Sarah (Hancock) McManus (abt. 1776 - abt. 1856)

Wife of Charles McManus — married 15 Mar 1799 in Lancaster Dist, SC

Descendants

Died about 6 Sep 1856 at about age 80 in Corrona, Lee, Mississippi, United States

Problems/Questions Profile manager: Dale McManus [send private message]

Biography

Sarah (Hancock) McManus married Charles sometime between 1797 and 1799 in Chesterfield District, South Carolina. The Hancock family had been in the area for a long while. Charles' first wife died in the 1790s mostly likely and left children, probably most of adult age. Only is documented, that of Rebecca who md William Sullivan. At least one friend in Chesterfield/Lancaster District remembered Charles and Sarah enough to testify for her application for a Widow's Pension for Charles' service in the Revolutionary War.

Sarah remained in SC after his death through 1840 and by 1850 was visiting her youngest son, Hugh in Tennessee before moving through Itawamba to Tippah Counties, MS to be with another son, Burrell who was the administrator of her intestate estate in 1857.[1]

Her application is transcribed here in full. Opinion is shown in italics as my comments on what is going on during the long drawn out process that leaves a lot to the imagination.

Application for Widow's Pension by Sarah McManus 1852-1858

1) 16 Sep 1852 State Letters of Inquiry for Proof of Charles McManus' Revolutionary War Service Lancaster Co., So Ca Dear Sir: " . . . . . . . . See if you can find Charles McMANUSE name down on the rolls anywhere He was a revolutionary soldier his widow living yet he married about fifty five years ago he was a Major a apart (sic) of his time I find that in Columbia State House I can prove six months service in the Comp Office official will fifty years ago being the widow in I want you also to look and see if you can find the name of William HILTON (?HORTON) he enlisted in the year 1813 died while in Washington he enlisted under a man by the name of SMITH, his Father was a Colonel in the District Stationed at Fort ?Osborne on the Catawba River called Rocky Mount at this time in this District his relations want to get his warrant write ?Now. Respectfully, _________ K G BILLINGS John T M___, Esq. Washington City, DC

10 Nov 1853 Treasury Office Columbia November the 10th 185_ I do hereby certify that the name of Charles McMANIRS was placed on the Pension Roll of this State in December 1824 and that his annuity of Sixty Dollars was paid up to June the 8, 1830 when $120 Dollars (one hundred and twenty) was paid for the two preceding years. In one of our ledgers, the name is written Charles McMAINERS and in another Charles McMANER but they all seem to represent the same person.

2) 24 March 1854 Application and Testimony for Pension by Sarah McManus before James Regan

State of Mississippi, Tippah Co. On this the 24th day of March A. D. 1854 appeared before me James REGAN Judge of the Probate court in and for the county and state aforesaid Mrs. Sarah McMANUS a resident of the aforesaid county and state aged seventy seven years who first being duly sworn according to law saith on her oath make the following Declaration in order to obtain the benefits of the provision made by the act of Congress passed on the 3rd January 1853, granting pensions to widows of persons who served during the Revolutionary war that she is the widow of Charles McMANUS who was a Lieutenant one hundred and sixty one days that he served in that capacity in the Revolutionary war under General Marion. She further make oath from the best evidence that she can obtain that her husband the said Charles McMANUS also served two hundred and six days in the capacity of a private under General Sumpter in the state of South Carolina in the aforesaid war. As to the precise time that her said husband entered the service in either case she cannot correctly say she also declares that her said husband did draw a pension for his services in the Revolutionary war from the State of South Carolina from the year A. D. 1824 and continued to draw until the year A. D. 1830 which year he died in the district of Lancaster and State of South Carolina.

She further declares that she was married to the said Charles McMANUS on the 15th day of March A. D. 1797 that her said husband died on the 15th day of March A. D. 1830. She further declares that she is now a widow.

Signed Sarah (her mark) McMANUS Test. James REGAN. The within declaration sworn to and before me on the day and year within written, James REGAN, Judge of Probates.

The State of Mississippi, Tippah County, Personally appeared before me William A DAVIS a Justice of the Peace for the county and state aforesaid Doctor A. SMYTHE and Madison W. LINDSEY who after being duly sworn declare that Mrs. Sarah McMANUS whose name appears in the within declaration is known and recognized only as a widow. Sworn to before me on the 2__ Day of March A. D. 1854. Signed William A DAVIS, JP.

Opinion: Suggests that Smythe and Lindsey are acknowledging Sarah's widowhood but not that she was the widow of Charles McMANUS.

