I looked at the Elias Falls Record. Rachel Falls was seeking widow benefits. Elias Falls died in July 1864 of a wound, and the first petition I see was received July 3, 1865. In the documents I see what the professor noted, that the sexual virtue of the petitioner was part of the petition. Rachel Falls states that she is free, that she has no children, that she remained unmarried after her husband’s death, that she was entirely dependent on him, and that her husband was not free until he entered military service. He was a private when he died. She was able to give the date and location of her marriage but said that marriage records were not given to colored people at that time and so she has no paper marriage record, which I can imagine would be a barrier to her getting the pension she deserved. It is also interesting that the widow has to attest to not aiding or abetting the rebellion against the United States in any way in order to receive benefits. From other materials in this course we know that Confederate Widows in the South did find ways to recoup their property during Reconstruction outside of federal mandates. It looks like she was still applying for pension benefits three years later, in 1868. It seems that the barrier is having a marriage license, since as she notes, she was married according to slave customs and the minister who performed the ceremony had died since the wedding happened in 1849. In 1869, she was still petitioning for widows benefits, with the same character witnesses. IN 1874, it seems that she was still petitioning, and that is where the file ends. Some details change from account to account. For example, in 1865 she described herself as a free colored, but in 1874 she says she was a slave when she married with the consent of her master and her husband’s master.