his brother-in-law because he was in distressed circumstances. The witness Boyer was a child; too young to know anything of the claimant's political sentiments. Hawkins, his brother-in-law, and the colored barber Williamson, testify very faintly to the claimant's loyalty. Stratton, who was a confederate soldier, does not even say claimant was loyal. James Reed, whose niece claimant married, didn't know him until 1863. He looked upon Allen as a Union man; conversed with him very little about the war. Our agent, Mr. Avery, investigated this claim, upon which investiagtion he took the testimony of two witnesses who resided in Mississippi, and knew the claimant. They testify generally that claimant was a confederate. Mr. Mitchell, postmaster at Batesville, Panola County, believes from his conversation that he preferred the success of the southern army. He never heard him called a Union man. Mrs. Sally B. Harvey, who knew Allen very well, and from whose husband Allen bought land, never heard him called a Union man or Union sympathizer. The witness Stratton, called by the claimant, virtually admits that he believes if Allen had not been a cripple he would have joined the confederate army. It is upon this evidence we must make our report. The evidence does not satisfactorily establish the claimant's continuous adherence to the cause and Government of the United States during the war. The claim is disallowed.