The State of Mississippi, Tippah County: I Daniel HUNT clerk of the Probate Court in and for the county and state aforesaid hereby certify that James REGAN whose name is signed to the aforesaid declaration is now and was at the time of the signing the same the presiding Judge of the Court and that full faith and credit are due his act (sic) as ____. I also certify that Wm. A DAVIS whose name is signed to the foregoing affidavit is now and was at the time of the signing the same a Justice of the peace, duly commissioned according to law and that full faith and credit ___ his acts as such and that the signatures of both are genuine. Given under my hand and the seal of the court affixed at the office of the court in the town of Ripley, in the aforesaid county on the 24th day of March A. D. 1854. Signed Daniel HUNT, Clerk of the Probate Court

3) 20th November 1854 Second Affidavit of Sarah McManus before James Regan

State of Mississippi, County of Tippah Personally appeared in open Court before me James REGAN Judge of the Probate Court for said county, Sarah McMANUS who being first duly sworn declares that she is the widow of Charles McMANUS deceased who was a soldier in the Revolutionary war and in the South Carolina service that she has often heard her husband state and she believes that he served during the greater part of the war, she has often heard him mention the following officers under whom he served viz: Generals Sumter, Gates and Greene.

That she is not able to state the length of time he performed services under each officer above named but she has heard her husband state that he did service in the state of South Carolina. She also has heard him state that he was at the battles of Camden and Eutaw Springs. She further states that her husband drew a pension for services rendered in said war from the State of South Carolina said pension commencing in the year 1824 ____ _____ until the year 1830 in which he died. That she has the documentary evidence sustaining the said service; and ma_____ that his service can be fully established as she believes by his neighbor as it was general Reported in his neighborhood that he served as set forth in the ___ declaration – and she further declares that the said Charles MCMANUS resided before the said war in the District of Lancaster South Carolina and continue to reside in said District until the time of his death which took place on the 15th day of March in the year 1830 leaving the above named Sarah McManus his widow to whom he was married on the fifteenth day of March 1799 and that she had the following children by the said Charles McMANUS, deceased viz:

1. Josiah July 29th 1802.
2. George January 14th 1804.
3. James January 8th 1806.
4. Susan May 8th 1808.
5. Burrell April 3rd 1812.
6. Nancy July 7th 1814.
7. Mary February 2nd 1816.
8. William October 22nd 1819.
9. Hugh June 15th 1826.

Opinion: Recalling the first affidavit gives 1797 as the marriage date, the marriage date in this affidavit seems to be 1799 but may have been read incorrectly or incorrectly entered.

She further makes oath that she knows of no public or private record of her marriage to the said Charles McMANUS but that they were married on the day and year above stated by one C__ CROWDER a Justice of the Peace and the same can be proved by persons now living and she further makes oath that she still continues the widow of the said Charles McMANUS and that this declaration is made to obtain the benefit of the act of the 7th July (sic) 1853. Signed Sarah McMANUS her mark. Sworn to and subscribed for me this ?20th day Nov 1854. James LOGAN, Judge of Probate

State of Mississippi, Tippah County. I Daniel HUNT, Clerk of the Probate Court in and for said County do hereby Certify that James ROGAN is now and was at the time, the presiding Judge of the aforesaid Court and his signature is genuine and that full faith and ______ ___ ____ his acts & such.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court affixed in the office of said court in the Town of Ripley in said County on the 20th day of November AD 1854. Daniel HUNT Clerk of the Probate court.

4) 10 April 1855 Application for Bounty Land by Sarah McManus

State of Mississippi: County of Tippah: On this 10th day of April A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty five Personally appeared before me a Justice of the peace, within and for the county and state aforesaid, Sarah McMANUS aged seventy nine years a Resident of the County of Tippah and State of Mississippi who being duty sworn according to law declares that she is the widow of Charles McMANUS who was a private in the war of the Revolution, and that she does not recollect the company or regiments officers nor does she know at what time or particular place that he was drafted or volunteered. But is of opinion from what has heard her said husband say that he was in several battles in the State of South Carolina and is confirmed that he was at the Battles of Camden and Eutaw Spring in said State and that her said husband did draw a pension from the state of South Carolina for his services in the aforesaid war from the year abt 1824 to the year 1830 at which time he died and that she believes she can establish all the aforesaid facts from the records in the archives of the State of South Carolina.

She further states that she was married to the said Charles MCMANUS in Lancaster District in the State of South Carolina on the fifteenth day of March A. D. 1799 by one _____ CROWDER a Justice of the peace and that her name before her said marriage was Sarah HANCOCK that her said husband died at the place where she was married on the 15th day of March A. D. 1830 and that she is now a widow _________

She makes this declaration for the purpose of obtaining the Bounty land to which she may be entitled under the act approved March 3rd 1855. That she knows of no Records of her said marriage, either public or private. Signed by Sarah McMANUS. We Raleigh W. ROBINSON and Leroy L. BRYSON, Residents of the County of Tippah and State of Mississippi upon our oaths declare that the foregoing declaration was signed and acknowledged by Sarah McMANUS in our presence and that we believe from the appearance and statements of the applicant that she is the identical person she Represents herself to be. Signed R. W. ROBINSON, L. L. BRYSON

The foregoing declaration and affidavit was sworn to and subscribed before me on the day and year above written and I certify that I knew the affiants to be credible persons that the claimant is the person that she represents herself to be and that I have no interest in this claim. Signed William A. DAVIS, Justice of the Peace (Seal)

Opinion: The marriage date is clearly written as 1799.

