Civil War and Reconstruction in AlabamaFleming, Walter L. (Walter Lynwood)
History
Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama
Fleming, Walter L. (Walter Lynwood)
Alabama -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865; Reconstruction (U.S. history, 1865-1877) -- Alabama
The Attorney-General delivered an opinion, July 5, 1865, that cotton and
other property seized by the agents or the army was _de facto_ and _de
jure_, _captured_ property, and that neither the President nor the
Secretary of the Treasury had the power to restore such property to the
former owners. They must go through the courts, and under the laws only
"loyal" claimants had any basis for claims, and "loyalty" must first be
determined by the courts.[745] After the opinion of the Attorney-General,
Secretary McCulloch followed it so far as captures by the army were
concerned, but still continued to "revise the mistakes" of the cotton
agents who "frequently seized the property of private individuals." Proof
of "loyalty" was, however, required in all cases before restoration, and
the fourteen classes excepted by the amnesty proclamation of May 29, 1865,
could get no restoration. In all cases the expenses charged against the
property had to be paid before the owner could get it. After April 4,
1867, by request of the Joint Sub-Committee on Retrenchment, no further
releases of any kind were made.[746] On March 30, 1868, a joint resolution
of Congress covered into the Treasury all money received from sales of
property in the South. After this only an act of Congress could restore
the proceeds to the owner.[747]
The result was in the long run that the "disloyal" owners never received
restoration of their property seized by the army, and by the Treasury
agents during and after the war, but claim agents and perjurers have
pursued a thriving business in proving "loyal" claims against the
Treasury. "Disloyal" persons, whose property was liable to confiscation,
and who could not recover in the Court of Claims, were, as decided by that
body: those who served in the military, naval, or civil service of the
state or the Confederacy; those who voted for secession or for secession
candidates; those who furnished supplies to the Confederacy, engaged in
business that aided the Confederacy, subscribed to its loans, resided or
removed voluntarily within the Confederate lines, or sold produce to the
Confederacy. Women who had sons or husbands in the Confederate army, or
who belonged to "sewing societies," or made flags and clothing for, or
furnished delicacies to, Confederate soldiers were "disloyal" and could
not recover property. "Loyalty" had to be proven, not only for the
original owner, but also for the heirs and claimants. The claims of
deserters were allowed. In order to test the "loyalty" of claimants, they
were asked to answer in writing lists of questions (numbering at various
times 49, 62, 79, and 80 questions) regarding their conduct during the
war. The questions covered several hundred points, and embraced every
possible activity from 1861 to 1865. No man and few women who lived within
the state until 1865 could, without perjury, pass the examination and
prove a claim. Yet numbers have proved claims.[748]
Cotton Frauds and Stealing
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account