5) 10 April 1855 Affidavit of Rebecca Huff for Sarah McManus

State of Mississippi, County of Tippah, Personally appeared before me a Justice of the peace in and for the county aforesaid Rebecca HUFF (HOUGH) aka [[aged seventy years, a Resident of the county of Itawamba in State of Mississippi who being duly sworn according to law declares that she is well acquainted with the applicant Sarah McMANUS and that she knows her previous to her marriage with Charles McMANUS and that she did live a near neighbor to the said Charles McMANUS in the District of Lancaster and state of South Carolina for the period of seventeen years and that they reared a large family and were known and reputed to have been lawfully married at or about the time set forth in the foregoing declaration by one ___ CROWDER a Justice of the Peace whom the affiant knew as a such (sic) and affiant says that she Removed to the state of Alabama about the year A. D. 1823 and that she has had and kept a partial correspondence with the said Charles McMANUS and since with the applicant and her family and that the said Charles McMANUS was reputed to have died at the time and place set forth in the aforesaid declaration. She further says that the said Charles McMANUS was at all times said to be and reputed to have been a soldier of the Revolutionary war and that he served entirely in the State of South Carolina.

Signed Rebecca HUFF (her mark). Sworn to and subscribed before me on the 10th day of April 1855 and from her appearance and statements I believed her to be _____ signed William A DAVIS Justice of the Peace

Fact: Reuben and Rebecca HUFF/HOUGH lived in early SC. Charles McMANUS had a land grant on Stone House Creek, Chesterfield District in 1774 but by 1810 he had moved across the river to Lancaster District, where the above affiant, Rebecca, says she was a neighbor.

6) 18 May 1855 Affidavit of John & Rebecca McMANUS of Taxahaw, Lancaster Co., SC

State of South Carolina, District of Lancaster: On this 18th day of May A. D. 1855 personally appeared before me a Magistrate in and for said District John McMANUSE aged 81 years and Mrs. Rebecca McMANUSE aged 82 years who are to me well known and who are credible witnefses and who being by me duly sworn according to law do claim and says (sic) that they are each well acquainted with Mrs. Sarah McMANUSE in the said applicant for a Pension that they have known her for 70 years and prior that they well acquainted with Charles McMANUSE her late husband having known him for 60 years previous to his death. That they the said Charles McMANUSE and Mrs. Sarah McMANUSE were married on the ____ day of ______ A. D. 1796 they further make oath that they have no family or public record of their marriage. They state that they were at their wedding and saw them married --- and they further make oath that said Charles McMANUSE deceased and Sarah McMANUSE his widow raised a large family of children that the deponents never heard the fact of their marriage disputed or questioned that the said Charles MCMANUSE died on the ____ day of ______ 1830 in said District of State and the deponents believe to be the fact, that she has never married since her said husband death and is still remain (sic) his widow and that her said husband was the identical man mentioned as a Revolutionary soldier in her declaration for Pension. They further make oath that said Charles MCMANUSE decease was a soldier in Revolutionary war and that he drew a pension from this State for his service rendered in said war ---- they further make oath that it was never disputed that said Charles McMANUSE was a soldier in said war said John McMANUSE make oath that he has seen the said Charles McMANUSE when he would come in from excursion or when after the British he further make oath that he has often heard the said Charles McMANUSE decease relate different battles he has been in that he has heard him speak of the Battles of Camden So Ca and the Battle of Eutaw Springs which he was engaged in and that deponents are disinterested. Subscribed and sworn to before me the day and year first above written and I certify that I am not interested herein John C. SECRIST, Magst. Signed: John McMANUS (his mark) and Rebecca McMANUSE (her mark), beneath Rebecca’s signature is “mother name." Wit Amos McMANUS (their son); The foregoing ______ affidavit were sworn to and subscribed before me on the day and year above and I certify that I know the affiants to be credible persons and I believe they are of the ages they make oath of. John SECRIST, Magst.

7) 24th Day September 1855 Affidavit of Rebecca Sulivan (sic)

State of South Carolina District of Lancaster: On the 24th Day of September one thousand eight hundred and fifty five personally appeared before me a Magistrate of the peace within and for the District and state aforesaid Mrs. Rebecca SULIVAN aged 80 years a resident of Lancaster District in the said State and District who being duly sworn according to law declares and saith that she is daughter of the identical Charles McMANUS deceased officer in the Revolutionary war. She further States that she has seen her Father after his return home from one of his volunteer excursions with the ?same and has heard him relate the incident which occurred while he was in Revolutionary war. She further states that her Father was married to her mother before the Revolutionary war but the year she does not know for there is no public or private record of her marriage. She further states that her Father married again after the death of her mother to a woman by the name of Sarah Hancock in the A. D. 1796 (Sic) and they lived together as man wife and raised a large family in said District and State. She never heard their marriage disputed. She further states that she was at wedding and saw them joined and they was married by a man by the name of CROWDER _____ of Peace (?) She further states there is no public or private record of their marriage She further states that her Father the identical Charles McMANUSE is the identical one who performed the services in the Revolutionary war who the widow has sworn to his service in her application for pension. She further states that her father identical Charles McMANUSE deceased drew a pension from said State for his service in the revolutionary war unto his death. She further states that she has never heard ?doubts to the contrary but he was faithful soldier while he was in the revolutionary war. She further states that her father died at his residence in said District and state in the year A. D. 1830 and that his widow Sarah McMANUSE moved of to (sic) the west with one of her sons and is living at this time. She further make oath that she has no interest in the widows application for pension and she still continue the widow of said Charles McMANUSE. Signed Rebecca SULIVAN her mark Proved: John C. SECRIST, Magst. Wit: K. G. BILLINGS

State of South Carolina District of Lancaster: Personally appeared R. D. MONTGOMERY and Wm. SULLIVAN residents of the said District & State persons whom I certify to be responsible and entitled to credit and who being by me duly sworn say that they were present and saw Mrs. Rebecca SULIVAN make her mark to the foregoing affidavit and they further swear that they have every reason to believe from the appearance of her and their long acquaintance with her that she is of the age stated and that they (deponents) do reside in the District aforesaid. Signed by: R. D. MONTGOMERY, Wm. SULLIVAN John C. SECRIST, Magst.

State of South Carolina, District of Lancaster: I John A. STEWMAN Clerk of the Court of Common Please and General Sefsion for said District do hereby certify that John C. SECRIST, ESQ before whom the foregoing affidavit were made was at the time of so doing a Magistrate of the peace in and for said District duly commissioned and sworn and that his signatures are genuine. Witnefs my hand and the seal of said Court this 24th Day of September A. D. 1855. J. A. STEWMAN, Ck, CCP&GS

Investigation by Commissioner of Pensions - Re: Sarah McManus

1) 2 July 1855 Follow-up Inquiry of A. G. Smythe Calhoun, Miss. Sir, Mrs. Sarah McMANUS is an applicant for a pension as well as for bounty land and supposes (?) that a declaration for that purpose has been forwarded to the pension office but does not know what or how much  ?proof has been made and wishes to inform the department that the proof accompanying the enclosed Declaration is all that she has any knowledge of at this time. Respectfully Yours etc. & A. SMYTHE J P WALDO, Commissioner of Pensions, Washington City, D. C.

2) 28th June 1856 Second follow-up inquiry of A.G. Smythe Calhoun, Miss. Sir: In Reply to yours of the 17th Inst in Regard to the claim of Mrs. Sarah McMANUS The ___ which you find who served in Virginia is not the same Charles McMANUS is not in any of the Muster or pay rolls in any Department. He drew a pension from the State of SC and not from the US. I have already filed an application for Bounty land for the old lady and have a draft dated 13 July 1855 but do not know what action has been taken upon it. I have made enquiry but have no Reply immediately upon the Recep’t of yours Inst. I consulted the applicant and she Requests me to say to you that the proof on file accompanying the declaration for bounty land is the best and all the proof she can make. That it may lack form, but the facts are all that she has any knowledge of Except proving the credibility of the Witnesses. Now as a preliminary in engaging your services in the Pension Cases I hereby authorize you to Examine the declaration on file in the Pension office bounty land and if the proof is sufficient to pass the case. I will forward a declaration and authority to you to prosecute case. If you report unfavorable it will be unnecessary to make any further effort to obtain the pension. The no. of the declaration filed is 189.009 under “Act of 3rd March 1853. If you Report favorable and wish a new declaration made out it may be best that you Return to me the declaration forwarded by Mr. BILLINGS for the Reason that the applicant is aged and infirm having been confused to her Reason Ever since she went to make that paper and from her long confinement and ______ physical suffering she may not be able to Recollect the facts as well as she did at that time. It will be advisable to make as much as ______ Nature of the case will admit of. I fear she will hardly survive the present summer (I am ?immediate attendant). An immediate reply is respectfully elicited by your ____ Obedient _____ St. A. G SMYTHE JOHN T. NEELY, _ Washington City, D.C.

3) 27th Jany 1857 Third follow-up of A. G. Smythe Calhoun, Miss Sir, I Rec’d Your ______ of the 4th Nov last only a ____ since I had written twice during the interval to you for which I have no Reply yet. Enclosed I forward you the power of Atty. Also the No. of the warrant which is 38.840 for 160 acres. Please advise me as soon as practicable what the prospects are. The power of Atty would have been forwarded much sooner but the applicant and her friends having been deceived by Mr. BILLINGS and my having procured the warrant for bounty land they were anxious that I should retain the papers and present them But as I had not the declaration nor could not get it I advised her to employ you to prosecute the case at Washington and promised on my part not to loose (sic) sight of ___ case. Very Respectfully, Your most Ob. St, A G SMYTHE J. T. NEELY, Esqr., Washington City, D. C.

Opinion: Billings was also a census taker whose documentation seems like a "memory recall" at a later time than at the moment of the interview. Other researchers have noted the same.

Examination of Claims by Comm'r George Whiting at Request of House of Representatives January 12 1858 Pension Office Sir: In compliance with your request I have personally examined the claim of Mrs. Sarah McMANUS for a pension under the provisions of the Act of Congress approved July 29 1848 as the widow of Charles McMANUS deceased who is alleged to have rendered military service in the State of South Carolina during the war of the Revolution but do not find her allegations sufficiently sustained to justify the allowance of the claim.

The evidence adduced to prove the Revolutionary Service of Charles McMANUS consists of two papers, one dated October 21 1853 and signed W. T. ARTHUR For Comp't Gen'l of South Carolina and the other without date and signed by him in the capacity of Librarian and State _____ ___ and neither in any way authenticated as official Acts. The first purports to be a copy from the records of the Comptroller's office, of an Indent issued to Charles McMANUS the 19th May 1785 for 81.3.6 3/4 pounds for 206 days duty as private and 161 days as a Lieutenant in the militia and of the account of said McManus against the State of south Carolina on which said Indent was issued, which account appears to have been verified by the oath of Charles McMANUS in Camden District June 14 1784. When the services thus charged for commenced or ended does not appear. Said Indent appears to have been delivered to James McMANUS on the 19th May 1785 on an order from Charles McMANUS a full year later dated Febr'y 7, 1786. The other paper purports to be a transcript of the petition of Charles McMANUS to the Legislature of South Carolina in the year 1824 for a pension on account of his Revolutionary services and of the action of the Legislature thereon by which it is stated in another unauthenticated paper dated Treasury Office, Columbia November 10th 1853 and signed E. P. JONES Treas __ ___ pr atty Thos. T. GREEN that Charles McMANORS was placed upon the pension roll in December 1824 and that his annuity of $60 per annum was paid to June 1 1830 - his name appearing in one place as McMANNERS and in another as McMANER. If these papers had been or should be properly authenticated they would suffice to show that at some time during the Revolutionary war a person by the name of Charles McMANUS did duty in the militia of South Carolina for a 206 days as a private and for 161 days as a 1st Lieut of Cavalry, and for which he would be entitled were he now living to a corresponding pension from the United States under the Act of June 7 1832.

Opinion: The following three documents explain that there were two requests by Charles; apparently the only one viewed by Whiting was the second one causing an incorrect conclusion.

The first image documents the first receipt of 19th May 1785 of an indent by James. Charles’ request authorizing the indent was not in the package.

This 7 Feb 1786 document shows the second request by Charles, which Whiting assumes was a fraudulent authorization written a year after the fact.

Charles Second Indent Requested

The third is one piece of paper documenting three actions over two dates:

1. Two months later James acknowledges receipt of the second indent, above.

2. Next on 22 Apr 1786 in Charleston, J. H. HARRIS witnesses a document that shows James McManuses signed over a [receipt to rights and title] to Sam BLAKELEY (sic) [to anything owed Charles McManus.]

3. A third record signed by Sam Blakeley reading: Rec’d May 22, 1786 of the Commifsioners of the Treasury full satisfaction of the principal sworn? herein mentioned by dis_______ in my Bond for Confiscated property. Also Five pounds 13 shillings in Specical Indents the Interest due April 1786.

Third Final Indent Signed Over to Blakekey

Opinion: Is there any argument that, firstly there are too many dates and signatures to have had them all forged? Secondly, confiscated property and service pension are two separate items.

This, dated six weeks from the above, is the statement Whiting did not see. On the left margin it identifies Charles' No. 277 Book R. entry.

Continuing with Whiting's response:

The present claimant, Mrs. Sarah McMANUS states that she is widow of this Charles McMANUS that she was married to him prior to the year 1800 viz on the 15th of March 1797 15 March 1799 o as her witnesses say, some time during the year 1796 that she had by him a large family of children whose names and exact ages she gives -- that her said husband died 15 March 1830 and that she has remained and is still his widow.

Opinion: Confusion remains as to the actual year but all dates were prior to the cut off date of 1800.

To sustain these allegations she adduces the testimony of 1st Alexander MONTGOMERY who claims to have been in the service under Gen'l Sumpter in the year 1780 and to have known the Charles MCMANUS who was the husband of the claimant within the same service __. It is pertinent and sufficient to say in answer to this witness, that not having been able to establish the fact of his own service he is not competent to establish that of another.

2d Mrs. Rebecca SULLIVAN of Lancaster District, South Carolina who says she is 80 years of age -- that she is the daughter of Charles McManus by a former wife -- that she has seen her father ____ ___ ____ _____ ___ of service and heard him recount incidents of the Revolution -- that after the death of her mother her father married Sarah HANCOCK the present claimant; that she was present at the wedding and that it took place in 1796 -- that her father the said Charles McMANUS is the identical soldier of the Revolution who for his services was pensioned by the State of South Carolina to the time of his death which took place in 1830. That testimony of this witness taken by itself does not appear inconsistent but it is materially deficient in not explaining how after a lapse of fifty nine years she is enabled to fix upon the year 1796 as that in which claimant was married. Compared however, with the statements of Charles McMANUS himself in his petition to the South Carolina Legislature in 1824 it becomes highly questionable. He then stated that he was nearly 80 years old and that he had a wife who was "equally old and frail" with himself. Mrs. McMANUS the claimant stated in her declaration in 1854 that she was then 77 years of age. Now if this lady was the wife Charles McMANUS alluded to in 1824, he or she must have been greatly mistaken as to her age for if in 1824 she was 80 in 1854 she would have been about 113 years of age but if only 77 in 1854 she could have been about 47 in 1824, -- a variance as to a material fact not easily accounted for.

Opinion: Assumes the word "equally" means the "exact age as myself" - more a figure of speech, albeit, exaggerated?

3rd John McMANUS aged about 81 and Mrs. Rebecca McMANUS aged about 82 in May 1855 testify that they have each been acquainted with Mrs. Sarah McMANUS for the last 70 years that they also knew her late husband the said Charles McManus, having been acquainted with him for either 60 or 70 years (it is not certain which is meant) previous to his death -- that Chas and Sarah McMANUS were married on the ___ day of A. D. 1796" -- that they were at the wedding and saw them married. That Charles McMANUS died in the year 1830 -- that he was a soldier in the Revolution and ___ a pension from the State of South Carolina. John McMANUS testifies further to his having Mr. Charles McMANUS "come in from excursions or when after the British" and that he had often heard him speak of having been in the Battles of Camden and Eutaw. If it is true that Charles McMANUS was or was claimed to have been, in these celebrated engagements he was extremely modest in addressing the Legislature of South Carolina for although he says he served throughout he was a volunteer -- first as private then as Captain and subsequently as Major the only allusion he made to anything like a battle was that he "was at the capture of several persons while under his (General Marion's) command. But these witnesses like all the rest omit to tell us how they now arrive at the conclusion that the marriage of claimant took place in 1796 or why they cannot specify more particularly the much more recent occurrence of her husband's death and their means of knowledge concerning it and the other facts about which they testify. While failing that in the respect they go too far _____. All agree that Charles MCMANUS died in 1830. They (something unreadable inserted) say they knew him 60 to 70 years previous to that time. Now, seventy, or even sixty years will take us back to a period ______ to the dates of their births if they stated their ages in 1855 with anything like an approximation to accuracy.

Opinion: Had Mr. Dodge been able to check census ages for Rebecca in 1860 he would have found her to be 75 years; in 1830 between 50 and 60 and ten years later in 1840, she is now ten years younger in the 40-50 year category! Mr. Dodge does not realize how inaccurate most census ages are. All decades indicate a c1775 birth year (close to John's) except the grossly out of range 1850. Surely the interviewer would have eyes to recognize know she was not 53 but much older. He likely found the census after the fact and decided to use it to his advantage.

Mrs. Sarah MCMANUS made two declarations, one on the 24th March and the other on 20th of November 1854 both subsequent to the granting of the certificates from the Comptroller's and Treasurer's offices of South Carolina setting forth the account.

Indent __ of Charles McMANUS and from which she evidently derived her ?pretended knowledge of the Revolutionary services of her alleged husband. In the first, she says she was married the 15 March 1797 in the second that that event took place the 15 March 1799 and in this latter statement she adds the names and adds exact ages of nine children she had of that marriage but without stating how she is now enabled to __ so many dates with precision. Neither the claimant nor any of her witnesses appears to know how to read or write and I can only account for the imperfections and inconsistencies in their statements by the supposition that they may not have been fully acquainted with the affidavits to which they made their marks. Independent of all these objections there is __ another and that is the fact that more than two years (the statutory limitation against frauds) were suffered to intervene between the taking of the testimony and its presentation at this office.

Opinion: Again, interpretation of penmanship may be at issue. This appears to be “straw graspings.”

One of which I am entirely satisfied that whatever may be the real events of the present claimant's demands against the United States, it is my duty to reject them on the evidence now on file.

I am with great respect, Your obedient Servant, Geo. WHITING, Commifsioner

Hon. George HOUSTON, House of Representatives.

There are two documents remaining. One is signed and dated by S. G. Dodge who went to Mississippi to investigate further and the other is unsigned, undated and appears to be in the same hand as the first with the same basic information. It may be a rough draft.

Report of Investigation by S. G. Dodge on the Sarah McManus Case

July 10 1858 Pension Office Sir: By your direction I left Washington for Mifsifsippi on the 25th of May last for the purpose of investigating the facts connected with the application of Sarah McMANUS, widow of Charles, of Mi. for a pension, under the act of July 29, 1848. On the 30th of May I arrived at Ripley, the County seat of Tippah County, where I met the Marshal for the Northern District of Mi. and on the 31st he proceeded with me to the neighborhood of Carrollville, in Tishomingo County near which place Burwell McMANUS, the son of Sarah, resides. There we ascertained that Sarah McMANUS, the applicant, died about the sixth of September 1856. She had resided in Mifsifsippi only about three or four years before her death, having before that time and after her removal from So. Carolina, lived with another son in Tennefsee. From all the circumstance I could gather I became satisfied that she was the widow of the Charles McMANUS who was a pensioner of the State of So. Carolina. Had she still been living, she would not have been entitled to a pension as it was not proved that her husband performed so much as six-month’s service.

Note: 201 days and 161 days equals 367 days or 12 months and a few days.

It was supposed here that the letter of December 2d, 1857 to Hon. George J HOUSTON, purporting to be signed by Burwell McMANUS, had been written by Dr.. A. G. SMYTH Postmaster at Corona, formerly Calhoun, Mi. The resemblance of the handwriting of that letter is that of the declaration and other papers written by Dr. SMYTH was so striking that I had no doubt, until I reached Carrollville, that he was the writer of that letter. But Mr. McMANUS and Mr. COLE both afsured me that it was written by James H. COLE of Corona, at the dictation of McMANUS. I called the attention of McMANUS to the exprefsions in the letter which, in effect, afserted that his mother was still living, and he confefsed to me that he dictated the form of the exprefsions employed in that part of the letter. COLE admitted that he was well aware of the death of Mrs. McMANUS (she died one mile from Corona) but afserted that the thought of an intentional deception did not occur to him. McMANUS explained that he had been advised by Col. ROBBINS, a neighboring lawyer that the children of his mother were entitled to her pension money and to write his letters in the terms employed. I did not see Col. ROBBINS, but received a letter from him, which did not confirm the statements of McMANUS.

Note: Neither of the referenced documents was submitted by Dodge, at least not in the Charles McManus Revolutionary War package.

I met Mr. J. A. GREEN, of Riley, at Pontotoc, but he could not remember his conversation with McMANUS previous to writing his letter of the 17th February last with sufficient distinctnefs to be able to say whether the latter did afsert that his mother was alive or not.

The conclusion to which I came was, that McMANUS really believed that his mother’s children were entitled to her pension money and that he determined, as her administrator, to obtain her land warrant, which he did, and her pension money; and, prompted by avarice, to withhold from the other children their share of either, justifying the action to his own conscience on the ground that he had tenderly nursed his mother in the last years of her life, when she was totally helplefs. I have no doubt that he studiously concealed the fact of his mother’s death from this office from unworthy and dishonest motives, but whether, if a certificate had ifsued in her name he would have been enabled of an attempt to obtain the money by forgery. I am not able to satisfy myself. My opinion is that he would not.

He bears a good character in his neighborhood. I doubt whether the letter to Mr. HOUSTON would sustain a prosecution under the act of March 3d 1823; and am satisfied that a conviction could not be obtained against him.

Under these circumstances, I contented myself with leaving him in a state of perfect uncertainty as to what course would be pursued respecting him.

Opinion: Disparage the person but not enough to bring charges which could have caused him legal repercussions which he was not willing to test, but, typically, was willing to pass the buck.

Dr. SMYTH has had no agency in the case since the death of Mrs. McMANUS and there is no circumstance connected with the case that reflects in the ____est degree upon his personal integrity. I am very respectfully Your Ob’t Sv’t, Stephen G. DODGE Geo C. WHITING, Esq. Commifsioner of Pensions.

LAST PAPERS

Below is the undated, unsigned document that seems to be a first draft of the letter eventually sent to Whiting by Dodge on July 10 1858, both documents being in the same hand. It's only value is as a re-iteration of the same "yes, buts" presented previously by Whiting and he likely recognized this and re-composed it. Of little value, other than astonishing the reader with political rhetoric within the incompetence of bureaucracy.

Application for a pension under Act of July 29 1848 In the Matter of Sarah McMANUS, widow of Charles of S.C.

The papers in this case are submitted by the Commissioner of Pensions at the request of Hon. Geo. S. Houston, who makes an appeal, but does not set out the grounds of his appeal in writing. The commissioner accompanies the papers with a copy of his letter, of the 12th of January 1858 to Mr. Houston, in which all the facts and testimony in the case are reviewed with great particularity.

To establish the applicants claim to a pension it was necessary for her to prove that she was the widow of a man who served for as much as six months in the Revolutionary war and to whom she was married before the 1st day of January 1800.

That she is the widow of a man who served fourteen days or in some battle has been so admitted by the allowance of her claim for bounty land but this is not an admission of the date of the marriage nor of the duration of her late husband’s service; and the question remains to be considered whether these two facts are established.

It appears from the papers in the case that in Nov 1824 Charles McMANUS of Lancaster District, SC petitioned the Legislature for a pension, which was granted him. In his petition he stated the he served as volunteer, a three months tour under Gen’l Sumter, a three months tour under Marion and afterwards under Gen’l Green; and a “after the (sic) services aforesaid,” he was promoted to a captaincy and afterwards to the rank of Major. He also stated in general terms, that he served all through the war. John LANEY testified to the same general effect (but not specifically to any duration of service). Sarah McMANUS of Tippah County, Mi. made two declarations in 1854; but as her allegations are, manifestly based upon a certificate of the Comptroller Gen’l of So. Carolina, they do not add to the evidence of service. The certificate of the Comptroller dated October 21 1853, shows that Charles MCMANAS was allowed and paid for 206 days service as a soldier in the Horse service and 161 days as 1st Lieut; but there is nothing to show under what officers this service was performed, excepting that “Fed’k Kimball Col’” certifies that the account is “just and true.”

There is no evidence to show that this Charles McMANAS is the same man who petitioned the SC Legislature for a pension; yet proof can be made on this point: Charles MCMANAS signed an order for his Indent and the petition to the Legislature is signed. Fac similes (sic) of these signatures can be procured and should be required.

To the claimant, the widow of the pensioner, or of the soldier mentioned in the Comptrollers certificate?

Note: This is written on a single line and as an unconnected thought.

In his petition for a pension McMANUS stated that his wife was equally old and frail as himself and that he was nearly eighty years of age (in 1824). Thirty years later the claimant stated her age at seventy seven years. This discrepancy of thirty years is too grofs to be overlooked.

The claimant alleged that her husband was a pensioner of Lancaster District but she stated that he told her he was at the battles of Camden and Eutaw Springs while the only affairs mentioned by the petitioner was “the capture of several prisoners” while he was under Marion.

Alexander MONGOMERY of Lancaster District testified in 1850 to the service of Charles McMANUS and that he married Sarah HANCOCK about 1796, but he being then 97 years old, as stated in his affidavit, or 90 as appears by the census returns, could have no personal knowledge of the claimant’s identity.

Opinion: None of the affiants in Lancaster could visualize Sarah at the time. Seems to be a continuing attempt to say Sarah, the claimant is different than the wife of Charles the soldier by stating Montgomery couldn't see her at the current time.

John McMANUS stated to be 81 in 1855 and Mrs. Rebecca MCMANUS, stated to be then 82, are made to testify that they were both present at the marriage in 1796; yet in the census returns Rebecca McMANUS is returned as 53 years old in 1850.

Daughter of Charles and his first wife, Rebecca SULLIVAN, whose age in 1855 is stated at 80 years and is returned in the census of 1850 as 67 testified that she was at the wedding.

None of these witnefses, all of Lancaster District, have any present personal knowledge of the claimant. Mrs. SULLIVAN, a daughter of Charles stated that her father died in 1830 and her mother removed west with one of her sons and is still living, (in 1855). The claimant’s identity is attested by only one witnefs who does not sign this oath and only states that Sarah MCMANUS is known as a widow. Both declarations with the certificates appear to be in one handwriting, the same as the signature of James ROGAN, the Probate Judge before whom the two declarations purport to have been made, excepting the signatures of William A DAVIS, a Justice of the Peace, who does not appear to have seen the claimant.

From the statements of McMANUS coupled with the history of the service, it does not appear that he served more than from six to nine months and taking his statements and those of the witnefses together, he was not a comifsioned officer until after the Revolutionary war closed; and was not the same man who served as private and Lieut more than a year, as described in the Comptroller’s certificate. It appears clearly that the present claimant is not the same Sarah, who, as Sarah HANCOCK, intermarried with McMANUS about the year 1796. The witnefses state that McMANUS and his second wife, Sarah; raised large family of children; and yet not one of these children has come forward to attest her identity.

Opinion: On 13 Oct 1858 K. G. Billings inquired of G. W. Whiting, Commifsioner of Pensions, Wash. D.C. as to the passing of the application and requested to be advised as some of the heirs were inquiring. He gave the name Mr. SMYTHE as the person who made the application.

The pension was not accepted but the bounty land was granted to Burrell McManus. Burrell McManus names his siblings in his own estate papers. It seems the entire family was aware of the application and interested in it, whether they went to MS or not.

Research Notes

It appears to the transcriber that the basis of complaints is heavily weighted on natural memory loss over time, age discrepancies that can be accounted for and a pre-disposition of Dodge to opine a fraudulent activity to support his federal superiors inquiry to determine if fraud had been attempted. He mentions communications with others that are not supported by documented evidence, yet, essentially ignores the State of South Carolina's assessment of Charles' service supported with documents that Whiting misread during his inquiry. Dodge further accuses Burrell of fraudulence, to the point of deliberately stalling the disposition for two years to escape statutory limitation.

Dodge attacks the family for "not coming forth," yet, had the children done so, they would have been attacked as having a personal interest in the case.

His last comment regarding the investigation is to imply a job well-done is to conclude with "I contented myself with leaving him in a state of perfect uncertainty as to what course would be pursued respecting him."

Sources

• Transcribed from copies of original documents housed at South Carolina Department of Archives and History and annotated (not perhaps without a slight degree of partisanship) by Barbara Roesch Copies of originals in the package are available and are comprised of 65 pages.
• McManus Research by Dale McManus and Barbara Roesch

• 1790 Camden Dist., p236 Chas McManous 314 Total 8
• 1800 Lancaster Dist., SC, pg 17. None are Sarah Hancock's first 3 ch, sons, b 1802-1804-1806 - Near George McManus, brother or nephew.
• 1810 Lancaster Dist., SC, p007. Chas McManus 21111 - 10210-00
• 1820 1820 Lancaster Dist., SC, pg 182. Chas McManes 220001-30011 all Sarah's chn. Ann McManus, John H, Sr. pg. 181 and Elijah on pg 183.
• 1830 Lancaster Dist., SC, p100. Sarah McManus (50-60) 020110-001110010> One dau gone, three daus remaining, she is near Geo, Joseph & Wm McManus whose ages are off from the Rev. War package birth dates.